[Vo]:OFF TOPIC A 9-year-old girl changes national food policy with a blog
This could only happen in the Internet Age: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/neverseconds-shut-down/ More power to her. I wish the cold fusion researchers were 0.1% as media savvy as she is. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons
Good find - and the implications are a bit convoluted. The curious thing is that mirror matter neutrons (or deep hydrinos) will explain anomalous heat loss quite nicely. As you may remember, Ahern reported that some of his Arata-style samples demonstrated anomalous heat LOSS (more of the samples show gain than loss, and only a few showed nothing). This paper, in fact - could explain anomalous heat loss better than anything I have seen thus far. BTW the all of the nanopowder samples which showed thermal loss were made of nano-titanium embedded in zirconia. All of the nickel and palladium samples showed gain. Jones -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder What drives such theory making is the need to uphold CoE. Harry > Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? > > In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the > existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of > neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter > had been suggested in various scientific contexts some time ago, > including the search for suitable dark matter candidates. > > > http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html >
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons
What drives such theory making is the need to uphold CoE. Harry On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? > > In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the > existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of > neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter > had been suggested in various scientific contexts some time ago, > including the search for suitable dark matter candidates. > > > http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html >
[Vo]:Missing Neutrons
Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter had been suggested in various scientific contexts some time ago, including the search for suitable dark matter candidates. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
Start off with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle if you need more just ask. On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Robert Lynn wrote: > Interesting, can you point me to any sources that discuss those issues? > > > On 15 June 2012 21:11, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Details, details, details… >> >> There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with >> the LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of this >> technology. >> >> One of the most insidious is the desire of the LFTR advocacy crowd to >> require the use of 19.75% enriched U235 to perpetually provide the >> supplemental neutrons needed to keep the thorium fuel cycle critical. Even >> worst is the desire to use plutonium as the source of supplemental >> neutrons. You can build bombs with reactor grade Plutonium as demonstrated >> by some bomb tests in India and the USA. >> >> Then there is the need for U233 denaturing with U238 at a rate of 88%. >> This produces lots of plutonium which is always a proliferation risk. >> >> The only way to get a PURE thorium fuel cycle is to use hot fusion is >> some way in a hybrid to eliminate the need for uranium235 and plutonium. >> But the LFTR advocates say that fusion is not viable. >> >> So currently a LFTR with a PURE thorium fuel cycle is a fantasy. >> >> >> Cheers: Axil >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Robert Lynn < >> robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night > meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power. > This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. >>> >>> 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than >>> a conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm >>> there is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under >>> every square meter of the earth's crust. Thorium deposits are of course >>> far more concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure >>> needed to produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the >>> thorium itself is benign enough to delivered by a postman. LTFR waste >>> decays below natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years. >>> >>> 2/ You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment. > Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction > needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the > bad weather is infrequent. > That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment. >>> >>> The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that >>> it can't be made much lighter to reduce costs. Each m² contains 10's of kg >>> of expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints, >>> concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat >>> piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over >>> the year. All that material content and its processing is a large part of >>> the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate >>> capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity >>> per year. >>> >>> >>> > 3/ The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and > existing grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections. > That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to hook up. That's why they put it there. Solar is more flexible than wind. Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need much power on rainy days. > 4/ There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat > energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably > LENR, maybe hot fusion). > Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap because the power companies do not pay for the 20,000 they murder every year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP. >>> >>> That is ridiculous,
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
