LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    Meanwhile This is green. I imagine this may beat LENR...

    I think it probably will "beat" LENR. As I said before, I do not see how LENR could be used a primary energy source for such fast aerospace vehicles. However, LENR could be used to generate the hydrogen.


    LENR might work for slow speed aircraft used for short distance travel or freight.


    The only big advantage of LENR over hydrogen would be that the fuel weighs nothing, so with the same sized aircraft you could have a bigger payload. Another advantage would be you don't have to refuel. Refueling does not seem like a big deal, as long as the aircraft has the range to reach anywhere in the world.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    We are back to the battery plane problem though- the plane weighs as much when it lands as when it takes off. I believe this poses some structural problems.

    Do you mean with a hydrogen powered airplane? Or a cold fusion one? (Or both?) Hydrogen fuel does not weigh much.


    Airplanes that go only a short distance, such as Washington to New York, weigh almost as much when they get there. But, I believe, the large ones do not carry full tanks of fuel.


    I hope that in the distant future most aircraft are VTOL, which eliminate the hard bump on landing.

    With a hydrogen powered plane the fuel weight would be around 20% of the weight of the equivalent Kerosene energy. That would be helpful. But unless they run in liquid hydrogen there's a serious bulk problem. Even at 720 Bar (hydrogen car pressure a 6kg tank is larger than a 30kg gasoline tank.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I think it probably will "beat" LENR. As I said before, I do not see how LENR could be used a primary energy source for such fast aerospace vehicles. However, LENR could be used to generate the hydrogen.


    LENR might work for slow speed aircraft used for short distance travel or freight.


    The only big advantage of LENR over hydrogen would be that the fuel weighs nothing, so with the same sized aircraft you could have a bigger payload. Another advantage would be you don't have to refuel. Refueling does not seem like a big deal, as long as the aircraft has the range to reach anywhere in the world.

    Afanasiev was my friend... He proposed an original type of fuel - processing a mixture of 90% distillate and 10% kerosene using hydrowave technology - a fuel emulsion with unusual properties is obtained ... Its calorific value approaches hydrogen and, in fact, this is a new hydrogen fuel ... They did not want to listen to him ... Oil kings rule this market ...

    LENR Electric and LENR Thermal would alter engineering constraints.

    Water is a good way to store quantities of hydrogen and oxygen.

    The energetics of LENR perhaps will be useful for...

    Electric Subsystems

    Control Systems

    Communication

    Active Shielding

    Life Support


    On Board Hydrogen Oxygen Fuel Production From Water


    Cryogenic Fuel Storage


    Solar System Space Plane


    Turbines are dual use

    Turbine powered by hydrogen fuel reaching scram speed...

    Turbine is air burning thru top scram speed and elevation limit...


    (This speed therefore enables planetary travel without on board fuel except for below scramjet speed requirements.)


    For Planetary Escape


    Hydrogen rocket kicks in for a short time to attain low earth orbit...


    On board Electric Propulsion 10MW for long fast space travel...


    On board hydrogen rocket also used to land and take off from airless bodies such as the Moon or thin air bodies such as Mars.


    On board Turbine Systems, combined with variable air flow lamineer wing profile, for Earth atmospheric landings and take offs. Perhaps viable in thin air Martian atmosphere.


    On board Rocket System to ease extreme atmospheric braking.

    Also, allow rocket point full touchdown landing when deemed superior to controlled glidepath air wing landing.


    Just dreaming

    And studying

    Quote from JedRothwell

    However, LENR could be used to generate the hydrogen.

    Consider this

    A parametric analysis of the process suggests that the idea is a tantalizing possibility. - end quote

    So

    If LENR allows ultra efficient hydrogen production from water...


    Is water a 'best' method to store hydrogen?


    Surpassing other hydrogen storage methods including cryogenic.


    Just surmising it thereby would be -gbgoble


    QUOTE

    The limitations of thermochemical energy storage devices are the limitations of Carnot devices.


    Entropy production entailed in product separation further limits the efficiency of thermochemical processes.


    Thus, high upper temperatures and few reaction steps are desirable. In this article, the one-step effusional separation of water into hydrogen and oxygen is considered.


    Membrane materials, design, and fabrication techniques are suggested.


    A parametric analysis of the process suggests that the idea is a tantalizing possibility. - End quotes

    Old school. Perhaps off topic. Of interest irregardless.

