Directed muon beam weapons

  • hes thought provoking and even a stopped clock is right twice a day, wishful physical thinking us why we are all here, the wish being that someone gets one , just one of these reactors outputting work. Do this? The whole world changes overnight. He doesn't seem to copy paste all that much to be frank and has some rather pertinent points. The runaway effect seen in some of these reactors for instance makes em weaponisable to some extent. And is a point few are willing to make, it takes allsorts in my opinion. His threads are always producing interesting discussion even when he is refuted. You are taking it all far too personally in my opinion. I'd rather get involved in a thread axil starts than delve into that Rossi darden clusterfuck about the heat exchanger, not a heat exchanger. Pages and pages of thermodynamic supposition about 1mw of heat that evidently was nowhere to be found!!!

  • ...personally ? In my opinion You are defending axil now, what I consider far more personally, than to accuse someone, which is constantly blating us, of that, what is obvious. Blating.


    Stop bickering. Axil is welcome to post here any time. I would add that his contributions are not required reading for you, or anybody, but often contain interesting insights. In contrast, your posts are always short and critical but seldom contain any content beyond an expression of your own prejudices.


    If you want to criticise someone, go do it in the 'Playground'. A post there MAY survive some moderator input, but it is not guaranteed.


    Consider yourself warned. Alan.

  • Dead Right.


    ITER - plant electrical requirement during plasma containment 510MW. Plant THERMAL output (anticipated) during plasma containment (30-40 secs) 500MW. Final cost (estimate) €30Bn.

    Fan Heater. Power input, 2kW electrical. Power output 2kW THERMAL. Cost (actual) €15.00.


    BUT...ITER is a fun physics experiment and provides much more employment than a solitary fan heater.

  • Of all the tech out there to secure an energy future? Thorium fluoride salt reactors are the clear winner. $30 bn on r and d in that field would be so much better spent rather than the ITER...which is physically interesting but the smelliest most overweight white elephant one could possibly conceive.

    You said no politics but physicists should vote thorium fluoride salt. Amazing tech and the story of its invention is up there with Rossi when it comes to pulling a sly one to get investment. Its developer conned the military into thinking it would be able to power an aircraft when he knew full well it wouldn't, had em going for years, long enough to produce an excellent near flawless prototype that can even consume and make safer existing nuclear waste from conventional reactors.

    Msr cold war era reactor as energy future

  • BUT...ITER is a fun physics experiment and provides much more employment than a solitary fan heater.

    It gives also food to many families, and not only to physicists.


    but real scientists are kids, and pre-school kids are good scientists.

    http://scienceillustrated.com.…rs-think-like-scientists/


    in fact some try to understand science, and science tragedies like LENR by separating scientist in 3 groupes:

    • those looking for power
    • those looking for a job
    • those looking for fun


    The first do politics and I accuse them to be caus eof current scientific catastrophe.

    The seconds are good for improvements, but very conservative and slow breakthrough, while supporting groupthink and pathological consensus.

    The thirds are doing science sometime if they are rigorous, this mean playing seriously with their expensive toys, and their complex math sudoku, but sometime they are simply in love with their theory forgetting reality, math, and their respective constraints.


    all that explains why science if difficult

  • Of all the tech out there to secure an energy future? Thorium fluoride salt reactors are the clear winner. $30 bn on r and d in that field would be so much better spent rather than the ITER...which is physically interesting but the smelliest most overweight white elephant one could possibly conceive.

    You said no politics but physicists should vote thorium fluoride salt. Amazing tech and the story of its invention is up there with Rossi when it comes to pulling a sly one to get investment. Its developer conned the military into thinking it would be able to power an aircraft when he knew full well it wouldn't, had em going for years, long enough to produce an excellent near flawless prototype that can even consume and make safer existing nuclear waste from conventional reactors.

