Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0478v1.pdf

*OBSERVATION OF REDUCTION IN CASIMIR FORCE WITHOUT CHANGE OF DIELECTRIC
PERMITTIVITY*


FYI for the zero point energy folks.


This interesting paper describes an experiment that shows that the Casimir
force can be minipulated as follows:


Additional information is provided on the effect of the significant (up to
35%) reduction in the magnitude of the Casimir force between an Au-coated
sphere and an indium tin oxide film which was observed after UV treatment
of the latter. A striking feature of this effect is that the reduction is
not accompanied with a corresponding variation of the dielectric permittivity,
as confirmed by direct ellipsometry measurements. The measurement data are
compared with computations using the Lifshitz theory. It is shown that the
data for the untreated sample are in a very good agreement with theory
taking into account the free charge carriers in the indium tin oxide. The
data for the UV-treated sample exclude

the theoretical results obtained with account of free charge carriers.
These data are found to be in a very good agreement with theory
disregarding the free charge carriers in an indium tin oxide film. A
possible theoretical explanation of our observations as a result of phase
transition of indium tin oxide from metallic to dielectric state is
discussed in comparison with other related experiments.






On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

>  Agreed, and if there happens to be a zero point component of this
> technology as I suspect then there will be a reversible linkage to virtual
> particles that could lead to a reactionless drive.
>
> Fran
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Randy Wuller [mailto:rwul...@freeark.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2012 1:36 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News
> Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> I must say, when I see the words "simply NO way" used to describe the
> capabilities of a process we don't understand, my annoyance meter starts to
> twitch.  (Which is why I found it necessary to respond)  I really wish
> these kind of comments weren't so common in our society with regard to the
> future.  Don't get me wrong, Mr. Lynn may be exactly correct, but making
> those predictions with the knowledge we have now seems premature.  
>
>  
>
> Ransom
>
>  - Original Message - 
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn  
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2012 12:08 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release &
> Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years
>
> ** **
>
> There is simply no way that LENR will be useful for getting stuff to orbit
> - unless it is used as a method for making cheaper chemical rocket fuels,
> and even then rocket fuel costs are only a few % of a launch. 
>
> - LENR power density is far too low (a 3500kg SSME delivers 9GW of power,
> ie 2.5MW/kg)
>
> - The temperature (<700°C) is too low to heat hydrogen sufficiently to
> give a competitive specific impulse to match the density and performance of
> other chemical fuels.  With LENR/LH2 at 1000°C you might get to 6000m/s
> exhaust velocity but LOX/LH2 can do 4700m/s and is a far more dense and
> cheap fuel combination than using all expensive LH2 (a tremendously bulky
> and expensive fuel requiring enormous well insulated tanks).
>
> ** **
>
> However LENR will be tremendously useful for moving stuff around slowly in
> orbit and interplanetary space using various types of high Isp plasma
> drives.
>
> ** **
>
> On 5 February 2012 21:06, Chemical Engineer  wrote:***
> *
>
> *
> http://ns1.nianet.org/workshops/pdfs/Olds%20LaRC%20Workshop%20Presentation%20Final.pdf
> *
>
> ** **
>
> *Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009 - 18 GW!
> *
>
>  LENR Rocket
>
> Fully Reusable SSTO Vehicle powered by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
> (LENR) Propulsion
>
> Reactor Power
>
> Payload
>
> LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket
>
> (H2) with LENR Reactor
>
> 18 GW
>
> 20,000 lbs to LEO
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Chemical Engineer 
> wrote:
>
> I will interpret "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion" to including LENR... 5 years
> would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year ago.
>  Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at least
> something to heat our coffee.
>
> ** **
>
> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13354 **
> **
>
> ** **
>
> -- radiation mitigation for human spaceflight;
> -- guidance, navigation, and control;
> -- optical systems;
> -- long-duration crew health;
> -- solar power generation;
> -- high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies;
> -- environmental control and life support systems;
> -- electric propu

Re: [Vo]:Acoustic Fusion Article on the International Business Times

[Axil Axil]

I wonder if sonoluminescence could be used as a cheap way to produce the
Rossi reaction. I believe that Rydberg hydrogen is produced by the extreme
high pressures occurring during cavatation. The intense ultraviolet
radiation coming at or very near the end of bubble collapse is a clue that
highly excited hydrogen gas is being generated. Any excited dirty plasma
hydrogen will produce Rydberg atoms.

If a large bubble can enclose a micro sized nickel particle, a Rossi type
reaction might be produced.
Cavatation is extremely powerful. It can produce 5 nanometer diamonds from
graphite feedstock in a few nanoseconds.

The nickel powder might be easily destroyed inside the collapsing
cavitation bubble.

Some fluid other than water might be better used to get rid of the oxygen;
maybe a hydrocarbon.

But such an experiment is easily done; just add some nickel powder of
various sizes, start cavitation, and look for excess heat.

Regards: Axil








On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Patrick Ellul
>
> *   Came across this article and I thought it might be of some interest
> to this forum.
>
>
> http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/294046/20120207/acoustic-fusion-potentially-g
> green-inexpensive-virtually-inexhaustible.htm
>
>
> This is fairly well-known group to many of us. Ross Tessien was formerly
> the
> head of Impulse Devices, and a poster on this forum many years ago. I do
> not
> know why he left the company - as seems to be the case. Here is his patent.
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7510321.html
>
> They have had a prototype device on the market for some time IIRC but
> seemed
> to be moving to sonochemistry instead of fusion.
>
> http://www.impulsedevices.com/
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Acoustic Fusion Article on the International Business Times

[Jones Beene]

From: Patrick Ellul 

*   Came across this article and I thought it might be of some interest
to this forum.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/294046/20120207/acoustic-fusion-potentially-g
green-inexpensive-virtually-inexhaustible.htm 


This is fairly well-known group to many of us. Ross Tessien was formerly the
head of Impulse Devices, and a poster on this forum many years ago. I do not
know why he left the company - as seems to be the case. Here is his patent.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7510321.html

They have had a prototype device on the market for some time IIRC but seemed
to be moving to sonochemistry instead of fusion.

http://www.impulsedevices.com/

<>

RE: [Vo]:Acoustic Fusion Article on the International Business Times

[Robert Leguillon]

Sonoluminescence is undisputed. There is certainly bubble creation and light 
release.
Notice that they lightly dance around the fusion claim in this article. All 
fusion statements are forward-looking.  I was reading in to their answers that 
they had observed fusion, until Question #6.
 Q6: Do you think acoustic fusion will gain more acceptance from the mainstream 
populace than cold fusion? 
Clearly, if acoustic fusion is achieved, the acceptance is a given. If you 
mean, will the possibility of acoustic fusion be more readily accepted, 
probably so

They claim that their computer models reflect the possibility of fusion - but 
they aren't there yet.

From: ellulpatr...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:40:31 +1100
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Acoustic Fusion Article on the International Business Times

Hello all,
Came across this article and I thought it might be of some interest to this 
forum.
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/294046/20120207/acoustic-fusion-potentially-ggreen-inexpensive-virtually-inexhaustible.htm
 

Regards,Patrick
-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!


The quickest puzzle ever! 