    1977

    Hydrogen- and Oxygen from Water: The use of solar energy in a one-step effusional process is considered.

    SCIENCE • 9 Sep 1977 • Vol 197, Issue 4308 • pp. 1050-1056 • DOI: 10.1126/science.197.4308.1050

    Science | AAAS

    _Jim I was talking about Low-level exposure to radio or micro-waves, in addition to those absorbed from outer-space! True the masts project to the horizon if the plant-life is right in the beam they would probably be cooked, like when people hold their i-phone transmitters too close to their brains. The jury is still out whether this causes deafness - or worse BRAIN CANCER. 8)

    With luck the 5g can power small drones in flight to bring us food to our pre recorded ip address and gps tracking.. maybe we doing even need to tell them what and when we need a delivery. it will likely just show up..

    good times. good thing we trust the people building this stuff and getting ready to use it.

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    _Jim I was talking about Low-level exposure to radio or micro-waves, in addition to those absorbed from outer-space! True the masts project to the horizon if the plant-life is right in the beam they would probably be cooked, like when people hold their i-phone transmitters too close to their brains. The jury is still out whether this causes deafness - or worse BRAIN CANCER. 8)

    You know (or should know) the inter-nuclear forces and forces between molecules even are MUCH stronger than the RF 'field strength' (in V per meter) we apply from outside, external to said molecules ... it is when direct contact with voltage high enough (something over 24 to 48 VDC or AC sometimes even; what matters here usually is overcoming dry skin non-conductivity) that causes heart and lung 'signals' to be interrupted (with over a few mA or milliAmps flowing; I'll not cite an exact figure, those can be found via a search) and possible health complications (electrocution) follow; direct paths through the chest/heart (hand to hand 'path' for instance) being the worst case scenario.


    Remember, too, those 'warming rays from the sun' amount to 1,000 Watts per square meter 'flux' at high noon on a clear day, nearer to the equator. THAT'S a lotta Watts!


    When engineering comm link paths to mobile subscriber equipment, one looks for a 'balanced' link (budget) power-wise, so no need for 10 Watts ERP signal from a base station to a subscriber when the subscriber unit can only do maybe 200 mW (milliWatts) ERP meaning the PA stage in the iPhone could be doing 400 mW (further draining battery) to achieve 200mW ERP b/c the compromise multi-band antenna in the iPhone is 3 dB lossy to start with. The 'path loss' is equal for uplink and downlink (within a dB sans multipath path-link differences considered in wavelength on different frequencies).

    What would it take for BACKGROUND: As the world continues to transition toward carbon emissions–free energy technologies, there remains a need to also reduce the carbon emissions of the chemical production industry. Today many of the world’s chemicals are produced from fossil fuel–derived feedstocks. Electro-chemical conversion of carbon dioxide (CO2) into chemical feed stocks offers a way to turn waste emissions into valuable products, closing the carbon loop. When coupled to renewable sources of electricity,these products can be made with a net negative carbon emissions footprint, helping to sequester CO2 into usable goods. Research and development into electro-catalytic materials for-CO2 reduction has intensified in recent years,with advances in selectivity, efficiency, and reaction rate progressing toward practical implementation. A variety of chemical products can be made from CO2, such as alcohols, oxy-genates, synthesis gas (syngas), and olefins—staples in the global chemical industry. Because these products are produced at substantial scale, a switch to renewably powered production could result in a substantial carbon emissions reduction impact.


    (


    Electrolysis CO2 gas diffusion.pdf

    Storm Eileine has just reduced my back garden plastic furniture to matchwood a pity so now I have to re-cycle the plastic. Oh well pity the storm was too powerful to harness its energy with a wind turbine! A small wind turbine (600W) would again have been reduced to matchwood. I wonder how the rest of the UK's wind turbines are fairing in this storm which had the power of a nuclear blast!

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    I wonder how the rest of the UK's wind turbines are fairing in this storm which had the power of a nuclear blast!

    They were probably feathered, and they are probably okay. Feathered means they were not producing electricity.


    https://www.energy.gov/eere/ar…de%20out%20severe%20gusts.


    The thing is, a typical modern offshore turbine produces ~3.6 MW maximum. That is a tremendous amount of concentrated power coming from a relatively small object. So the tower, the blades and the generator shaft are very strong. They can withstand forces from 3.6 MW for 30 years. When you feather the blades, most of the wind goes past without pushing anything, so I doubt there is as much stress as when there is a full 3.6 MW load.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.