Thanks for the information George. As you know, there is little way to avoid "further speculation" in this group, but I am going to try to abstain, as it is probably counterproductive at this stage.
Jones -----Original Message----- From: George Holz Jones Beene wrote: [JB] There are some heavy hitters in DoE and the major Universities behind thorium as a replacement for uranium. But that is for use in an expensive breeding cycle which has most of the negatives of any fission scheme. [GH] The company behind the thorium + uranium cycle is Lightbridge. The improvements this fuel provides are very significant and solve many of the major problems with present reactors with just a change in the fuel rods. Read about the technology on their website. http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/designs [snip] [GH] At the risk of encouraging further speculation, here are some more details about the Cincinnati Group results. The device used zirconium electrodes and high current AC electrolysis resulting in both high temperature (280 F) and significant pressure ( 4 atm.) inside the bolted together mostly metal device. Extensive analysis work was done in several labs mostly by ICP/MS. The starting solution was thorium nitrate. The thorium was apparently transformed into titanium and copper with 10x as much titanium as copper. The isotopic ratios of both elements were very far from normal. Much information is available in IE Vol. 3 No. 13 & No. 14 double issue 1997. George Holz Varitronics Systems