  

Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[David Roberson]

It will interesting to see what the future has to offer regarding automobile 
powering.  Maybe the Stirling design is a non starter for the first generation 
of vehicles, but may come on strong later.  My crystal ball is cloudy at the 
moment, but I usually expect to see the simplest solution to be the one that 
gets the race started.  

I wonder if a small turbine drive for each wheel that is centrally controlled 
might be the solution.  Each power unit could then be quite small and easy to 
handle in manufacturing.  All wheel drive of this type should be an excellent 
sales feature as well.  We need to think out of the box as much as possible as 
we ponder the overall system design.

What would the vort think of having a GPS system on board that is sent data 
about the traffic flow at the current location?   The vehicle thus throttles 
back the LENR device to have the power required for the existing conditions.  
Perhaps in this manner there would not be a major problem with dumping excess 
heat.  Of course a hydraulic or steam powered fan could be used for the heat 
dumping at stops.  Or consider a steam storage tank that is sized to store the 
carefully metered amount of steam required for the traffic and immediate needs.

I think that the total traffic system might be utilized as we proceed with 
these new products to make them perform much better than existing concepts.

Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Robert Lynn 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 6, 2012 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor


OK Ignore the fuel price.  In work that has been done on exhaust heat recovery 
(where the heat is effectively free and temps 4-600 degrees C) for trucks and 
cars Rankine is popular (eg BMW with steam), and Brayton too (many trucks and 
ships use turbocompounding, recovering power from the turbine of a 
turbocharger, F1 will as well from next year), but I have never seen anyone try 
to use Stirling.

If you just look at the weight of a hybrid car LENR engine; stirling vs rankine 
vs brayton turbine the stirling is by far the heaviest, has the lowest 
operating speed (so bigger generator, belt or gearbox required), has a large 
number of high tolerance components, is made from high cost materials, has 
known issues with reliability, needs very large radiators, and needs a system 
for re-compressing leaked hydrogen.

Which do you think will end up being cheapest to put in a car?  I couldn't pick 
between Brayton and Rankine:
Brayton (recuperated or not) probably has lower efficiency (10-20%), with lower 
density working fluid for heat transfer meaning large heat exchangers with 
large pressure differentials (ie big and heavy), very high bearing speeds a 
hassle, but no condenser required.
Rankine, small, light, dense high pressure working fluid = compact boiler and 
engine (turbine or reciprocating), good efficiency (15-25%), but likely a large 
condenser.

But what I am very sure of is that it won't be Stirling, even if it can manage 
35% efficiency, it simple misses on too many other cost, weight and size 
factors.

[Vo]:Acoustic Fusion Article on the International Business Times

[Patrick Ellul]

Hello all,

Came across this article and I thought it might be of some interest to this
forum.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/294046/20120207/acoustic-fusion-potentially-ggreen-inexpensive-virtually-inexhaustible.htm


Regards,
Patrick

-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Robert Lynn]

Capstone started out developing recuperated turbines for hybrid cars in the
late 80's (NoMac), I think they were originally aiming for about 25kW and
30kg (old SAE paper), but that crept up (weight especially) over time, and
I believe their C30 weigh more like 100kg with 30kW output at 26%
efficiency now.

30kW is ideal for a mid-sized hybrid car - as it allow you to drive
indefinitely on a flat road at 120km/hr

Capstone C30 achieves about 26% efficiency with the extra gas flow and
higher specific heat of burnt fuel going through the turbine as well as
relatively low pressure losses through the combustor and relatively high
combustion temperatures of 800+ deg C.  Brayton and Recuperated Brayton
turbines are extremely sensitive to combustion temp and pressure losses so
if the peak temp drops to 500-600deg C and you have significant pressure
losses in heating the air going through the combustor as well as reduced
turbine mass flow and specific heat compared to compressor flow then I
expect the overall efficiency to drop to probably below 20% for recuperated
and probably only 10-13% for unrecuperated (like Bladeon).  Though these
are only guesses, and you can compensate for lower efficiency with bigger
heavier and more expensive recuperators and hot end heat exchanger to get
higher temps, there will be an economic ideal for a cheap heat source like
LENR.

On 6 February 2012 22:30, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> Now forgetting about stirling...
>
> So you clearly thing that with today's technology,
> using a turbine is a realistic solution for a serial hybrid vehicle ?
>
> what is the minimum realistic  power of a turbine, at 400C, at 600C ? is
> 10-15kW mechanic reasonable? which effciency ?
> is 50kW mechanic reasonable... which efficiency ?
> will organic rankine turbine have any interest à 400C ? 600C? for cooling
> faster?
>
> note that about the problem I see two tracks for hope :
> - when the car goes fast, it consume much heat, but air flow can be used
> to cool quickly... if going slower, need less power... could even use a
> fan...
> - second if thermal evacuation is a problem, maybe on could design the car
> to be a good radiator
>
> does it seems reasonable ?
>
>
> 2012/2/6 Robert Lynn 
>
>> So take an (optimistic) $10k 30kW 200kg Stirling + generator + very large
>> radiators (need much cooler temps than IC engines) to the already heavy and
>> expensive $5-10k electric powertrain and you can perhaps begin to see why
>> stirling is such a non-starter for vehicles compared to:
>> Rankine turbine generator + condenser that weighs perhaps 100kg (turbine
>> and generator are smaller as operate at much higher speeds) and costs
>> probably $3-5k when mass produced.
>> Recuperated Brayton (like capstone C30) that weighs 100kg and costs about
>> $5-10k when mass produced.
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Robert Lynn]

OK Ignore the fuel price.  In work that has been done on exhaust heat
recovery (where the heat is effectively free and temps 4-600 degrees C) for
trucks and cars Rankine is popular (eg BMW with steam), and Brayton too
(many trucks and ships use turbocompounding, recovering power from the
turbine of a turbocharger, F1 will as well from next year), but I have
never seen anyone try to use Stirling.

If you just look at the weight of a hybrid car LENR engine; stirling vs
rankine vs brayton turbine the stirling is by far the heaviest, has the
lowest operating speed (so bigger generator, belt or gearbox required), has
a large number of high tolerance components, is made from high cost
materials, has known issues with reliability, needs very large radiators,
and needs a system for re-compressing leaked hydrogen.

Which do you think will end up being cheapest to put in a car?  I couldn't
pick between Brayton and Rankine:
Brayton (recuperated or not) probably has lower efficiency (10-20%), with
lower density working fluid for heat transfer meaning large heat exchangers
with large pressure differentials (ie big and heavy), very high bearing
speeds a hassle, but no condenser required.
Rankine, small, light, dense high pressure working fluid = compact boiler
and engine (turbine or reciprocating), good efficiency (15-25%), but likely
a large condenser.

But what I am very sure of is that it won't be Stirling, even if it can
manage 35% efficiency, it simple misses on too many other cost, weight and
size factors.