Interesting, can you point me to any sources that discuss those issues? On 15 June 2012 21:11, Axil Axil wrote: > Details, details, details… > > There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with > the LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of this > technology. > > One of the most insidious is the desire of the LFTR advocacy crowd to > require the use of 19.75% enriched U235 to perpetually provide the > supplemental neutrons needed to keep the thorium fuel cycle critical. Even > worst is the desire to use plutonium as the source of supplemental > neutrons. You can build bombs with reactor grade Plutonium as demonstrated > by some bomb tests in India and the USA. > > Then there is the need for U233 denaturing with U238 at a rate of 88%. > This produces lots of plutonium which is always a proliferation risk. > > The only way to get a PURE thorium fuel cycle is to use hot fusion is some > way in a hybrid to eliminate the need for uranium235 and plutonium. But the > LFTR advocates say that fusion is not viable. > > So currently a LFTR with a PURE thorium fuel cycle is a fantasy. > > > Cheers: Axil > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Robert Lynn < > robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> 1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power. >>> >>> This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better >>> than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed >>> for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. >>> >> >> 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than >> a conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm >> there is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under >> every square meter of the earth's crust. Thorium deposits are of course >> far more concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure >> needed to produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the >> thorium itself is benign enough to delivered by a postman. LTFR waste >> decays below natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years. >> >> >>> 2/ You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment. Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the bad weather is infrequent. >>> >>> That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ >>> installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment. >>> >> >> The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it >> can't be made much lighter to reduce costs. Each m² contains 10's of kg of >> expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints, >> concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat >> piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over >> the year. All that material content and its processing is a large part of >> the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate >> capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity >> per year. >> >> >> >>> >>> 3/ The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections. >>> >>> That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with >>> solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds >>> of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more >>> peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high >>> voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to >>> hook up. That's why they put it there. >>> >>> Solar is more flexible than wind. >>> >>> Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who >>> will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the >>> U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these >>> days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need >>> much power on rainy days. >>> >>> 4/ There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably LENR, maybe hot fusion). >>> >>> Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap >>> because the power companies do not pay for the 20,000 they murder every >>> year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those >>> costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP. >>> >> >> That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the >> fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher >> salaries for dangerous jobs etc. But there are different standards in the >> West to the developing world where most of those dea
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
Details, details, details… There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with the LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of this technology. One of the most insidious is the desire of the LFTR advocacy crowd to require the use of 19.75% enriched U235 to perpetually provide the supplemental neutrons needed to keep the thorium fuel cycle critical. Even worst is the desire to use plutonium as the source of supplemental neutrons. You can build bombs with reactor grade Plutonium as demonstrated by some bomb tests in India and the USA. Then there is the need for U233 denaturing with U238 at a rate of 88%. This produces lots of plutonium which is always a proliferation risk. The only way to get a PURE thorium fuel cycle is to use hot fusion is some way in a hybrid to eliminate the need for uranium235 and plutonium. But the LFTR advocates say that fusion is not viable. So currently a LFTR with a PURE thorium fuel cycle is a fantasy. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Robert Lynn wrote: > >> 1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night >>> meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power. >>> >> >> This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better >> than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed >> for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. >> > > 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than a > conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm there > is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under every > square meter of the earth's crust. Thorium deposits are of course far more > concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure needed to > produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the thorium itself > is benign enough to delivered by a postman. LTFR waste decays below > natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years. > > >> 2/ You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment. >>> Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction >>> needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the >>> bad weather is infrequent. >>> >> >> That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ >> installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment. >> > > The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it > can't be made much lighter to reduce costs. Each m² contains 10's of kg of > expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints, > concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat > piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over > the year. All that material content and its processing is a large part of > the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate > capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity > per year. > > > >> >> >>> 3/ The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and >>> existing grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections. >>> >> >> That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with >> solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds >> of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more >> peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high >> voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to >> hook up. That's why they put it there. >> >> Solar is more flexible than wind. >> >> Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who >> will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the >> U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these >> days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need >> much power on rainy days. >> >> >>> 4/ There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat >>> energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably >>> LENR, maybe hot fusion). >>> >> >> Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap >> because the power companies do not pay for the 20,000 they murder every >> year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those >> costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP. >> > > That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the > fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher > salaries for dangerous jobs etc. But there are different standards in the > West to the developing world where most of those deaths occur as life is > not valued so highly. Coal is 15 deaths per TWh in USA, but almost 300 in > China. Gas is just 4 per TWh worldwide (1 TWh is worth about $200 million > at retail level). > > Nuclear is in global terms still extremely safe even after Fukushima and >
RE: [Vo]:FYI: ZPF-inertia work applied to subatomic particles; spatial harmonic resonances
Hi Fran. What I like about their work, especially the recent stuff, is that it is based on a physical model.. a physical reality, and not just abstract math. Clarification please, you wrote: ".such that the effects of the equal and opposite zones are prevented from cancelling." R U referring here to a polarization of the vacuum as well, creating a dipole of some sort? And this: "It's all about the segregation of these 'spacetime micro-curvature effects' mentioned by Nickisch and Mollere." Again, segregation would imply a separation or concentration of into a nonhomogenous state, at least at a microscopic/nanoscopic level. In my visual model, this separation then sets up local 'fields' which impart forces onto subatomic particles. At a large scale these fields manifest as the electric and magnetic fields. Again, I feel strongly that we could easily come up with better models if we started from scratch and only considered models which incorporated some physical reality to them. I recently posted a msg to the Collective on just such a model which is very similar to mine, but which has been developed and more importantly described, to a much greater extent. It is still basically a qualitative model, but at least it explains numerous phenomena with a logical physical model; physical entities: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66212.html http://cordus.wordpress.com/ For you theoretical types, I think it's worth the read. -Mark From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 6:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:FYI: ZPF-inertia work applied to subatomic particles; spatial harmonic resonances Mark, Nice choice of citations, I believe Haisch and Rueda got it right but the connection drawn by Nickisch and Mollere (2002): zero-point fluctuations give rise to spacetime micro-curvature effects yielding the origin of inertia could, in fact should have gone further.. I think the wormholes described at the quantum foam level can be responsible for most of the anomalous claims we are discussing on vortex, from superconductivity to modification of decay rates, Casimir effect and unexplained spectrum shifts. What we call isotropic space time is only a macro effect that can actually be segregated to different levels by matter and geometry - not giving anything for nothing but isolating equal and opposing regions of space time that average out to what we consider isotropic - the Nature paper indicates the space-time is modified by the lattice but I would posit the material exposed to these regions must be chosen to have a biased preference for one geometry over another such that the effects of the equal and opposite zones are prevented from cancelling and we get these opposing claims of decay modification from different researches using different lattices or gases. I posit the lattice equates to the Haisch Rueda abstract .[snip] in accelerated reference frames results in a force that appears to account for inertia [/snip] but, velocity relative to a perpendicular ether isn't needed - instead the "equivalent" velocity of the ether we perceive as C is directly modified through suppression [taken to extreme Casimir effect] and results in a much simpler way to modify the Pythagorean relationship between V and C .. In a Puthoff atomic model I think this "standard" relationship between matter and C is what establishes the periodic relationship of elements. This is why this paper in Nature needs the lattice to create both heavy and speedy electrons and why Rossi and Mills need the lattice to create relativistic hydrogen [call them hydrinos or inverse Rydberg hydrogen no matter] - It's all about the segregation of these "spacetime micro-curvature effects" mentioned by Nickisch and Mollere. - I think we are at a PV/T moment where time is going to be exposed as the hidden variable to be manipulated only instead of air conditioners this may yield free energy, propulsion and even the possibility of temporal effects at the macroscale. Regards Fran From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:47 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:FYI: ZPF-inertia work applied to subatomic particles; spatial harmonic resonances When I lived in SoCal I visited Dr. Rueda several times to discuss his work on inertia and the electromagnetic zero-point field. their seminal paper came out in 1994. Dr. Rueda did the math in that paper, which is way above my pay-grade! I now see that they've been applying their work to atomic physics. Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0209016.pdf Abstract A possible connection between the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and inertia was first published by
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
