What's interesting to me is that if this works, LENR isn't as important. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, blaze spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>wrote: > The Genie sounds like LENR after it's been accepted: > > 1. Our experiments are repeatable. > 2. Our experiments have been replicated by others. > 3. Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are > involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our > experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, > *the results are real*. > > http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> ** ** >> >> Curious detail in all of this Navy-gravy is worth a quick mention … since >> we are all concerned about getting LENR to market quickly… **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Who would have expected that Guam, of all places, would be benefiting >> from this breakthrough power source? Well … Navy Base Quam and an >> associated airfield are strategic locations for USN - and it is doubtful >> that there are adequate coconut hulls to supply all the energy needs: *** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> http://www.mvguam.com/local/news/22144-clean-nuclear-power-eyed.html**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Kinda reminds vorticians of those contracts for grid power that BLP >> signed with various New Mexico Utility providers four years ago … for >> Mills’ breakthrough power source… should I say: previous breakthrough power >> source? (the one following the Capstone breakthrough and preceding CIHT >> breakthrough, cough, cough)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Wonder how BLP is progressing with those highly publicized contracts, and >> how much lower the electric rates are in NM these days? After all, did not >> Randy say he could make electricity for one cent per kWhr?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Well geeze … the guy is still a veritable genius in my book, but he is >> more untrustworthy with his predictions than Rossi … or all the Hot Fusion >> advocates … oops … no, sorry… no one on this planet is more untrustworthy >> with predictions than the Hot Fusion establishment .**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Jones Beene **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Curious, that the Navy cites Mitchell Swartz’s applications (and Arata) >> as prior art – all of which have NOT been granted, and the Navy does NOT >> mention the one which they flagrantly copy. We need a massive overhaul of >> USPTO due to extreme incompetence.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> US Navy or not … this patent seems to be “borrowing” the prior art of the >> Cincinnati group: “Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing” – It is a bit >> irksome that the military gets a free ride from USPTO in many cases such as >> this. The Cincinnati process remediated (transmuted) thorium in an >> electrochemical process but they gave up trying to fight the patent office. >> **** >> >> >> US 20030201167 A1**** >> >> http://www.google.com/patents/US20030201167**** >> >> ** ** >> >> It is no wonder that Mitchell is bitter over his treatment by USPTO -- >> when several recent WPO patents have been granted which clearly mention >> LENR and would have been invalidated, had Mitchell’s prior applications >> been granted, as they should have been.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Jones**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Axil **** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919?dq=11/859,499&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A5rfUe70HMen4AO3yIFw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA >> **** >> >> **** >> >> This U.S. Navy patent transmutes radioactive elements into less harmful >> elements through a benign low energy nuclear reaction process. The patent >> was granted April 16, 2013 for a device and method that shortens the >> half-life of radioactive materials by increasing their rate of emissions. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> “Method and Apparatus for Generating Particles,” the content of which is >> fully incorporated by reference herein.**** >> >> **** >> >> BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION **** >> >> **** >> >> The embodiments of the invention relate generally to the field of >> electrochemistry.**** >> >> **** >> >> Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new >> elements, to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to >> create strategic materials.**** >> >> **** >> > >