On 6 February 2012 22:39, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* Robert Lynn 
>
> **Ø **
>
> **Ø  **If you have a few hundred million $ to put into Stirling
> development then by all means have a go and see what you can do, but almost
> no-one who has actual experience of Stirling engines and their problems
> (and I know a fair number) would put their own money into developing them
> for automotive LENR.  
>
> ** **
>
> Of course it makes no sense to use a Stirling for fossil-fuel powered
> automotive, given the sunk cost in the ICE - and NONE of these companies
> you mention presently believe that LENR can provide low cost heat. So you
> are conflating two distinct issues that do not mix well.
>
> ** **
>
> Once you get over that hurdle – that LENR is valid, then the Stirling
> makes a lot of sense, compared to other alternatives like steam - but not
> to be implemented by aerospace companies, whose cost structure is not
> competitive with the automotive arena by a wide margin. 
>
> ** **
>
> No one can disagree with you that the Stirling make little economic sense
> to use with fossil fuel, but we can all agree that this fact is irrelevant
> to anything related to LENR, other than that it represents an added risk,
> when most companies want to avoid risk, and especially when LENR is not
> proved.
>
> ** **
>
> Even with solar, where the Stirling has not worked out yet –that is due to
> greed and mismanagement more than anything else, combined with a massive
> drop in PV pricing. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) filed for bankruptcy
> after failing to obtain financing for massive projects that were
> boondoggles to begin with. This is part of the same Solyndra, SpectraWatt
> and Evergreen scams, where billions of taxpayer dollars was wasted by
> “entrepreneurs”, most of them former DoE staff - who came out smelling like
> a rose. 
>
> ** **
>
> The absurdly high cost of manufacturing of the SES engines were actually
> the crux of the problem that was never adequately addressed by competitive
> bidding. They expected DoE to step in bail them out, and for once this did
> not happen.
>
> ** **
>
> The Stirling technology is valid, and the Chinese will once again seize
> our missed opportunity and optimized the Stirling for solar – and maybe for
> LENR as well - by producing those same $20,000 reciprocating engines for
> less than the $5,000 that should have been our goal to begin with. 
>
> ** **
>
> All these technical issues are solvable, but you have to desperately want
> to solve them; and China is in that position, since they have little oil…
>  whereas the USA and even GB are only moderately committed, due to having
> just the right amount of oil (to maximize incomes of oil barons and
> politicians) - and also by having well-placed technology manipulators - who
> would love nothing more than to see LENR and a Stirling implementation of
> it be delayed as long as possible.
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>
> ** **
>

[Vo]:What fun

[fznidarsic]

I sarted working on my 85 year old Radiola trying not break any of the 4 pin 
tubes.  I got a schematic off of the web and I found all of the paper 
capacitors had dried up.  I replaced them, added a new power cord, put a new 
string on the tuner.  Then I got a long wire as as an external antenna.  I 
tuned it on, it started whistling, then it said...WSM Nashville..I got 
something and far away and clear.  What fun, just like being in 1926.  They 
said they had a contest, linked below, and I entered as listening with the 
oldest radio.


http://www.wsmonline.com/


I hope I get a sticker.  I like it when a plan comes together, something that 
does not seem to happen with cold fusion.


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Testing widom-larsen theory with gamma ...

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 02:45 PM 2/6/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote:
is there any paper on this
hypothetic experience, or even results? 
Here's a (non-LENR) paper that discusses nonlinear compton scattering off
heavy electrons:

http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~sigma/2010/041/sigma10-041.pdf 
see 4.5 Nonlinear Compton
scattering

Re: [Vo]:Testing widom-larsen theory with gamma ...

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 02:45 PM 2/6/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote:
is widom-larsen the only theory
that propose similar screening, or is it a key predictive event?

I haven't seen another LENR theory that explains it.  WL do have a
patent (US 7,893,414 B2 : Feb 2011) on the heavy-electron gamma
screening:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/docs/US7893414B2.pdf 
so if the eCat relies on that, there might be yet another patent
battle.

[Vo]:Testing widom-larsen theory with gamma ...

[Alain Sepeda]

Hi,
reading about widom-larsen theory, like probably many reader
I get the idea to test the theory by observing gamma screening.

the idea is to launch a LENR reaction big enough, so that the "active
sites" are numerous.
the you use a gamma source, and observe if the gamma a reduced
by the active sites.

is that have been done ?

I imaging the effect should be thin, since the active zone are very small.
maybe one should observe the diffraction of a small beam, if not of gamma,
at least of hard Xray (if widom-larsen screening is still true)

is there any paper on this hypothetic experience, or even results?

is widom-larsen the only theory that propose similar screening, or is it a
key predictive event?

TIA

RE: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Jones Beene]

From: Robert Lynn 

* 

*  If you have a few hundred million $ to put into Stirling development then
by all means have a go and see what you can do, but almost no-one who has
actual experience of Stirling engines and their problems (and I know a fair
number) would put their own money into developing them for automotive LENR.


 

Of course it makes no sense to use a Stirling for fossil-fuel powered
automotive, given the sunk cost in the ICE - and NONE of these companies you
mention presently believe that LENR can provide low cost heat. So you are
conflating two distinct issues that do not mix well.

 

Once you get over that hurdle - that LENR is valid, then the Stirling makes
a lot of sense, compared to other alternatives like steam - but not to be
implemented by aerospace companies, whose cost structure is not competitive
with the automotive arena by a wide margin. 

 

No one can disagree with you that the Stirling make little economic sense to
use with fossil fuel, but we can all agree that this fact is irrelevant to
anything related to LENR, other than that it represents an added risk, when
most companies want to avoid risk, and especially when LENR is not proved.

 

Even with solar, where the Stirling has not worked out yet -that is due to
greed and mismanagement more than anything else, combined with a massive
drop in PV pricing. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) filed for bankruptcy after
failing to obtain financing for massive projects that were boondoggles to
begin with. This is part of the same Solyndra, SpectraWatt and Evergreen
scams, where billions of taxpayer dollars was wasted by "entrepreneurs",
most of them former DoE staff - who came out smelling like a rose. 

 

The absurdly high cost of manufacturing of the SES engines were actually the
crux of the problem that was never adequately addressed by competitive
bidding. They expected DoE to step in bail them out, and for once this did
not happen.

 

The Stirling technology is valid, and the Chinese will once again seize our
missed opportunity and optimized the Stirling for solar - and maybe for LENR
as well - by producing those same $20,000 reciprocating engines for less
than the $5,000 that should have been our goal to begin with. 

 

All these technical issues are solvable, but you have to desperately want to
solve them; and China is in that position, since they have little oil.
whereas the USA and even GB are only moderately committed, due to having
just the right amount of oil (to maximize incomes of oil barons and
politicians) - and also by having well-placed technology manipulators - who
would love nothing more than to see LENR and a Stirling implementation of it
be delayed as long as possible.

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Alain Sepeda]

Now forgetting about stirling...

So you clearly thing that with today's technology,
using a turbine is a realistic solution for a serial hybrid vehicle ?

what is the minimum realistic  power of a turbine, at 400C, at 600C ? is
10-15kW mechanic reasonable? which effciency ?
is 50kW mechanic reasonable... which efficiency ?
will organic rankine turbine have any interest à 400C ? 600C? for cooling
faster?

note that about the problem I see two tracks for hope :
- when the car goes fast, it consume much heat, but air flow can be used to
cool quickly... if going slower, need less power... could even use a fan...
- second if thermal evacuation is a problem, maybe on could design the car
to be a good radiator

does it seems reasonable ?