Robert Lynn wrote: > 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than a > conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm there > is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column . . . > Yes, thorium does have higher overall energy density. I was talking about uranium. Also I meant uranium which is not used in a breeder reactor. The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it > can't be made much lighter to reduce costs. > CSP mirrors are much lighter than they were 30 years ago, and they use much less materials. Most of the equipment is now in the tower. > Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap >> because the power companies do not pay for the 20,000 they murder every >> year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those >> costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP. >> > > That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the > fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher > salaries for dangerous jobs etc. > The coal industry pays NOTHING for the 20,000 people it kills. Not one dime. I guess they have have to pay expensive lawyers to fight periodic lawsuits, and of course they have pay for the Member of Congress they have bribed, but those are trifling expenses compared to what an industry would pay if it killed 20,000 urban middle class or wealthy people. You can kill off as many rural poor people as you like. It is always open season for them. As for nuclear power, it is never covered by insurance. Only governments cover it. See the Price-Anderson act. They have a similar arrangement in Japan. There is no way TEPCO will ever begin to pay the cost of the Fukushima accident. It would bankrupt them a dozen times over. ~90,000 people have lost their houses, schools, factories, town halls, roads and livelihoods, which in the aggregate costs millions of dollars per person. TEPCO has offered them $16,000 per family. Coal is 15 deaths per TWh in USA, but almost 300 in China. > Coal costs far more deaths than that in the U.S., according to the EPA. That is just the direct cost of accidents and mining. Coal smoke kills far more people. As I said, the power companies pay a few lawyers and buy off members of Congress, in return for a license to commit mayhem and murder. Nuclear is in global terms still extremely safe even after Fukushima and > Chernobyl, and will be very cheap once perfected . . . > It is not close to being perfected after 60 years. There is no chance it will be now. The Japanese are shutting down the entire industry. I expect other countries will follow. It is possible that one or two nukes will open this summer and next year, in the Osaka area. After that, I predict that all 54 plants will be closed permanently. Perhaps it is unwise to precipitously abandon nuclear power, but Japan is a democracy and the voters have spoken. If an MP were to suggest they should continue using nuclear power, he would lose the election by a landslide. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
Chemical Engineer wrote: > This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better >> than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed >> for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. >> >> That is terrible power density. > No, it isn't. As I showed in subsequent messages, a 1,600 acre strip mine producing power at this rate would only last 30 years. This will last indefinitely. > If you are going to use railroads & mines you need to take into account > mining and transportation for glass and rare earths used in csp and pv. > The mass of those materials is less than one trainload of coal for a typical plant. Trains are dispatched to a coal plant weekly for the entire time it is in operation. The total amount of mass that is processed is many orders of magnitude greater than for CSP. > You also need to take into account all of the fossil fuels required to > clean millions of mirrors you are talking about. > It does not take fossil fuels. This can be done with electrically powered robotic equipment, powered by the CSP itself. The energy overhead is very small. > Luz installations require frequent washing and blowdown in the middle of > the desert! Where/how are you getting that water? > As shown in the documentation it takes very little water to clean them. In this case, all of the water they need is available in the 1,600 acre lot. Again, it takes many orders of magnitude less water than a conventional coal steam plant. Last time i looked i did not see alot of existing high voltage transmission > lines running through the mohave and sahara... > Look at the photos of this site and you will see they chose it because it has high voltage lines nearby. > That price does not include the cost of the land that is destroyed by >> fraking. Add that in and we are paying a fortune and destroying our living >> space, our wildlife and our future. >> > > But you are OK filling up the Mohave with solar panels, washing vehicles > and transmission lines and irrigation lines? > Absolutely I am! It is infinitely better than killing 20,000 people a year, or causing global warming. Every technology requires a trade off. This one is reasonable. > Killing thousands of birds with thousands of megawatts of concentrated > flux. Crushing tortoises, etc > Strip mining kills far more wildlife than this will. The smoke from coal kills millions of birds. In any case, it is better than killing people or causing global warming. > Yes CSP does cost more. $2.2B for 392 MW at Ivanpah is a taxpayer and > consumer rip-off. That is 4-5 times the cost of a gas turbine plant. > 1. It will cost far less if it is scaled up and mass produced. Mirrors are cheap. The materials are abundant. 2. The cost of a gas turbine plant, if you factor in global warming, would be incalculable. It might cause the extinction of millions of species, and kill billions of people. No one knows how bad it might get. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
