A “Lib Dem” minister just told Sky News he was approving new nuclear power stations to promote green jobs. If anybody ever votes for these lying bastards again I shall be disconsolate.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
@MarkU
Good spotting! I honestly didn’t know that “Dave Lawton” was listed in that website. Makes you wonder who ‘this’ Dave Lawton is posting here… I also didn’t read any of it – didn’t need to, because it was filled with highly technical images which I naturally assumed to be correct and conforming to the laws of thermodynamics and ethical business practices.
But if that website doesn’t convince you that we already have a solution at hand to our energy needs, maybe this will –
http://crackpotwebsites.com/
Dave Lawton
1) No I have not worked in ‘the world of advanced physics’ but then neither have you. Unlike you however I do have a science degree.
2) I did not assume that you were a scientist, I assumed otherwise. I am glad that you have come clean on the issue.
Don’t you think that it might be a mistake to unreservedly endorse stuff such as LNER when you clearly do not have the background to evaluate the claims made by its proponents.
Jemand
We might already have a solution to humanity’s future energy needs –
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/
Patrick has done a great service of the years compiling free energy info.I would not take much notice of people like markU .If I said with regards to gravity that if two objects are pushed together rather than attracted,he would say I was wrong according to Newton. Well the truth is they are pushed together.But that is not what is taught in the text books.To find the truth you need to go to the source.
Dave; I see you’re a fan of David Bohm? I forget (apologies, I think Villager)who turned me on to this…..(OT)
http://bohmkrishnamurti.com/
Re: The energy crisis.
If all else fails, as a last resort, purely out of desperation, we might :-
1) Stop mass-producing disposable rubbish
2) Stop overpopulating the planet.
3) Put all the R&D and manufacturing resources currently used for killing and destroying into something more useful.
4) Have a decent public transport system to lure people out of their cars.
And other such bizarre and fanciful stuff.
No? thought not.
I really like the Heathcote Williams stuff as poetry, philosophy but he is just not well enough at grips with mathematics to judge the maturity of moonbased power production.
He has a brilliant poem about 1+1 being just equal to one, which is shamanic, transcendental, but meaningless in empirical endevours, such as energy transformation and capture.
Dave Lawton i have looked at your site and consider the theory in the same sphere as Heathcote Williams, as being mostly artistic. Enthusiastically blind to natures confounding constraints. Technical improbabilities and constraints are revealed to those interested and apt to spend years studying and working, to understand the wonders of inspiration which great inventors and theorists have recieved and recorded for all. Artists can be naive of difficulties, sketching that one minus one may leave one.
Power supply things to research/develope beside MSRs .. superconductors, synthetic fuel production, many more kinds and refinements of wind turbines, 21st century architecture, combined desert solar capture, water, farming and fuel production. Ecological lifestyles and potentials. Arts and therapies. Urban planning and containment. Re-manufacturing, recycling, redistribution. Nano technology, quantum dynamics, quantum heat and electron pumps…
More expensive manipulation of gravely radioactive material should come low on the list of priorities.
Yes Ben ,David worked at the same physics lab as myself until he moved to Birbeck College London
He had a great sense of humour.I worked with Peter Aplin a engineer at H.H Wills Physics Lab Bristol in the High energy particle physics lab.We worked on An old friend of mine Mike Berry was David Bohms student at Bristol.The physics lab was full of dissidents.
My favourite budget promise is building 15,000 new, ‘affordable’ homes. The fact is that there are over 700,000 empty homes in England today. The vast majority are owned by the banks who refuse to put them on them market because house prices would fall further and the value of their property portfolio would be diminished. If the government forced the banks to sell their empty homes instead of gerrymandering the market then all housing would become ‘affordable’.
You should make physics work available on your site Dave, rather than allude to it. There is nothing of a technical level on your site to ponder, no references, data or workings. The text is very short and indistinct. It is just art at this stage of presentation, to suggest it is more than it is works against the possibility that it might be.
@markU 1) No I have not worked in ‘the world of advanced physics’ but then neither have you. Unlike you however I do have a science degree.
2) I did not assume that you were a scientist, I assumed otherwise. I am glad that you have come clean on the issue
I have not come clean on any issue as there was no issue to come clean on.
It also shows you have never worked at the cutting edge of advanced physics.
You should stop making statements that are static because they gather dust.
You seem to behaving like a presumptuous prick.
For your interest not like you I worked as a engineer in the high energy
particle physics at Bristol and the Rutherford lab.I will accept an apology.
Res Diss says
“In my experience this is usually code for suggesting that someone is Jewish or has Jewish relatives.”
How quaintly 19th century of you. In the modern world it’s usually code that someone is in the pay or influence of The Israeli Lobby.
I’m sure you’ll have seen it on display during the Senate’s recent embarrassing performance over the Chuck Hagel nomination for Defense, where many senators seemed confused about who they were working for – US or Israel.
http://www.globalresearch's.ca/israel-firsters-on-parade-in-chuck-hagel-nomination/5324221
Walt and Mearsheimer’s study, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, provides further information on how it all works.
