Does LENR scale well?

  • Hi,


    I've been interested in whether LENR scales well for large scale energy production. This seems to be the only area government and other large-scale entities are interested in. As it seems, LENR, doesn't seem to scale well, and hence the lack of interest of government agencies or in general about it. Any ideas or thoughts about LENR and scaling for multi megawatt or even gigawatt energy production?

  • As it seems, LENR, doesn't seem to scale well, and hence the lack of interest of government agencies or in general about it.

    Every indication is that LENR will scale well. It has produced temperatures and power density equivalent to fission reactor fuel pellet, which is enough for any application short of earth-to-orbit spacecraft. See the video and script here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618


    If government agencies believed cold fusion is real, they would develop it even if it were not suitable for a broad range of applications. For example, if it could only be used to produce low level heat for space heating, it would still be worth billions of dollars. Space heating is 42% of the energy used in houses:


    https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl….cfm?page=us_energy_homes


    Government agencies do not believe cold fusion exists because of academic politics. Major institutions such as the DoE and Nature magazine, and many others, denounced it. The public at large and decision makers believe it was never replicated. You can see examples of the attacks against it and the lies about it at Wikipedia, or in the crackpot attacks against it in this forum by Shanahan and Mary Yugo (who claims she has read nothing but she knows it is wrong, presumably by ESP), or here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455


    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html


    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

  • As of three years ago Mizuno was achieving up to 10W/cm2

    this compares with the 30W/cm2 of fission pellets. He is working on increasing that

    as well as other things.


    "The excess heat calculated on the basis of the assumption that the reactant was nickel was several 10 W/g and was 1 to 10 W/cm2"

    The problem with fission reactor is that they do not scale DOWN. well.. due to the requirements for shielding/heat exchange...it gets very uneconomic to have 20 MWunits

    The advantage of LENR reactors such as Mizuno's is the lack of radiation

    and if the problems of continuity/ controllability are overcome then

    units as small as 0.001 MW become economic so that distributed power generation becomes the norm rather than

    the current power generation from large 100- 500 MW fossil fuel/fission


    The current price of the alternative distributed power generation...solar panels...is decreasing fast

    but is still high compared to the fossil fuel/fission plant. However some governments are interested in both

    large scale and distributed small scale solar

  • Mats Lewan posted this in the, Energy 2.0 Society to Hold Webcast with Andrea Rossi as Guest, December 9, 2017, thread over at E-CatWorld:


    Quote


    The dimensions of the plasma in the QX gives an effective volume of 3 mm^3. Releasing 30W this means 10GW/m^3. If you add the electrical power produced, which apparently is released as heat in the control system (as Rossi admits in the comment above), you'll need to multiply this by 3 or 4... Considering heat-electricity conversion, that's the same order of magnitude, or a couple of times more, than the total installed power in Swedish nuclear plants (about 7GW), providing about half of Sweden's electricity.



    Is this incorporating the fact that the COP was at 500 or assuming the 'real' COP to be ~1500?


    My thoughts are... wow!, this really seems to be an amazing amount of power density in such a small space. However, in practice I doubt this would be achievable.


    Thoughts?


    Edit: I think, what seems the rational thing to do is build larger E-cats that would house the plasma generated in them. I would expect better results and possibly a higher COP than with small Quark-X's.


  • Reduce the area of the radiant power for the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to the dimensions suggested above, and the apparent problem goes away.

  • I asked one of the Rossi team about scaling up the Q-X. The response was- yes you can make it bigger- but the bigger they are the harder they are to keep stable and to ignite.



    That seems to be an engineering problem, and not a theoretical one.


    Wouldn't it also be cheaper and more efficient to build one large LENR based device than compiling many smaller one's? I might be wrong on this though due to my superficial understanding of the problems associated with controlling a LENR based device.


    For example, Brillouin Energy Corporation decided to go with large scale LENR based devices, but got stuck on achieving a high COP. I wonder why?