> > > 1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night >> meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power. >> > > This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better > than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed > for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. > 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than a conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm there is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under every square meter of the earth's crust. Thorium deposits are of course far more concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure needed to produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the thorium itself is benign enough to delivered by a postman. LTFR waste decays below natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years. > 2/ You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment. Hail, >> snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction needs to >> be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the bad >> weather is infrequent. >> > > That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ > installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment. > The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it can't be made much lighter to reduce costs. Each m² contains 10's of kg of expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints, concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over the year. All that material content and its processing is a large part of the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity per year. > > >> 3/ The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing >> grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections. >> > > That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with > solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds > of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more > peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high > voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to > hook up. That's why they put it there. > > Solar is more flexible than wind. > > Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who > will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the > U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these > days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need > much power on rainy days. > > >> 4/ There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat >> energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably >> LENR, maybe hot fusion). >> > > Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap > because the power companies do not pay for the 20,000 they murder every > year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those > costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP. > That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher salaries for dangerous jobs etc. But there are different standards in the West to the developing world where most of those deaths occur as life is not valued so highly. Coal is 15 deaths per TWh in USA, but almost 300 in China. Gas is just 4 per TWh worldwide (1 TWh is worth about $200 million at retail level). Nuclear is in global terms still extremely safe even after Fukushima and Chernobyl, and will be very cheap once perfected, but we are not there yet. The global nuclear plant development hiatus of the last 30 years hurt, and antiquated plants like fukushima have to go, but new build nuclear is <$2000/kW in China (targeting $1000/kW) and much much safer, with tiny fuel and operations costs. However it is still only a stop-gap until breeder reactors are developed to reduce waste and Thorium in particular offers huge gains in safety, waste minimisation and fuel efficiency that will all lead to big cost savings. If you are willing to assume favourable learning curves for CSP then you should be willing to do the same for nuclear. Without wanting to open another can of worms, not a whole lot of warming apparent in last 15 years, and falling rate of sea level rise since 2006. While the earth warmed in the 20th century and it seems most likely CO2 had some positive effect, the IPCC's assumed high positive H20 feedbacks were ill-founded and are now being steadily revised downwards. Even their "best-case" model predictions from 10 years ago have now been shown to be excessively pessimistic. Seems very likely that CO2
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
On Friday, June 15, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Robert Lynn wrote: > > >> 1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night >> meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power. >> > > This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better > than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed > for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. > > That is terrible power density. If you are going to use railroads & mines you need to take into account mining and transportation for glass and rare earths used in csp and pv. You also need to take into account all of the fossil fuels required to clean millions of mirrors you are talking about. Luz installations require frequent washing and blowdown in the middle of the desert! Where/how are you getting that water? > > >> 2/ You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment. >> Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction >> needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the >> bad weather is infrequent. >> > > That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ > installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment. > > The luz installtions are troughs which have a much smaller wind profile than a flat mirror when operating. Troughs only reflect the light 10 feet to a receiver. Flat mirrors have to point and hit something a 1/4 of a mile away, which is nearly impossible in wind. > > >> 3/ The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing >> grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections. >> > > That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with > solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds > of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more > peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high > voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to > hook up. That's why they put it there. > Last time i looked i did not see alot of existing high voltage transmission lines running through the mohave and sahara... > > Solar is more flexible than wind. > > Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who > will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the > U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these > days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need > much power on rainy days. > > I am ok with distributed pv and solar hot water heaters where it makes more sense 4/ There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat >> energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably >> LENR, maybe hot fusion). >> > > Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap > because the power companies do not pay for the 20,000 they murder every > year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those > costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP. > > > >> Given massive availability of shale gas produced electricity at >> $0.04-0.06/kWh (currently <$0.04/kWh in USA due to extremely low gas price) >> . . . >> > > That price does not include the cost of the land that is destroyed by > fraking. Add that in and we are paying a fortune and destroying our living > space, our wildlife and our future. > But