2012/2/6 Robert Lynn 

> So take an (optimistic) $10k 30kW 200kg Stirling + generator + very large
> radiators (need much cooler temps than IC engines) to the already heavy and
> expensive $5-10k electric powertrain and you can perhaps begin to see why
> stirling is such a non-starter for vehicles compared to:
> Rankine turbine generator + condenser that weighs perhaps 100kg (turbine
> and generator are smaller as operate at much higher speeds) and costs
> probably $3-5k when mass produced.
> Recuperated Brayton (like capstone C30) that weighs 100kg and costs about
> $5-10k when mass produced.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Robert Lynn]

Yep aircraft will be the big win.

Repower Concorde with LENR heated engines and fly anywhere in the world
without stopping, though you will probably not be allowed to fly supersonic
over land.  No vapour trails and no NOx production so other than noise it
is a perfect solution.  Mach 3 is probably the limit as it is difficult to
cool without fuel to dump the heat into and the stagnation temperature of
air at Mach 3 is 400°C so probably couldn't go much faster with a 700°C
LENR heat source.

A concorde LENR plane needs about 300MW of heat, which if we believe Mr
Rossi and 100kW/kg needs or about 3000kg of nickel powder, even if it was
only 10kW/kg it would still probably be feasible.

Really small supersonic planes might also be acceptable high over land as
the boom is linked strongly to power output and height.


On 6 February 2012 20:56, jean guy moreau  wrote:

>  How about heating air for aviation ?
>
> JG Moreau
>
>  --
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:08:29 +
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release &
> Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years
> From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> There is simply no way that LENR will be useful for getting stuff to orbit
> - unless it is used as a method for making cheaper chemical rocket fuels,
> and even then rocket fuel costs are only a few % of a launch.
> - LENR power density is far too low (a 3500kg SSME delivers 9GW of power,
> ie 2.5MW/kg)
> - The temperature (<700°C) is too low to heat hydrogen sufficiently to
> give a competitive specific impulse to match the density and performance of
> other chemical fuels.  With LENR/LH2 at 1000°C you might get to 6000m/s
> exhaust velocity but LOX/LH2 can do 4700m/s and is a far more dense and
> cheap fuel combination than using all expensive LH2 (a tremendously bulky
> and expensive fuel requiring enormous well insulated tanks).
>
> However LENR will be tremendously useful for moving stuff around slowly in
> orbit and interplanetary space using various types of high Isp plasma
> drives.
>
>
> On 5 February 2012 21:06, Chemical Engineer  wrote:
>
>  **
>
> *
> http://ns1.nianet.org/workshops/pdfs/Olds%20LaRC%20Workshop%20Presentation%20Final.pdf
> *
>
> *
> *
>
> *Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009 - 18 GW!*
>
> LENR Rocket
> Fully Reusable SSTO Vehicle powered by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
> (LENR) Propulsion
> Reactor Power
> Payload
> LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket
> (H2) with LENR Reactor
> 18 GW
> 20,000 lbs to LEO
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Chemical Engineer wrote:
>
>  I will interpret "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion" to including LENR... 5
> years would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year
> ago.  Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at
> least something to heat our coffee.
>
> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13354
>
> -- radiation mitigation for human spaceflight;
> -- guidance, navigation, and control;
> -- optical systems;
> -- long-duration crew health;
> -- solar power generation;
> -- high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies;
> -- environmental control and life support systems;
> -- electric propulsion;
> -- detectors and focal planes;
> -- instruments and sensors;
> -- fission power generation;
> -- lightweight and multifunctional materials and structures;
> -- nuclear thermal propulsion;
> -- entry, descent, and landing thermal protection systems;
> -- active thermal control of cryogenic systems; and
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Alain Sepeda]

even using normal fission temperatures, similat to LENR (without radiation)
some have plan to use nuclear energy for rocket: NTR rockets

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/fission-rockets-could-open-up-solar.html

first basic idea is to use as second stage.
the scientist who promote that technology, say you could start from ground,
but test will be hard with classic fission, because of radiations.
more easy with LENR


I've read about the LOX enhanced NTR (post combustion of H with liquid
O2)...

anyway for me classic technology with plane, then chemical rocket in higher
atmosphere , then ion reactor for deep space.
a variant is NTR enhanced with atmospheric air (turbo reactor), then with
LOX, then alone.


anyway there seems to be many problems, as explain, a bit roughly, but
clearly.
but in space mission , there is plentiful of problems...


2012/2/6 Jed Rothwell 

> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>
> **
>> I must say, when I see the words "simply NO way" used to describe the
>> capabilities of a process we don't understand, my annoyance meter starts to
>> twitch.
>>
>
> Amen. Very hot, highly energetic cold fusion may be possible. Mizuno and
> others have demonstrated very high temperatures and high power density
> which might be suitable for ETO vehicles.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Robert Lynn]

If you have a few hundred million $ to put into stirling development then
by all means have a go and see what you can do, but almost no-one who has
actual experience of Stirling engines and their problems (and I know a fair
number) would put their own money into developing them for automotive
LENR.  Phillips spent something like 1-2 billion over 30 years, NASA
probably half that, GE, SES, STM, GE, USAB, Kockums, Sunpower, Stirling
Biopower, Infinia, Microgen and lots of other smaller players have all also
managed to each spend 10's - 100's of millions without every managing to
create a product that was even half way to being commercially viable,
primarily due to high manufacturing costs, but also intractable seal
reliability issues.

The Philips (then USAB then Kockums) 4-95 engine you talk of never had
exceptional lifetime - at best it would only operate for 2-4000 hours only
before the seals failed (though often failed earlier), though that is not
something it is easy to learn through reading the literature - for some
insight into these issues read the 1980s MOD I and MOD II reports from
NASA.  For comparison IC car engines typically manage 4000 hours or more,
truck engines 10's of thousands of hours.

The 4-95 (a Rinia/Siemens type 4 cylinder kinematic Stirling) is in fact
the engine that was further developed and productionised by recently
bankrupted SES.  They were talking of making 50,000 of them at one point,
but their manufacturing costs were still in the $15-20k range, and that is
after they had demounted and centralised all of the expensive hydrogen
re-compression and storage to reduce their unit cost (these systems add a
lot of cost to any hydrogen stirling engine).  Infinia's 3kW free piston
engine is in the $10k range, but uses Helium not hydrogen. Optimistic
estimates for mass production of the NASA 30kW (60kW peak, but very short
life at power) automotive MOD I and MOD II engine developed during the
1980s typically ranged around the $5k mark, but would be far more expensive
now due to inflation and greatly increased nickel and cobalt prices - as
the SES experience attests.

In large scale mass production the cost of a product generally comes down
to a multiple of 2-4 times the material costs, the problem is that unlike
cars for big and heavy Stirling engines large quantities of those materials
are very expensive and difficult to work nickel and cobalt superalloys, and
for free piston engines lots of expensive permanent magnets are also
required.