    Msr cold war era reactor as energy future


    Actually this is a good reminder that there really are plausible alternatives to Hot fusion and LENR based technologies providing risk free energy easily for thousands of years. Mr Sorenson (Sörensen?) has done excellent job on keeping this alternative in talks (lots of easy to follow videos in his page and youtube) . I have read somewhere that India has programme to study also this alternative.

    Pumping molten salt is challenge already by itself, but i think biggest hurdle is that it is very aggressive stuff wearing pumps and pipes rather quickly. I'm wondering have anyone considered using ceramics coating in pump and pipe interiors and maybe cooling pump parts a bit from inside if needed?


  • Actually this is a good reminder that there really are plausible alternatives to Hot fusion and LENR based technologies providing risk free energy easily for thousands of years. Mr Sorenson (Sörensen?) has done excellent job on keeping this alternative in talks (lots of easy to follow videos in his page and youtube) . I have read somewhere that India has programme to study also this alternative.

    Pumping molten salt is challenge already by itself, but i think biggest hurdle is that it is very aggressive stuff wearing pumps and pipes rather quickly. I'm wondering have anyone considered using ceramics coating in pump and pipe interiors and maybe cooling pump parts a bit from inside if needed?


    There is a downside to everything including the thorium reactor. The proliferation rules enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency relegate thorium as a nuisance additive to a uranium reactor. U235 must generate the neutrons required to burn thorium and that U235 must be no more than 5% of the uranium fuel load. So the thorium reactor is mostly a uranium reactor that produces tons of plutonium as well as neptunium 237, another proliferation problem.

  • Axil, that interesting news. I have not too much knowledge in nuclear physics so no own opinion on this either.

    So you are saying that because of fuel components and byproducts it would be heavily regulated, but isn't that the case with fission energy?

    How about his claims that as opposite to traditional fission reactors, thorium reactor burns fuel more or less 'fully', since you don't need to take less active half-burnt fuel away but just 'enrich' it by adding new rich U235. Then less active fuel gradually more or less burns totally.

    Claim I think he had that this way we could get rid of plutonium and also other nc-waste in this reactor because it gets consumed same way? I think he claimed also that the end resulting waste components has max half time of 50 years or something (so after few hundreds of years all 'waste' could be buried into ground without worries?). Is this wrong assumption/message from him?

    Is Sorenson then, in your opinion, just optimistic salesman to sell expensive project to governments and forgetting nasty details?


    And Malcolm, yes I think that could work. I remember also Sorenson mentioned this when he was in free talk session with Canadian university students after his presentation. Or it was mentioned by some viewer in comments section of that video. I can't recall more in detail. Anyway starting that process would be bit tricky since salt must be hot enough to get pumped 8o


  • Claim I think he had that this way we could get rid of plutonium and also other nc-waste in this reactor because it gets consumed same way? I think he claimed also that the end resulting waste components has max half time of 50 years or something (so after few hundreds of years all 'waste' could be buried into ground without worries?). Is this wrong assumption/message from him?


    Burning Plutonium needs a very, very safe containment. Ask the people around the Fukushima. Reactor two was loaded with MOX to burn down Plutonium...


    Just to remind you any fission of heavy elements delivers a huge pile of radioactivity that lives for thousands to Millions of years -- just no fun!


    Thus promoting Thorium fission is outrageous in face of Fukushima.

  • Thorium could be burned directly using LENR and the muons that LENR produces. Place a LENR reactor (QuarkX cluster) inside a double walled cylinder with the outer cylinder filled with FilBe and thorium dissolved in it. The muons would fission thorium at very high temperatures without producing any transuranic problems.

  • Thorium could be burned directly using LENR and the muons that LENR produces. Place a LENR reactor (QuarkX cluster) inside a double walled cylinder with the outer cylinder filled with FilBe and thorium dissolved in it. The muons would fission thorium at very high temperatures without producing any transuranic problems.


    axil : Bla.. blaa di blalibla...


    Use "converting" Th into Y "instead of burning" for a better try! and tell us please into what it (Th) should transmute! Even better, write down the transmutation chain reaction.