you are OK filling up the Mohave with solar panels, washing vehicles and transmission lines and irrigation lines? Killing thousands of birds with thousands of megawatts of concentrated flux. Crushing tortoises, etc > > If you burn the furniture in your house in winter to keep warm, you can > live cheaply for a month. Then what do you do? After we destroy large parts > of New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where will we live? What will > we eat? > Wood/biomass is a renewable resource. You cut more wood/make more furniture in the summer. I grew up in Maine, I know these things > > > >> and the best CSP running along at $0.2-0.3/kWh, there is just no >> foreseeable technology path that can bring the CSP cost down by a factor of >> 4 to compete with gas and (eventually) nuclear. >> > > That's absurd. What is so expensive about making mirrors? Do you think > they cost far more than gas turbines? And what do you think coal > electricity would cost if 20,000 families every years successfully sued > them for murdering their fathers and mothers? As I said here before, if the > airlines killed 20,000 people in one year, the entire aviation industry > would be closed down, and we would soon have high speed trains instead. The > only reason that does not happen with coal fired electricity is because the > victims are poor people living downwind of the generators. They do not vote > and they cannot afford to file suits, so you can kill them off with > impunity. No one but his family gives
Re: [Vo]:CSP solar power density is high compared to a strip mine
I meant to say I am sure a 1,600 acre strip mine would NOT produce 110 MW continuously for a century. I did a rough estimate here which bears that out. The strip mine will last 10 to 30 years at best. After the strip mine is closed down it will be a toxic wasteland, whereas after the CPS is closed down it will be exactly the same as it was before. Uranium mines are no better. It is a myth the fission power plants are compact. That is only true if you fail to account for 99% of the space the fission system as a whole takes up. The fission plant itself is compact, but the rest of the system takes up lots of space. When it explodes from hydrogen the way the Fukushima plants did, it suddenly takes up the land that 90,000 people lived on, a significant fraction of all the land in Japan. To say that coal or fission takes up little space compared to solar or wind is a lot like saying that cars take up little space. Your car, sitting in your driveway takes up only a little space. The roads needed to make your car into a useful transportation system take up more land area than the entire state of Georgia. - Jed
[Vo]:CSP solar power density is high compared to a strip mine
I wrote: > This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better > than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed > for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. > I do not know how much coal a 1,600 acre strip mine would produce, but I am sure it would produce 110 MW continuously for, let us say, 100 years. Whereas the land devoted to the CSP will continue to produce 110 MW for the next several billion years. To say this power density or energy density is low is ridiculous. Here is a source that claims that it generally takes about 314.1 acres to produce a million tons of coal: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_footprint_of_coal#National_estimate_for_U.S._.28excluding_Wyoming.29:_314.1_acres_per_million_tons I assume those are U.S. tons. Various sources claim that coal has 15 to 20 million BTU per ton, depending on the type of coal. Roughly 35% converts to electricity with a modern plant, so that's around 7 million BTU. That's 7,385 MJ per ton, or 2.05 megawatt hours. That is electricity, after you burn the coal. Okay, so we have 1,600 acres. If that was an average strip mine it would produce 5.09 million tons before it is played out. That is 10.4 million MWH of electricity. The 110 MW CSP solar plant produces that much in . . . 94,932 hours of operation. Daylight peak hours, that is. That is 3,956 days. Or 11 years. Of course the solar plant does not produce power 24 hours a day, but we do not need power 24 hours a day either. A coal fired plant is not needed 24 hours a day at full power. Or if it is used for baseline generation, that means a gas-fired plant somewhere is shut down at night. You still have to pay for the gas turbine equipment, even though you do not use it at night. The bank charges interest 24 hours a day. Assuming the CSP produces 1/3 of peak power on average, that means the 1,600 acre installation will produce as much power as a 1,600 acre strip mine every 33 years. After 330 years it has produces 10 times better energy density than the strip mine, and far better power density. You can use it indefinitely, millions or billions of years into the future, and it will still be producing 110 MW. I have not even added in the space taken by the railroads needed to transport the coal. I have not added in the living space destroyed by rising ocean waters from global warming. Or the extra space devoted to high tension power lines and the cost of wasted electricity caused by the fact that you have to put coal fired plants far from cities, so you do not kill off rich people, whereas you can put a CSP right next to a population center in a place like Nevada. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
Robert Lynn wrote: > 1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night > meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power. > This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel. > 2/ You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment. Hail, > snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction needs to > be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the bad > weather is infrequent. > That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment. > 3/ The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing > grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections. > That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to hook up. That's why they put it there. Solar is more flexible than wind. Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need much power on rainy days. > 4/ There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat > energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably > LENR, maybe hot fusion). > Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap because the power companies do not pay for the 20,000 they murder every year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP. > Given massive availability of shale gas produced electricity at > $0.04-0.06/kWh (currently <$0.04/kWh in USA due to extremely low gas price) > . . . > That price does not include the cost of the land that is destroyed by fraking. Add that in and we are paying a fortune and destroying our living space, our wildlife and our future. If you burn the furniture in your house in winter to keep warm, you can live cheaply for a month. Then what do you do? After we destroy large parts of New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where will we live? What will we eat? > and the best CSP running along at $0.2-0.3/kWh, there is just no > foreseeable technology path that can bring the CSP cost down by a factor of > 4 to compete with gas and (eventually) nuclear. > That's absurd. What is so expensive about making mirrors? Do you think they cost far more than gas turbines? And what do you think coal electricity would cost if 20,000 families every years successfully sued them for murdering their fathers and mothers? As I said here before, if the airlines killed 20,000 people in one year, the entire aviation industry would be closed down, and we would soon have high speed trains instead. The only reason that does not happen with coal fired electricity is because the victims are poor people living downwind of the generators. They do not vote and they cannot afford to file suits, so you can kill them off with impunity. No one but his family gives a damn when a poor person dies at age 60 instead of 70 or 80. This is not because power companies are particularly evil. If Delta Airlines could get away with murdering 20,000 passengers to make the same kind of money the power companies do, I am sure they would do it. The tobacco companies kill of hundreds of thousands of people with impunity. As long as society lets corporations or individuals massacre people for profit, they will do it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:FYI: ZPF-inertia work applied to subatomic particles; spatial harmonic resonances
Mark, Nice choice of citations, I believe Haisch and Rueda got it right but the connection drawn by Nickisch and Mollere (2002): zero-point fluctuations give rise to spacetime micro-curvature effects yielding the origin of inertia could, in fact should have gone further I think the wormholes described at the quantum foam level can be responsible for most of the anomalous claims we are discussing on vortex, from superconductivity to modification of decay rates, Casimir effect and unexplained spectrum shifts. What we call isotropic space time is only a macro effect that can actually be segregated to different levels by matter and geometry - not giving anything for nothing but isolating equal and opposing regions of space time that average out to what we consider isotropic - the Nature paper indicates the space-time is modified by the lattice but I would posit the material exposed to these regions must be chosen to have a biased preference for one geometry over another such that the effects of the equal and opposite zones are prevented from cancelling and we get these opposing claims of decay modification from different researches using different lattices or gases. I posit the lattice equates to the Haisch Rueda abstract ...[snip] in accelerated reference frames results in a force that appears to account for inertia [/snip] but, velocity relative to a perpendicular ether isn't needed - instead the "equivalent" velocity of the ether we perceive as C is directly modified through suppression [taken to extreme Casimir effect] and results in a much simpler way to modify the Pythagorean relationship between V and C In a Puthoff atomic model I think this "standard" relationship between matter and C is what establishes the periodic relationship of elements. This is why this paper in Nature needs the lattice to create both heavy and speedy electrons and why Rossi and Mills need the lattice to create relativistic hydrogen [call them hydrinos or inverse Rydberg hydrogen no matter] - It's all about the segregation of these "spacetime micro-curvature effects" mentioned by Nickisch and Mollere. - I think we are at a PV/T moment where time is going to be exposed as the hidden variable to be manipulated only instead of air conditioners this may yield free energy, propulsion and even the possibility of temporal effects at the macroscale. Regards Fran From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:47 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:FYI: ZPF-inertia work applied to subatomic particles; spatial harmonic resonances When I lived in SoCal I visited Dr. Rueda several times to discuss his work on inertia and the electromagnetic zero-point field... their seminal paper came out in 1994. Dr. Rueda did the math in that paper, which is way above my pay-grade! I now see that they've been applying their work to atomic physics... Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0209016.pdf Abstract A possible connection between the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and inertia was first published by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994). If correct, this would imply that mass may be an electromagnetic phenomenon and thus in principle subject to modification, with possible technological implications for propulsion. A multiyear NASA-funded study at the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center further developed this concept, resulting in an independent theoretical validation of the fundamental approach (Rueda and Haisch, 1998ab). Distortion of the quantum vacuum in accelerated reference frames results in a force that appears to account for inertia. We have now shown that the same effect occurs in a region of curved spacetime, thus elucidating the origin of the principle of equivalence (Rueda, Haisch and Tung, 2001). [ I separated out the rest of the abstract for emphasis ] A further connection with general relativity has b een drawn by Nickisch and Mollere (2002): zero-point fluctuations give rise to spacetime micro-curvature effects yielding a complementary perspective on the origin of inertia. Numerical simulations of this effect demonstrate the manner in which a massless fundamental particle, e.g. an electron, acquires inertial properties; this also shows the apparent origin of particle spin along lines originally proposed by Schrodinger. Finally, we suggest that the heavier leptons (muon and tau) may be explainable as spatial-harmonic resonances of the (fundamental) electron. They would carry the same overall charge, but with the charge now having spatially lobed structure, each lobe of which would respond to higher frequency components of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum, thereby increasing the inertia and thus manifesting a heavier mass. And in another paper
[Vo]:Baking Soda Cancer Therapy?