In terms of specific components the regenerators are extremely expensive
($1k) to make being formed out of sintered stacks of 100's of layers of
<50µm stainless steel wire mesh.  The heaters are a nightmare to make being
100's of superalloy tubes that typically can't be welded so must be vacuum
braised together at high temps all with zero leaks.  The coolers comprise
1000's of 1mm tubes brazed into large parallel flow heat exchangers, and
all of these must be assembled in casings with zero porosity, in extremely
clean conditions with seals that will reliably seal against leakage of high
pressure hydrogen.  All of these components must also withstand temperature
extremes between -40 and +80°C in dirty, corrosive, high vibration
environments for 10-20 years while never releasing hydrogen in a dangerous
manner when in a confined space like a garage, and somehow also not
creating excessive dangers when involved in a crash.

As for recirculating hydrogen from leaking conrod seals, that is done
anyway, but separating the oil out is difficult, and you need to oil cool
and lubricate those pumping leningrader (PL) conrod seals so the bigger
problem is that as the seals leak they also transport oil into the engine
from the crankcase, leading to blocking of regenerators and carbon
particles destroying the seals.

So take an (optimistic) $10k 30kW 200kg Stirling + generator + very large
radiators (need much cooler temps than IC engines) to the already heavy and
expensive $5-10k electric powertrain and you can perhaps begin to see why
stirling is such a non-starter for vehicles compared to:
Rankine turbine generator + condenser that weighs perhaps 100kg (turbine
and generator are smaller as operate at much higher speeds) and costs
probably $3-5k when mass produced.
Recuperated Brayton (like capstone C30) that weighs 100kg and costs about
$5-10k when mass produced.

On 6 February 2012 18:50, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   *From:* Robert Lynn 
>
> ** **
>
> > I've also been involved in the development of hydrogen working fluid
> stirling engines, and while they might look attractive there are big
> problems:
>
> -Very expensive and heavy ($1000/kW, 5-10kg/kW for kinematic engines (ie
> with crankshaft)
>
> ** **
>
> That conclusion may be premature and short sighted, given the advantages.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> The high cost to date for Solar Stirling seems to more of a issue of mass
> production (lack thereof). Certainly, it can cost 10 to 100 times more to
>

RE: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[jean guy moreau]

How about heating air for aviation ?
 
JG Moreau
 



Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:08:29 +
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: 
NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years
From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

There is simply no way that LENR will be useful for getting stuff to orbit - 
unless it is used as a method for making cheaper chemical rocket fuels, and 
even then rocket fuel costs are only a few % of a launch.
- LENR power density is far too low (a 3500kg SSME delivers 9GW of power, ie 
2.5MW/kg)
- The temperature (<700°C) is too low to heat hydrogen sufficiently to give a 
competitive specific impulse to match the density and performance of other 
chemical fuels.  With LENR/LH2 at 1000°C you might get to 6000m/s exhaust 
velocity but LOX/LH2 can do 4700m/s and is a far more dense and cheap fuel 
combination than using all expensive LH2 (a tremendously bulky and expensive 
fuel requiring enormous well insulated tanks).


However LENR will be tremendously useful for moving stuff around slowly in 
orbit and interplanetary space using various types of high Isp plasma drives.



On 5 February 2012 21:06, Chemical Engineer  wrote:




http://ns1.nianet.org/workshops/pdfs/Olds%20LaRC%20Workshop%20Presentation%20Final.pdf


Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009 - 18 GW!

LENR Rocket
Fully Reusable SSTO Vehicle powered by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) 
Propulsion
Reactor Power
Payload
LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket
(H2) with LENR Reactor
18 GW
20,000 lbs to LEO




On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Chemical Engineer  wrote:




I will interpret "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion" to including LENR... 5 years 
would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year ago.  
Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at least 
something to heat our coffee.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13354 


-- radiation mitigation for human spaceflight; -- guidance, navigation, and 
control; -- optical systems; -- long-duration crew health; -- solar power 
generation; -- high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies; -- 
environmental control and life support systems; -- electric propulsion; -- 
detectors and focal planes; -- instruments and sensors; -- fission power 
generation; -- lightweight and multifunctional materials and structures; -- 
nuclear thermal propulsion; -- entry, descent, and landing thermal protection 
systems; -- active thermal control of cryogenic systems; and 

  

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Roarty, Francis X]

Agreed, and if there happens to be a zero point component of this technology as 
I suspect then there will be a reversible linkage to virtual particles that 
could lead to a reactionless drive.
Fran

From: Randy Wuller [mailto:rwul...@freeark.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release 
& Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

I must say, when I see the words "simply NO way" used to describe the 
capabilities of a process we don't understand, my annoyance meter starts to 
twitch.  (Which is why I found it necessary to respond)  I really wish these 
kind of comments weren't so common in our society with regard to the future.  
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Lynn may be exactly correct, but making those 
predictions with the knowledge we have now seems premature.

Ransom
- Original Message -
From: Robert Lynn
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: 
NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

There is simply no way that LENR will be useful for getting stuff to orbit - 
unless it is used as a method for making cheaper chemical rocket fuels, and 
even then rocket fuel costs are only a few % of a launch.
- LENR power density is far too low (a 3500kg SSME delivers 9GW of power, ie 
2.5MW/kg)
- The temperature (<700°C) is too low to heat hydrogen sufficiently to give a 
competitive specific impulse to match the density and performance of other 
chemical fuels.  With LENR/LH2 at 1000°C you might get to 6000m/s exhaust 
velocity but LOX/LH2 can do 4700m/s and is a far more dense and cheap fuel 
combination than using all expensive LH2 (a tremendously bulky and expensive 
fuel requiring enormous well insulated tanks).

However LENR will be tremendously useful for moving stuff around slowly in 
orbit and interplanetary space using various types of high Isp plasma drives.

On 5 February 2012 21:06, Chemical Engineer 
mailto:cheme...@gmail.com>> wrote:

http://ns1.nianet.org/workshops/pdfs/Olds%20LaRC%20Workshop%20Presentation%20Final.pdf



Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009 - 18 GW!
LENR Rocket
Fully Reusable SSTO Vehicle powered by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) 
Propulsion
Reactor Power
Payload
LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket
(H2) with LENR Reactor
18 GW
20,000 lbs to LEO

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Chemical Engineer 
mailto:cheme...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I will interpret "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion" to including LENR... 5 years 
would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year ago.  
Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at least 
something to heat our coffee.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13354

-- radiation mitigation for human spaceflight;
-- guidance, navigation, and control;
-- optical systems;
-- long-duration crew health;
-- solar power generation;
-- high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies;
-- environmental control and life support systems;
-- electric propulsion;
-- detectors and focal planes;
-- instruments and sensors;
-- fission power generation;
-- lightweight and multifunctional materials and structures;
-- nuclear thermal propulsion;
-- entry, descent, and landing thermal protection systems;
-- active thermal control of cryogenic systems; and

RE: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Roarty, Francis X]

At the very core of my suggestion I was only trying to find an economical way 
to drive a piston back and forth to provide a very rapid and large change in 
gas pressure. Perhaps a magnetic linkage to a piston like a water pump for a 
fish tank would  avoid the costly seals and then route the gas via metal tubing 
to a standard reactor. Although current researchers already utilize pressurized 
gas to coarsely control their reactors I am convinced that they underestimate 
the full potential of this mechanism for dynamic control of the reaction. An 
oscillating piston with controllable frequency and possibly pressure shunts to 
shape a pressure pulse with variable width and repetition frequency to drive 
the gases through the changes in NI geometry. I think a "reaction" that is 
being constantly cycled on and off is less likely to self destruct and will be 
easier to extract energy from then a constantly engaged but throttled back  
reaction.
VR
Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

From: Robert Lynn

> I've also been involved in the development of hydrogen working fluid stirling 
> engines, and while they might look attractive there are big problems:
-Very expensive and heavy ($1000/kW, 5-10kg/kW for kinematic engines (ie with 
crankshaft)

That conclusion may be premature and short sighted, given the advantages.

