From: Peter Gluck
Both inventors- who have later worked with Americium, have died
due to leukemia. It was a tragedy- however no transmutation takes place,
sorry for that.
Yes too bad, and your report casts doubt on the GEC implementation (unless
the two died of neutron radiation unbeknownst - myeloid leukemia is a
symptom of same)
Other reports on the CG process have been favorable. Perhaps it gets back to
the issue of unreliability.
From: blaze spinnaker
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.
The GEC reactor, as I understand it - produces fast neutrons from LENR
reactions. So it is a hybrid of the two.
If that is true, then it could be very different from the Cincinnati group
technology. My apologies for the confusion, assuming this is true (and that
there really are fast neutrons in large enough amounts to be useful).
However, if fast neutrons are being produced - they would NOT need uranium
and all the baggage that goes with this element, both in terms of PR and
cost. Therefore, one has to doubt the veracity of some of the information
coming out.
Of course, GEC could use uranium anyway on a Navy base, despite the negative
features - and try to rationalize all the other objections, but no clever
nuclear engineer would do so unless there was a real imperative, given that
the cross-section of thorium for fast neutrons is about the same, and it is
cheaper and less toxic - and there are certainly better choices than either
for lower toxicity and compactness.
Jones