I suppose the key point is that you no longer have to be Jewish to serve the cause. Greedy for money or career advancement will do.
You can see too that those who fall foul of this Lobby often find their career in jeopardy.
Ultimately, you see, it’s a money and power thing with little regard for ethnic questions, nor indeed questions of ethics.
Ben Franklin, Molten Salt Reactors should be comparatively cheap. The major expense is that the reaction vessel and all the pipework has to be made from a nickel–molybdenum alloy called Hastelloy, which is resistant to the corrosive properties of the molten salt. I think that the beryllium in the salt mixture is quite expensive, too, but it’s a one-off expense.
Beyond that, it’s all savings. There is little complexity in the reaction chamber. Control rods and feedback systems to move them are unnecessary, as the reactor self-adjusts its power output to match the load, by thermal expansion of the fuel salt: less demand = hotter fuel = expansion = less fuel in the reaction vessel = less power output. The fuel loop runs at atmospheric pressure plus the weight of the molten salt; the equivalent in a light water reactor is the coolant loop, which runs at 75 atmospheres in a BWR, and about 160 atmospheres in a PWR, and it absolutely must not fail. All this metalwork that has to withstand immense pressure reliably is highly expensive, and MSRs don’t need it.
One real beauty of the MSR design is that the nuclear reaction only remains critical when enough fuel salt is gathered into a near spherical volume, i.e. in the reaction vessel. So if the fuel loop develops a leak, the spilled salt spreads out and stops reacting. Compare this with a solid core, which needs to maintain its complex geometry so that rods that slow the reaction can be inserted. If the core melts down, the fuel gathers in the hemispherical bottom of the pressure vessel, in a more compact shape with no gaps between the (now molten) rods, so the reactivity is likely to increase. In my opinion, pressurised reactors that increase their power production if their complex solid structure melts, and are dependent upon confining high pressure to prevent meltdown, are accidents waiting to happen.
With a liquid core, you can envisage redundancy. Have, say, six reaction vessels, but only load five of them. If a reaction vessel starts to fail in use, just divert the circulating salt into the spare. Same with turbines and pipework; the design doesn’t have to be dependent upon any single component. It’ll leak rather than explode if a crack develops somewhere because it isn’t pressurised.
Savings during operation include not having to manufacture or reprocess fuel rods. MSRs would include integral reprocessing to extract reaction products from the fuel, which is already a fluoride, which is the form you need it in for reprocessing. Integrating power generation with reprocessing and eliminating rod manufacture greatly reduces the need to transport nuclear materials, and all the attendant safety and security expenses.
By being forty times as fuel efficient, MSRs produce 1/40th of the “waste” for the same amount of electricity generated. But this “waste” is rich in various valuable isotopes, and most of it will decay to background levels of radioactivity in about 300 years rather than hundreds of thousands; this saves on disposal costs a bit…
But at present MSRs are only two ancient prototypes more than a dream, until someone decides to build a few more.
Correction:
“Same with
turbinesheat exchangers and pipework” – the turbines have a separate loop of hot helium.@Crab I really like the Heathcote Williams stuff as poetry, philosophy but he is just not well enough at grips with mathematics to judge the maturity of moonbased power production.
He has a brilliant poem about 1+1 being just equal to one, which is shamanic, transcendental, but meaningless in empirical endevours, such as energy transformation and capture.
I know ,but Heathcote is a poet and its poetic licence.I remember him reading the 1+1 poem at Elephant Fayre at Port Eliot in Cornwall ,it certainly freaked out a professor of mathematics who was at the reading You should study Oliver Heaviside and you will see how the present theory on electromagnetism
have been distorted.Also you should be aware the major oil companies are sitting on patents for LENR
LENR does work.Also you can achieve super efficient electrolysis if you use small test cells and low current. I have tested it rigorously.Check my calcs. If you really want to do some research in this area you need to look into the nonlinear region.I will say no more.
.
@Crab You should make physics work available on your site Dave, rather than allude to it. There is nothing of a technical level on your site to ponder, no references, data or workings. The text is very short and indistinct. It is just art at this stage of presentation, to suggest it is more than it is works against the possibility that it might be.
No Data or workings whats this Christmas Pudding?
http://www.liberationtechnology.co.uk/wfcdata.htm
Ben, a bit more detail…
The “crucible” (lovely word) is always full, and the pump bowl, at the highest point in the system, has spare capacity to allow for expansion. Yes, you dissolve in more actinide “waste” as the fuel gets fissioned into reaction products. In the Oak Ridge experimental MSR, the reaction products remained stable in the salt and caused no problems there, but the longest run was only six months. The reprocessing unit I mentioned would extract these elements. You can always draw off some fuel salt to make room, but the uranium / actinide component is a fairly small proportion of the total salt load in any case.