  • Quote

    as it seems, LENR, doesn't seem to scale well


    Given the fact, that nobody bothers to replicate even the LENR experiments, which are described well (Lipinski fusion, for example), I'd say we still have too few data for reliably judging the scalability of LENR reactions. For example, if the Rossi Quark-X reactor would work as announced, what would prohibit its scalability? Each Quark-X unit could have its own microcontroller for its regulation - in the times of IoT this wouldn't increase the cost of technology too much.

  • Every indication is that LENR will scale well. It has produced temperatures and power density equivalent to fission reactor fuel pellet, which is enough for any application short of earth-to-orbit spacecraft. See the video and script here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618


    I wouldn't be so sure to say no earth to orbit. Couldn't you do thermal nuclear rocket but without the heavy shield? Even like the LENR equivalent of a SABRE.

  • Have you heard of SMRs or small modular reactors especially when mass produced and small enough to be delivered/fit in a shipping container, installed underground for radiation/safety reasons?


    https://www.seattletimes.com/s…ng-a-clean-energy-future/


    Also there are the Gen-4 options. These same technologies would probably be in some way aplcable to LENR reactors producing large amounts (<2gw?). Considering no need for heavy thick shielding and more direct energy conversion methods.

  • I wouldn't be so sure to say no earth to orbit. Couldn't you do thermal nuclear rocket but without the heavy shield?

    I don't think the power density or temperature is high enough, but I wouldn't know. I asked Ed Storms, who is an expert in nuclear space propulsion. He worked on the fission powered space rocket tested at Los Alamos. Anyway, he doesn't think so.


    Mizuno's results from a few years ago exceeded the power density and temperatures of a fission reactor core. That was at ~480 W and ~600 deg C. He projected it would reach ~1,000 W at 750 deg C. That is much better than a fission reactor, but still not good enough for earth to orbit, I believe.


    Unfortunately, he had to abandon that approach because it took months or years to make and test a single set of electrodes. He now does that in weeks, but he gets only 10 to 30 W, with 40 W in one test.

  • Traditional nuclear fuel has a huge energy density, but a limited power density - roughly 10% that of rocket fuel (iirc). The problem is, the ceramic fuel is an insulator, so traps it's evolved heat inside itself. At higher power densities the fuel would melt - which is less than ideal.


    It's not to surprising that a metal electrode could handle higher power densities, it's simply a better conductor of heat.

  • Quote

    Mizuno's results from a few years ago exceeded the power density and temperatures of a fission reactor core. That was at ~480 W and ~600 deg C. He projected it would reach ~1,000 W at 750 deg C. That is much better than a fission reactor, but still not good enough for earth to orbit, I believe.


    Unfortunately, he had to abandon that approach because it took months or years to make and test a single set of electrodes. He now does that in weeks, but he gets only 10 to 30 W, with 40 W in one test.


    That the power is reduced with time passed runs counter to what is usually found in real science. Nevertheless, that would be an obvious project for IH/Darden to pursue. Are they?

    Fascination with esoteric applications is another common error proponents of LENR make. Who, other than NASA, could care if it will work in space? Billions and billions can be made with far more mundane applications like space heating, laundry and cooking. I will note in passing that a lot of energy hoaxes and cons feature foxy looking cars, boats, and even bicycles supposedly powered by the "invention." That, of course, couldn't be less helpful to proving that the invention works and is intended to fool technologically uneducated investors. There are many recent examples if anyone cares.

  • That the power is reduced with time passed runs counter to what is usually found in real science.

    No, it isn't. I toured NIST yesterday, and they seem to be shrinking down all of their devices, from room sized atomic clocks to ones that fit in your pocket. It is easier to do a small cold fusion experiment than a big one. It more accurate, precise and believable, with a better s/n ratio. For various reasons, such as the fact that a small experiment fits in an ordinary, reasonably low cost Seebeck calorimeter.

    Nevertheless, that would be an obvious project for IH/Darden to pursue. Are they?

    You would have to ask them.

    Fascination with esoteric applications is another common error proponents of LENR make. Who, other than NASA, could care if it will work in space?

    The topic came up earlier in the discussion. If you do not wish to discuss it, don't discuss it. Your snark -- or objection, or whatever it is -- contributes nothing.

