Atom-Ecology

  • I hadn`t considered radiative cooling (the stefan-botlzman law!). What is your feeling for the relative contributions of convetive and radiative cooling in the Androcles reactor? I get the impression that radiative cooling must be only a small correction to convective cooling and so the knee would not be too visible.

    if the reactor is free in the air, for air (convective) you have coefficients of the order 10-100 Power / Area / Kelvin probably 10.

    for radiation you have W = sigma (T^4 - T0^4) = sigma (T^3+T^2T0+TT0^2+T0^3) (T - T0) => T=400K -> 10, T=500K 15, T=600K 23 Power/Area/Kelvin


    So very well after 100 degrees celcius it can be the order of the convective cooling

  • Based on the simplistic assumption of sigmoidal temperature-dependent lenr activation (such as I diagrammed earlier in this thread), the fueled reactor need not decline asymptotically to room temperature. Instead, once activated the lenr heating can be self supporting because locally it is always producing enough heat to keep the reactor at a temperature where the lenr mechanism is fully engaged. This would mean that the temperature would asymptote out at some temperature above room temperature.


    Thanks that makes some sense.

  • What does Russ George' talking about making the thing available in months not years, mean to you? Does that imply commercialization, as I doubt just selling the recipe would be of any benefit to those in need?


    All that is between rapid availability (at some lower level of output) and where we are now is a few million dollars and a fair wind.

  • ... I think knowing the excess power produced and the approx surface area should allows us to ball park how much insulation would be required for it to self sustain..


    Yes. Possible. But I think that one should also be able to figure this out if one knows the exponential cooling time constant of the Looking-For-Heat reactor chamber. We might be able to get this from published data. It is not possible for to do this using Russ George's "golden area" figure because there is no time scale on the plot. But I believe that the reactor chamber, its housing, and the insulation used for the current investigations is the basically the same as the setup Alan Smith and crew used for examining the LION reactor, and I seem to recall that the time course of cooling was shown, complete with time scale, for that. Or perhaps Alan can tell us directly the exponential time constant for cooling of the nonfueled reactor in his experiments.

  • The Lion work was done with a 'naked reactor. Current work is being done with the insulated reactors. I don't have the thermal data to hand- that lives in the lab, but I can tell you that the these reactors are within 1% of each other in terms of average energy demand, which is 121W/300C.


    ETA- you would be wrong btw to try to determine much from any single given cooling curve - we have taken many, and they often display very different characteristics even though they have not been disturbed (except thermally) in the meantime. - the one we showed here was smooth, but others display 'step-down' behaviours, where the system sustains one temperature for a few moments, abruptly cools a few degrees and then plateaus again, steps down again and so on. And then that behaviour changes again. All very intriguing, an deeply heretical. Russ and I have a saying 'here comes the daily heresy', and sometimes it does.

  • we have taken many, and they often display very different characteristics even though they have not been disturbed (except thermally) in the meantime. - the one we showed here was smooth, but others display 'step-down' behaviours, where the system sustains one temperature for a few moments, abruptly cools a few degrees and then plateaus again, steps down again and so on.

    Are they all monotonic, or do you see increases?

  • Oh, well. I figured that was too optimistic to believe in.


    To build a system producing MW would be a huge engineering challenge that might take $500M and a decade- and would make little difference to what might be described as 'the balance of power. To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over

  • To build a system producing MW would be a huge engineering challenge that might take $500M and a decade- and would make little difference to what might be described as 'the balance of power. To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over


    Got it. So, it seems that you will be out of funding for this goal, as most people don't care to save the poor. I was hoping you might be able to create a home sized device for water heating or general heating for a residence of 2-4 people. Electric production is far off in the horizon, yes?

  • Well, we can only make within a near timeframe what the technology allows us to make, which (like Baldrick) we can also (probably) finance by the cunning plan of telling bedtime stories to sailors. However, in all seriousness the Paris/Kyoto clomate change accords step up a gear in 2020 and carbon credits will loom large in rich nations and poor ones. There will be new CO2 reduction/mitigation incentives that we hope will make wonderful things possible.

  • To build something that produces a consistent, safe and reliable few hundred watts is my immediate goal. That would transform the lives of people the world over

    10 W would be just as good. It would transform the lives of people because it would convince many scientists and engineers that the effect is real, and they would take it from there. They can produce a practical device much more easily than you can. So there is no need for you to make it reach a semi-practical level of ~100 W.


    A small device that produces milliwatt levels of heat would be enormously useful and valuable. Combined with a thermoelectric device it would be a good battery for a pacemaker, cell phone or other small device.

  • Thank you for that. Problem is they haven't shown much sign of this talent so far.

    This might sounds preposterous, Alan. But, have you considered pitching your idea to a philanthropic individual like Gates or Musk? I know it sounds kind of absurd but what do you think, given that your goal isn't fame, money, or status, although all or that might as well come with divulging all the details to said individual.


    What do you think?

  • We have discussed this of course, but we are attracting some interest already. My motto is never to chase money, it can run faster than I can. Just be patient, do the right thing and the money will come on its own. And generally with less strings than if you go 'cap in hand' to ask for it.

  • Thank you for that. Problem is they haven't shown much sign of this talent so far.


    That is because no one has shown really compelling evidence of lenr before. I know that saying this will get people's backs up but really ... it hasn't. And the lack of widespread interest is the proof.


    A distinction should be drawn here between pure science and engineering. On the pure science front, an undeniable demonstration that lenr is real could involve the evolution of heat and associated radiation that works reliably not just in your hands but also in the hands of independent groups. The size of the effect isn't the core issue.


    My question is, do you plan to link the pure science and engineering aspects of your work or do you see them as independent? For instance, would you delay releasing basic science information about your system (or sending it to independent labs) until you have engineered it into something you consider practically useful? Or do you intend to publish the basic science as fast as possible without regard to utility?

  • That is because no one has shown really compelling evidence of lenr before. I know that saying this will get people's backs up but really ... it hasn't. And the lack of widespread interest is the proof.


    A distinction should be drawn here between pure science and engineering. On the pure science front, an undeniable demonstration that lenr is real could involve the evolution of heat and associated radiation that works reliably not just in your hands but also in the hands of independent groups. The size of the effect isn't the core issue.


    My question is, do you plan to link the pure science and engineering aspects of your work or do you see them as independent? For instance, would you delay releasing basic science information about your system (or sending it to independent labs) until you have engineered it into something you consider practically useful? Or do you intend to publish the basic science as fast as possible without regard to utility?



    We are not yet at a point where this discussion -even internally - would be meaningful.