The high cost to date for Solar Stirling seems to more of a issue of mass 
production (lack thereof). Certainly, it can cost 10 to 100 times more to 
produce engines one-off or low volume now, compared to the typical automotive, 
robotically enhanced, engine production line. However, I see no ultimate 
impediment to this for the Stirling concept - once there is demand for millions 
per year. That kind of demand would be guaranteed if mated to a Ni-H heat 
source.

The Solar 4-95 Stirling engine developed by United Stirling of Sweden, was as 
an outgrowth of an automotive engine development program - and is expensive due 
to low volume and the need for exceptional lifetime in operation, far more than 
any car. But they would not have gotten into it if there was a systemic problem 
that could not be overcome with higher demand and better engineering.

IOW all of the negativity seems to be a short-horizon issue that can be 
resolved simply by high demand and a few "workarounds." Except for hydrogen 
seals and the nickel, the cost of a converted ICE should be in the range of 
standard auto engines (if and when mass production is guaranteed).

The easiest solution to the sealing problem (the workaround) is to "live with 
it" in the sense of providing only the simplest solution - the best O-rings, 
etc and then to utilize makeup H2 from onboard electrolysis.

Only one liter of H2/min (or less) should be adequate for makeup of seal 
leakage in a 50 kW engine operating as a genset for a Prius style battery pack 
using standard sealing techniques for hydrogen.

That amount of H2 used as a makeup would be parasitic for about 200 watts from 
the genset and is of no risk as a slow leak, due to the extraordinary mobility 
of H2.

IOW this workaround solution is de minimis in terms of net value of an 
installed engine which does not demand fossil fuel. Moreover - it sounds like 
just the kind of objection that the OPEC petro-lobby would dream-up to thwart 
Stirling development at this critical stage.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Jones Beene]

From: Robert Lynn 

 

> I've also been involved in the development of hydrogen working fluid
stirling engines, and while they might look attractive there are big
problems:

-Very expensive and heavy ($1000/kW, 5-10kg/kW for kinematic engines (ie
with crankshaft)

 

That conclusion may be premature and short sighted, given the advantages.

 

The high cost to date for Solar Stirling seems to more of a issue of mass
production (lack thereof). Certainly, it can cost 10 to 100 times more to
produce engines one-off or low volume now, compared to the typical
automotive, robotically enhanced, engine production line. However, I see no
ultimate impediment to this for the Stirling concept - once there is demand
for millions per year. That kind of demand would be guaranteed if mated to a
Ni-H heat source.

 

The Solar 4-95 Stirling engine developed by United Stirling of Sweden, was
as an outgrowth of an automotive engine development program - and is
expensive due to low volume and the need for exceptional lifetime in
operation, far more than any car. But they would not have gotten into it if
there was a systemic problem that could not be overcome with higher demand
and better engineering.

 

IOW all of the negativity seems to be a short-horizon issue that can be
resolved simply by high demand and a few "workarounds." Except for hydrogen
seals and the nickel, the cost of a converted ICE should be in the range of
standard auto engines (if and when mass production is guaranteed). 

 

The easiest solution to the sealing problem (the workaround) is to "live
with it" in the sense of providing only the simplest solution - the best
O-rings, etc and then to utilize makeup H2 from onboard electrolysis. 

 

Only one liter of H2/min (or less) should be adequate for makeup of seal
leakage in a 50 kW engine operating as a genset for a Prius style battery
pack using standard sealing techniques for hydrogen. 

 

That amount of H2 used as a makeup would be parasitic for about 200 watts
from the genset and is of no risk as a slow leak, due to the extraordinary
mobility of H2. 

 

IOW this workaround solution is de minimis in terms of net value of an
installed engine which does not demand fossil fuel. Moreover - it sounds
like just the kind of objection that the OPEC petro-lobby would dream-up to
thwart Stirling development at this critical stage.

 

Jones

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Jed Rothwell]

Randy Wuller  wrote:

**
> I must say, when I see the words "simply NO way" used to describe the
> capabilities of a process we don't understand, my annoyance meter starts to
> twitch.
>

Amen. Very hot, highly energetic cold fusion may be possible. Mizuno and
others have demonstrated very high temperatures and high power density
which might be suitable for ETO vehicles.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Randy Wuller]

I must say, when I see the words "simply NO way" used to describe the 
capabilities of a process we don't understand, my annoyance meter starts to 
twitch.  (Which is why I found it necessary to respond)  I really wish these 
kind of comments weren't so common in our society with regard to the future.  
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Lynn may be exactly correct, but making those 
predictions with the knowledge we have now seems premature.  

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Robert Lynn 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & 
Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years


  There is simply no way that LENR will be useful for getting stuff to orbit - 
unless it is used as a method for making cheaper chemical rocket fuels, and 
even then rocket fuel costs are only a few % of a launch.
  - LENR power density is far too low (a 3500kg SSME delivers 9GW of power, ie 
2.5MW/kg)
  - The temperature (<700°C) is too low to heat hydrogen sufficiently to give a 
competitive specific impulse to match the density and performance of other 
chemical fuels.  With LENR/LH2 at 1000°C you might get to 6000m/s exhaust 
velocity but LOX/LH2 can do 4700m/s and is a far more dense and cheap fuel 
combination than using all expensive LH2 (a tremendously bulky and expensive 
fuel requiring enormous well insulated tanks).


  However LENR will be tremendously useful for moving stuff around slowly in 
orbit and interplanetary space using various types of high Isp plasma drives.



  On 5 February 2012 21:06, Chemical Engineer  wrote:


  
http://ns1.nianet.org/workshops/pdfs/Olds%20LaRC%20Workshop%20Presentation%20Final.pdf




  Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009 - 18 GW!


LENR Rocket
Fully Reusable SSTO Vehicle powered by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) 
Propulsion
Reactor Power
Payload
LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket
(H2) with LENR Reactor
18 GW
20,000 lbs to LEO


On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Chemical Engineer  
wrote:

  I will interpret "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion" to including LENR... 5 
years would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year ago.  
Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at least 
something to heat our coffee.


  http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13354 


  -- radiation mitigation for human spaceflight; 
  -- guidance, navigation, and control; 
  -- optical systems; 
  -- long-duration crew health; 
  -- solar power generation; 
  -- high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies; 
  -- environmental control and life support systems; 
  -- electric propulsion; 
  -- detectors and focal planes; 
  -- instruments and sensors; 
  -- fission power generation; 
  -- lightweight and multifunctional materials and structures; 
  -- nuclear thermal propulsion; 
  -- entry, descent, and landing thermal protection systems; 
  -- active thermal control of cryogenic systems; and 

Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Robert Lynn]

There is simply no way that LENR will be useful for getting stuff to orbit
- unless it is used as a method for making cheaper chemical rocket fuels,
and even then rocket fuel costs are only a few % of a launch.
- LENR power density is far too low (a 3500kg SSME delivers 9GW of power,
ie 2.5MW/kg)
- The temperature (<700°C) is too low to heat hydrogen sufficiently to give
a competitive specific impulse to match the density and performance of
other chemical fuels.  With LENR/LH2 at 1000°C you might get to 6000m/s
exhaust velocity but LOX/LH2 can do 4700m/s and is a far more dense and
cheap fuel combination than using all expensive LH2 (a tremendously bulky
and expensive fuel requiring enormous well insulated tanks).

