You are going to also need some amazing shields to deal with 10,000 years of radioactive decay in just an hour.
Actually many problems exist if we assume an accelerated passage of time were possible, as the frequency of all radiation would be upshifted in frequency by the same amount! So you might just destroy the planet if you create 10,000 years worth of gamma radiation that now has an extremely upshifted frequency and energy And what about the particle decay which is now moving with such an energy? That's a bit problematical. John On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > > Jed, > > I do have a more imaginative solution for radioactive > waste, cycle it through a reactor that ages it 10,000 years relative to one > hour outside the reactor.. I think this sort of time dilation is going to > become a side effect of LENR that can be optimized. It occurs already > according to claims of anomalous decay in radioactive gases but such claims > are a passive effect of catalyst nano geometry, IMHO the claims by Shawyer > are more interesting, if correct and optimized it represents an active > system where we can combine microwave energy with macro scale geometry to > dilate larger regions..I suspect this is why Shawyer is presenting his > technology as being “relativistic” in nature. He is unbalancing the spatial > and temporal phase inside his trapezoid with standing waves relative to > outside his device such that any linked forces between these inertial > frames can transpose time for space and unbalance the equal and opposite > action – reactions. He is focused on thrust but at a root level he is > pushing or pulling between two slightly different phases of space-time to > create motion. This still all hangs precariously on the Naudts theory where > hydrogen ATOMS loaded into a catalyst sitting on a lab bench can be > considered relativistic – without near C spatial displacement – supposition > being that the region the atom travels thru is warped/negative gravity > well/depleted of virtual particle density just the opposite of the density > approaching C or sitting at the bottom of a large gravity well like a black > hole. > > Fran > > > > > > *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:40 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market > > > > Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > > > > $55 oil freaking out stock market, So is it really Saudi controlled to > bankrupt shale investors or is there some possible relationship to LENR? > > > > I do not think that cold fusion has played any role in this. It is caused > by fracking in the United States which has lowered the cost and increased > supplies of both oil and natural gas. > > > > The moment it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real and that it > is likely to be commercialized, the price of oil will fall to $10 a barrel. > That is approximately what it costs in Saudi Arabia, I believe. It will > never rise again. > > > > Eventually oil will fall to zero dollars per barrel, and then negative $10 > per barrel, when it is synthesized from garbage. That is to say, people > will pay you to take their garbage and others will pay you a little for the > oil, which will still be needed for plastic feedstock, lubrication and a > few other purposes. > > > > I hope that eventually people will synthesize teratons of oil from CO2, > and pump it back underground, where it belongs. This will reduce the carbon > concentration in the atmosphere and prevent global warming. We could pump > it underground or ship it off-Earth via a space elevator. If people on Mars > have no use for it we can dump it into the sun I suppose. That is what we > should do with all of the fission rad-waste left from today's nuclear > reactors. The notion that we have to bury that stuff underground here on > earth and protect it for the next 10,000 years strikes me as unimaginative. > It is silly. This is a problem we should leave to our great-grandchildren > to fix. They will be able to do it more easily than we can. It will be a > minor expense for them. Some problems are best left for posterity to fix. > > > > - Jed > > >