UA Biomedical Engineers Find New Test for Effectiveness of Baking Soda Cancer Therapy Prof. Mark "Marty" Pagel has received a 2M$ grant from NIH. http://www.engineering.arizona.edu/news/story.php?id=429 mic
[Vo]:Possible news on Defkalion GT
Hello group, I was skimming through several recent links on LENR-related news entries/blog posts, when I found this on PESN: http://pesn.com/2012/06/06/9602103_Why_doesnt_Utah_media_cover_latest_cold_fusion_developments/ I'm referring to this excerpt in particular: Exhibit 4 Defkalion, of Greece, as a spin-off from Rossi, is also nearing the market. They recently completed a month of third party testing by at least seven different groups interested in licensing the technology for manufacturing. The results are expected to be published in August in conjunction with a major European trade show. We already know that Defkalion GT will be attending ICCF17 this August in South Korea to make presentations on an early prototype LENR reactor (supposedly the model tested earlier this year) and future prospects [1]. But what would the "European trade show" in August be? Any ideas? Cheers, S.A. [1] http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/upcoming.html
[Vo]:FYI: ZPF-inertia work applied to subatomic particles; spatial harmonic resonances
When I lived in SoCal I visited Dr. Rueda several times to discuss his work on inertia and the electromagnetic zero-point field. their seminal paper came out in 1994. Dr. Rueda did the math in that paper, which is way above my pay-grade! I now see that they've been applying their work to atomic physics. Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0209016.pdf Abstract A possible connection between the electromagnetic quantum vacuum and inertia was first published by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994). If correct, this would imply that mass may be an electromagnetic phenomenon and thus in principle subject to modification, with possible technological implications for propulsion. A multiyear NASA-funded study at the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center further developed this concept, resulting in an independent theoretical validation of the fundamental approach (Rueda and Haisch, 1998ab). Distortion of the quantum vacuum in accelerated reference frames results in a force that appears to account for inertia. We have now shown that the same effect occurs in a region of curved spacetime, thus elucidating the origin of the principle of equivalence (Rueda, Haisch and Tung, 2001). [ I separated out the rest of the abstract for emphasis ] A further connection with general relativity has been drawn by Nickisch and Mollere (2002): zero-point fluctuations give rise to spacetime micro-curvature effects yielding a complementary perspective on the origin of inertia. Numerical simulations of this effect demonstrate the manner in which a massless fundamental particle, e.g. an electron, acquires inertial properties; this also shows the apparent origin of particle spin along lines originally proposed by Schrodinger. Finally, we suggest that the heavier leptons (muon and tau) may be explainable as spatial-harmonic resonances of the (fundamental) electron. They would carry the same overall charge, but with the charge now having spatially lobed structure, each lobe of which would respond to higher frequency components of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum, thereby increasing the inertia and thus manifesting a heavier mass. And in another paper at arXiv, I believe they incorporate a polarizable vacuum: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0504061.pdf Makes me seriously regret not having the math skills to express my qualitative models quantitatively. G'nite all. -Mark
[Vo]:FYI: Majorana modes materialize.
Tried to send several FYIs yesterday eve, but they kept bouncing. here is one more. Majorana modes materialize. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486195a.html -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project
> > There is no technical reason why CSP cannot become competitive with other > technologies, especially if you factor in the cost in lives, health, and > global warming from the alternatives such as coal and natural gas from > fracking. Of course it is not competitive now. If I had a cold fusion > generator right now, you can be darn sure it would be hundreds or perhaps > thousands of times more expensive per watt than any alternative. The first > 100,000 cold fusion power reactors will be far more expensive than any > other kind. The first computers cost way more than mechanical calculating > machines. Some of the first transistors cost $17 and they > replaced vacuum tubes costing a nickel each. That comparison misses the > point. It was obvious that transistors would soon get cheaper. Granted, not > many people realized they would someday cost a millionth of of a penny, but > it was clear there was "plenty of room at the bottom" (Feynman). > > - Jed > I would dispute that. There is are very strong technical reasons why it can't become competitive with other technologies: 1/ The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power. 2/ You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment. Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the bad weather is infrequent. Occasional cleaning and other maintenance will still be required. 3/ The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections. 4/ There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably LENR, maybe hot fusion). Given massive availability of shale gas produced electricity at $0.04-0.06/kWh (currently <$0.04/kWh in USA due to extremely low gas price) and the best CSP running along at $0.2-0.3/kWh, there is just no foreseeable technology path that can bring the CSP cost down by a factor of 4 to compete with gas and (eventually) nuclear. Rooftop PV can compete because it can avoid paying for the grid and distribution costs that dominate domestic electricity costs but CSP currently only works in scales too large for urban sites (excepting very expensive dish stirling).