However LENR will be tremendously useful for moving stuff around slowly in
orbit and interplanetary space using various types of high Isp plasma
drives.


On 5 February 2012 21:06, Chemical Engineer  wrote:

> **
>
> *
> http://ns1.nianet.org/workshops/pdfs/Olds%20LaRC%20Workshop%20Presentation%20Final.pdf
> *
>
> *
> *
>
> *Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009 - 18 GW!*
>
> LENR Rocket
> Fully Reusable SSTO Vehicle powered by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
> (LENR) Propulsion
> Reactor Power
> Payload
> LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket
> (H2) with LENR Reactor
> 18 GW
> 20,000 lbs to LEO
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Chemical Engineer wrote:
>
>> I will interpret "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion" to including LENR... 5
>> years would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year
>> ago.  Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at
>> least something to heat our coffee.
>>
>> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13354
>>
>> -- radiation mitigation for human spaceflight;
>> -- guidance, navigation, and control;
>> -- optical systems;
>> -- long-duration crew health;
>> -- solar power generation;
>> -- high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies;
>> -- environmental control and life support systems;
>> -- electric propulsion;
>> -- detectors and focal planes;
>> -- instruments and sensors;
>> -- fission power generation;
>> -- lightweight and multifunctional materials and structures;
>> -- nuclear thermal propulsion;
>> -- entry, descent, and landing thermal protection systems;
>> -- active thermal control of cryogenic systems; and
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Robert Lynn]

I am something of an expert in heat engines, I've worked in IC engine
development, Brayton development, have built (for fun) Rankine cycle
engines, and even an engine that ran on the expansion and contraction of
solid metal.

I've also been involved in the development of hydrogen working fluid
stirling engines, and while they might look attractive there are big
problems:
-Very expensive and heavy ($1000/kW, 5-10kg/kW for kinematic engines (ie
with crankshaft), $3000/kW, 20-30kg/kW for free piston engines that don't
require external hydrogen seals)
-Don't scale well to large sizes - as bigger means must run slower to keep
gas flow losses the same.
-Work best at much higher pressures than suitable for LENR (from what we
know of Rossi) ie 150bar vs 25bar. Lower pressures mean much bigger heavier
and less efficient engines.
-Cannot have any powder or other detritus mixed in with the hydrogen
working fluid - as it will quickly abrasively destroy your seals
regenerators and coolers.
-Seals for kinematic designs are unreliable and only last for a few 1000
hours at best.

I don't think that stirling will be competitive with rankine or brayton
cycles in terms of overall size, weight and cost for LENR applications.

On 6 February 2012 17:35, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> Interesting idea.
> Maybe when we master the ignition condition we could do something like a
> family "explosion engine",
> based Piston technology.
>
> I can anticipate the 2 mode of ignition :
>
> - self ignition by pressure and temperature, like diesel
> - triggered ignition by "catalyser" (RF, manetic field, chemical
> injection, local temperature), like otto engine
>
> however the speed of the cycle might be much slower that diesel/otto IC
> engine
> (few turns per minutes)
>
> anyway maybe future LENr reactors will be very difefrents from now...
>
> should tell defkalion and rossi 8-)
>
>
> 2012/2/6 Roarty, Francis X 
>
> I think one of the little sterling models would make an interesting
>> reactor platform where the Ni foam or skeletal cat is captive at the bottom
>> of the cylinder and the hydrogen gas is sealed inside like the Papp engine
>> – a sort of hybrid between only using exotic gases like Papp and the
>> present Rossi or Mills device using  pressurized gas with Ni powder or
>> skeletal cat. The shaft of the sterling engine would be externally driven
>> to vary the pressure and then measure the temp variation of the cooling
>> system. 
>>
>> Fran
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Alain Sepeda]

Interesting idea.
Maybe when we master the ignition condition we could do something like a
family "explosion engine",
based Piston technology.

I can anticipate the 2 mode of ignition :

- self ignition by pressure and temperature, like diesel
- triggered ignition by "catalyser" (RF, manetic field, chemical injection,
local temperature), like otto engine

however the speed of the cycle might be much slower that diesel/otto IC
engine
(few turns per minutes)

anyway maybe future LENr reactors will be very difefrents from now...

should tell defkalion and rossi 8-)


2012/2/6 Roarty, Francis X 

> I think one of the little sterling models would make an interesting
> reactor platform where the Ni foam or skeletal cat is captive at the bottom
> of the cylinder and the hydrogen gas is sealed inside like the Papp engine
> – a sort of hybrid between only using exotic gases like Papp and the
> present Rossi or Mills device using  pressurized gas with Ni powder or
> skeletal cat. The shaft of the sterling engine would be externally driven
> to vary the pressure and then measure the temp variation of the cooling
> system. 
>
> Fran
>

Re: [Vo]:Google insights seem to show waning interest for NET and W-L

[Harry Veeder]

google's Ngram analyzes all digitized material.

Interstingly the term 'cold fusion' actually goes back to the 1700s.
he references  identify a particular metalsmithing process.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cold+fusion&year_start=1750&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Idea: Using Stirling/turbine for car LENR Hybrid

[Yamali Yamali]

I'd use a variable blade, fixed throttle turbine - ideally without a condenser 
for space and weight reasons (although just 400C may be too wastefull in terms 
of water consumption - higher temperatures would be much better). Safety will 
be a problem. We have to keep exhaust temperatures well below 100C at any point 
touchable from the outside - so planing the expansion path would be tricky but 
probably not impossible within the boudaries of a standard footprint. It would 
have to be a serial hybrid, of course. Running such a slowly responding source 
directly would be ok for a locomotive that can just dump whatever heat it 
doesn't need through a chiney and doesn't have to stop at a red light every 
couple of seconds - but not with a car.
We built prototype hybrids with gas turbines more than a decade or so ago - so 
principally, yes, it would work. And it wouldn't even have to be significantly 
more expensive than a Chevy Volt (but we'd need a larger battery).
Despite all that, I don't see this technology in any car soon (provided it 
exists). In my daydreams I rather see it as a large scale, extremely cheap heat 
source that could make the energetic disadvantages of hydrogen disappear - and 
making a hydrogen car/plane/cement-factory/blast-furness/whatever is probably 
much easier to do than trying to cope with the disadvantages of a slow/low 
temperture heatsource directly.

Re: [Vo]:Google insights seem to show waning interest for NET and W-L

[Harry Veeder]

For a longer term perspective check google's Ngram which analyzes all
digitized material.

