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
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
Display MoreMats 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:
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?
Reduce the area of the radiant power for the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to the dimensions suggested above, and the apparent problem goes away.
Reduce the area of the radiant power for the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to the dimensions suggested above, and the apparent problem goes away.
Yeah, but why do that if a larger E-cat with more surface area can deal with that along with maximizing the COP?
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.
Yeah, but why do that if a larger E-cat with more surface area can deal with that along with maximizing the COP?
There is no positive COP for the QX when the Stefan-Boltzmann equation uses the tiny plasma dimensions. Therefore the problem of control and power density 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?
Quoteas 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.
I am quite convinced that a big fat pig can fly just as well as a little piglet.
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:
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.
Display MoreAs 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
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.
Hmm i'm pretty sure based on the numbers i've seen theoretically both fission and LENR can get much hotter.
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.
QuoteMizuno'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:
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.