The Hastelloy should be OK for a couple of decades; the original plan was 30 years, but “shallow, inter-granular cracking in all metal surfaces exposed to the fuel salt” was discovered after the five years of reactor test runs. There’s an untested solution for this problem.
As to vapours, xenon and krypton are removed from the fuel salt in the pump bowl, and collected. Most other reaction products tend to bind with the fluorine and remain in the salt. Tritium will diffuse out through the metal, and will have to be collected and either sold, or stored until it decays.
There are significant problems to overcome, but the design hasn’t been in physical development for over forty years.
Dave Lawton, didn’t your physics teacher ever tell you that you mustn’t P in your ammeter? 🙂
Dave Lawton, I’ve looked at this link:
http://www.liberationtechnology.co.uk/wfcdata.htm
The description is incomplete. I would not be able to replicate this experiment from the details given.
Dave, I’ve occasionally looked at these “alternative” energy ideas for, oh, about twenty years. All that I have seen share this problem of incomplete description.
If you point me to a full description, I’ll attempt to replicate it.
Dave lawton Re: No Data or workings whats this Christmas Pudding?
http://www.liberationtechnology.co.uk/wfcdata.htm
Your data and working is apparently a demonstration of the violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy. It seems to me that you are either a fraud/crank, or a potential Nobel prize winner.
So its off to the patent office with you then, and into production. Soon we will all be able to violate fundamental natural laws in our own homes and run our cars on water…….or perhaps not.
Anyway, enough of this light-hearted banter I am off out for the night. Good luck with the Nobel prize thing.
Clark; That was a comprehensive reply, and almost reaches my layman’s level of incompetence 🙂
MarkU;
” Soon we will all be able to violate fundamental natural laws in our own homes and run our cars on water”
Again, as a layman I ask; isn’t that the foundation of Hydrogen power?
Clark; a clarification; What is the operational life of MSR? Decommissioning after 30 years is always a big issue for nukes currently in vogue.
@ClarkDave Lawton, didn’t your physics teacher ever tell you that you mustn’t P in your ammeter? 🙂
Clark ,I know I`m dyslexic I can`t help it.
OT again!.
“Will the UK and USA also go for the automatic seizure of money from accounts? My guess is they have been quietly planning on it but will now think twice about admitting to it. Preferring to keep it quiet until the next collapse when ‘circumstances call for desperate measures’ etc etc.”
“The reality is the banks are still bust – even the ones making huge profits – and when – not if – when the next bubble bursts and one bank starts to bring down another – they will all come for your money and we will all be collectively punished in order to make sure the wealthy and the powerful stay that way.”
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/03/plunderball-the-new-euro-banking-game/
Ben, the “wfc data” link looks like an electrolysis experiment, but no details are given of how hydrogen, oxygen, and water vapour were collected, separated, or measured, so we can’t check it.
Yes, you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. You’ll need an electrical voltage (electrical “push”) to make a current flow through the water. This needs energy. Specifically, you’ll use [volts times amps times seconds] joules of energy.
You can then burn the hydrogen with the oxygen that you just generated. This releases energy. But at maximum, this will only ever release as much energy as you used in order to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Yes, you can run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen, but to get hydrogen from water you’ll need a power station supplying at least as much energy via electricity. “The hydrogen economy” was only ever a catch-phrase, because hydrogen from water is merely an energy delivery method, not a source of energy.
Clark; Is there enough data @ 5.3 (Dave Lawton’s solid-state circuit)?
Just not sure you saw this in your analysis.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf
Thanks for pointing that page out Dave. But it constitutes what could be most charitably described as ‘brief notes’ of what would be a totally staggering result.
I dont want to denigrate your efforts, i just remind that disbelief is the basic and sensible reaction to the revolutionary claims at the current level of detail and evidence.
Ben Franklin, the Hastelloy in the MSRE was intended to last thirty years, but it showed minor signs of cracking after five years. But I don’t think this matters much with a liquid reactor core, because of my “spare reaction vessel etc.” idea above. Bring new components on-line every five years or so, divert the flow of fuel salt, and rotate the oldest components off-line. It isn’t like having complex fuel assemblies to transfer.
More, and more I like these MSR’s (Yakobovsky) 🙂
Crab; Bohm’s metaphysics are closer to some concrete steps toward establishing a Unified Field Theory than Einstein ever took, IMO.
You really have to stretch the engrams to grasp something so esoteric.
@Clark
The description is incomplete. I would not be able to replicate this experiment from the details given.
Dave, I’ve occasionally looked at these “alternative” energy ideas for, oh, about twenty years. All that I have seen share this problem of incomplete description.
If you point me to a full description, I’ll attempt to replicate it.
Clark
Here you go this is what I based it on ,you could build his electrolyser
and get improved results.
Low current electrolysis based on Kararev`s work.It gives a description of his cell .My results were more Conservative than his ,but I used a 3 inch size concentric cell .here is the link.
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html