Interstingly the term 'cold fusion' actually goes back to the 1700s.
The early references show that it was used to identify a particular
metalsmithing process.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cold+fusion&year_start=1750&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3


Harry

[Vo]:Google insights seem to show waning interest for NET and W-L

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

For an interesting change of pace, try entering in a few other key
words, like "New Energy Times" and "Widom Larsen"

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=%22new%20energy%20times%22&cmpt=q

It would seem NET's 20 minutes of fame may be coming to a close. This
suggests to me that Mr.Krivit will need to find something else in
which to stir the pot with. I'm inclined to suspect stirring the pot
has become the only reporting behavior Mr. Krivit knows how to do in
order to remain noticed. This would especially be the case if Krivit's
hopes and dreams for landing the scoop of the century in regards to a
major Widom Larsen breakthrough (an exclusive scoop I suspect was
probably promised to him) continue to wane. Performing Google
statistics on "Widom Larsen" brings back a similar waning bump.

It would therefore not surprise me to see additional attack reporting
of the kind we've seen of Krivit's previous attempts to insinuate that
Rossi & Co is a fraud.

I still can't get over Krivit's attempt to ridicule Rossi as a muddled
thinker by quoting Andrea's s broken English verbatim, including all
of his inflections. IMHO, that was an incredibly stupid thing for
Krivit to have done. It was at that point that I lost all respect for
Krivit's ability to discern the motivations of others. IMHO, Krivit
needs to work on discerning his own motivations, because if he doesn't
have a handle on his own quirks, he will be incapable of discerning
the motivations of others. Until he does Krivit will constantly be in
danger of reflecting his own unrealized motivations onto the faces of
others.

Anything to stay noticed.

Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Jones Beene]

From: Roarty, Francis X 

 

*  I think one of the little sterling [Stirling] models would make an 
interesting reactor platform where the Ni foam or skeletal cat is captive at 
the bottom of the cylinder and the hydrogen gas is sealed inside like the Papp 
engine – a sort of hybrid between only using exotic gases like Papp and the 
present Rossi or Mills device using  pressurized gas with Ni powder or skeletal 
cat. 

 

Something like this, but not exactly - has been under discussion for a while in 
another context. It could possibly work with Ni-H as well, since the “trigger” 
temperature is achieved by gas compression during normal operation. This could 
work in what is known as the “double alpha” design, which has four pistons and 
forms what is essentially a complete loop. The single alpha configuration, nor 
the beta or gamma, probably would not work well, since the Carnot spread is 
narrow. 

 

In fact, this is close to what Papp should have done. As Fran will appreciate, 
the alpha design can provide what is high gas flow through Casimir cavities, 
when properly implemented. To the extent that the “T-effect” (excess heat from 
Ni-H) depends on cavity containment (even if that containment is only the first 
step in a two or three step thermal process) then this double alpha Stirling 
could be a preferred implementation over any other.

 

If he was not a con-man from the start, then Papp’s design would have benefited 
from rudimentary knowledge of the thermodynamics of heat engines– leading many 
to suspect outright fraud. Since he used no effective external heat sink at 
all, in the sense that his pistons were sealed - his engine could never have 
been very reliable. I suspect that it did work, barely, despite the idiotic 
design, but for what is a completely different rationale than what Papp thought 
was going on… Oh well, another nutty inventor bites the dust.

 

Figure 12.23 on the page below shows (almost) the proper type of Stirling 
engine component arrangement that I am talking about - the double alpha– which 
is the image with four double acting pistons (which would need to be connect 
mechanically on a single crankshaft but remain thermally isolated). The nickel 
- in the form of nickel sponge could serve as the four “regenerators” aka 
“recuperators” and any one of the four cylinders can serve as the heat sink. 
IOW - only one cylinder, the most forward-facing one in the car, needs to be 
water cooled using a radiator, as in the typical ICE - and the other three get 
progressively hotter in operation (with proper plumbing which is not shown) and 
those three would need to be made of ceramic or cermet to tolerate the heat. 

 

http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter12/chapter12.html

 

Jones

[Vo]:Stirling engine used as a reactor

[Roarty, Francis X]

I think one of the little sterling models would make an interesting reactor 
platform where the Ni foam or skeletal cat is captive at the bottom of the 
cylinder and the hydrogen gas is sealed inside like the Papp engine – a sort of 
hybrid between only using exotic gases like Papp and the present Rossi or Mills 
device using  pressurized gas with Ni powder or skeletal cat. The shaft of the 
sterling engine would be externally driven to vary the pressure and then 
measure the temp variation of the cooling system.
Fran

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Idea: Using Stirling/turbine for car LENR Hybrid

It seems logical that operators of vehicles that use LENR devices for power 
would need a radiator to condense the steam back into water.  The efficiency of 
the system is better with the low pressures achieved by condensing the steam 
and not many would want to have to refill the coolant as often as would be 
required to go long distances.  Also, if coolants other than water are used, it 
would be difficult to release them into the atmosphere.

A closed water system appears ideal and the LENR device could be running in 
idle when the vehicle is not in use to keep the water from freezing during cold 
periods since the cost of doing so would be negligible.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: mixent mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>>
To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sun, Feb 5, 2012 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Idea: Using Stirling/turbine for car LENR Hybrid

In reply to  Alain Sepeda's message of Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:39:01 +0100:

Hi,

[snip]

>for me it seems turbines are preferred, but the problem of radiators stay



I considered the option of not using a radiator at all, and just dumping the

spent steam into the environment. A quick back of the envelope calculation

reveals a (very rough) amount of water usage of 20 L / hr, which is not too much

to carry on board. A 40 L "gas tank" would hold enough water for about 2 hours,

after which it would need to be refilled with a garden hose. Any radiator used

would extend this.

(This assumes a high temp. of 400 ºC, and a Carnot efficiency of 57%).

Regards,



Robin van Spaandonk



http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma

[Nigel Dyer]

Rupert is an interesting guy.  I was lucky to have a couple of hours 
time with him in his book lined study last year, and then went for a 
walk across Hampstead Heath. That is clearly what talking with Rupert 
does to you.


The thing about people such as Rupert is that he does not let our 
current knowledge of science make him blind to the evidence that is out 
there that tells us that we still don't have a complete understanding of 
what is going on.  That is the problem that I have encountered when 
trying to discuss LENR with physicists, it is almost as if their 
subconcious refuses to allow them to see any evidence that contradicts 
their current scientific worldview.  From my experience it can take of 
the order of a year to 'convert' someone, and it is very easy for the 
process to get derailed along the way.


Of course it will get easier once more and more scientists come to see 
that LENR is for real, but there again, Rupert Sheldrake would say that, 
wouldn't he?


Nigel

On 06/02/2012 03:28, Harry Veeder wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion?newsfeed=true

Rupert Sheldrake: the 'heretic' at odds with scientific dogma

<<...he suggests, scientists are prone to "the recurrent fantasy of
omniscience". The science delusion, in these terms, consists in the
faith that we already understand the nature of reality, in principle,
and that all that is left to do is to fill in the details. "In this
book, I am just trying to blow the whistle on that attitude which I
think is bad for science," he says. In America, the book is called
Science Set Free, which he thinks is probably a better title. "They
were aware that if they called it The Science Delusion it would be
seen as a rightwing tract that was anti-evolution and anti-climate
change. And I want no part of that.">>

Harry