    I have a very difficult time separating these obviously dubious fields from LENR.

    Then I suppose you are no good at doing science, and you lack common sense. Let me list a few of the reasons cold fusion is different from these others:

    1. It is grounded in the laws of thermodynamics.
    2. It is conducted with instruments and techniques that were discovered in the 1840s and have been used millions of times. They are the bedrock basis of 19th century science.
    3. It has been replicated in ~180 mainstream institutions, and published in hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers.
    4. Many of the people doing it are acknowledged as the leading experts of the relevant conventional fields they worked in, such as the Director of India's largest atomic research facility, the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; a commissioner on the French AEC who was the chief designer of their power reactors; the person who designed the national tritium facility as Los Alamos and tritium detectors at the largest plasma fusion reactor; the top three leading experts in electrochemistry (one with a building named after him), etc.

    In other words, you are saying that the person who designed the French nuclear power reactors that produce ~70% of their electricity has no scientific credibility and his views are no better than someone who believes in astrology. How do you know? Do you think you know more about cold fusion than he did? You have not even read the papers, whereas he replicated the experiments.

  • Why this meaningless talk about scaling. Of course everything that comes from a lab bench will 'scale.' Tiny sources of heat measuring a fraction of a ml in volume can of course be multipled into thousands or tens of thousand or more of such tiny bits to yield useful heat technologies. Those of us with such heat producing 'hot grains of rice' will of course one day soon offer up larger servings. Alas that will be the end of the troll fest. I highly recommend to those 'victims of lost calling' they begin now to refocusing their attention on topics worthy of them such as fashion or royal families or even the fashion of the royals. 'Axils' might rename themselves 'Pirouettes', Walkers might be reborn as 'Swaggers', I propose we start a new thread here with suggested new names for the soon to be vicitims of a scaled up world of lenr/cold fusion. Dare we imagine a world where Rossi becomes 'Bossie'... nah that may be going too far.

  • Those huge tens of ton stone balls that Gennadiy Tarassenko has been highlighting in his thread (Generator Tarasenko based on the model of the planet Earth)

    are most likely produced by an upscaled LENR reaction. Those same types of spheres but on a microscopic size scale have been seen in a number of LENR reactor ash samples. The LENR reaction that can produce such huge things is hard to comprehend. But experiments always reveal truth, beleive it or not.


    4995-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B56-jpg

  • Quote

    Why this meaningless talk about scaling.


    Because it has not happened. And if LENR experiments "scale," one could be designed large enough to produce enough power and energy to impress even very resistant skeptics who hold the key to funding sources. And as others pointed out, an LENR reactor with enough excess power would self run a very long time, which would convince essentially everyone.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    No, it isn't. I toured NIST yesterday, and they seem to be shrinking down all of their devices, from room sized atomic clocks to ones that fit in your pocket.


    Not a very useful analogy. NIST is not in the business of making or investigating new sources of energy. Their product is accuracy in making measurements and maintaining standards for measurement. And if you examine the course of that parameter against time, you will see that their product has improved continuously and still does. LENR has not. In fact, seemingly the contrary.

    • Because it has not happened. And if LENR experiments "scale," one could be designed large enough to produce enough power and energy to impress even very resistant skeptics who hold the key to funding sources. And as others pointed out, an LENR reactor with enough excess power would self run a very long time, which would convince essentially everyone.





    you'r right about that Seven. The downfall may be the frequenies we use for communications and a few other things may be disturbed.

  • Traditional nuclear fuel has a huge energy density, but a limited power density - roughly 10% that of rocket fuel (iirc). The problem is, the ceramic fuel is an insulator, so traps it's evolved heat inside itself. At higher power densities the fuel would melt - which is less than ideal.


    It's not to surprising that a metal electrode could handle higher power densities, it's simply a better conductor of heat.

    This is why you have a liquid fuel that is its own coolant. The energy density will rise significantly with a liquid or dusty plasma fuel medium.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_fragment_reactor

    https://www.aps.org/units/fps/…ters/201101/hargraves.cfm


    Apply similar physics to LENR. is a molten fuel LENR reactor similar to a LFTR possible?