ICCF25 - 25th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Announcement

  • Personally, I don't find the search function to be too bad at the moment (it was worse when the forum was on the other server). But like all search functions, it relies on having a good search term that doesn't result in too many answers. Even if there was some kind of "index", I would probably still use the search instead.

    I agree- Peter Darling switched over the search engine recently too. Much better.

  • One article is key on the question of human progress and energy

    Progress, stagnation, and flying cars A review of Where Is My Flying Car? by J. Storrs Hall rootsofprogress.org

    recently, a friend translated an interview in french

    The author or the review, Jason Crawford, got the numbers wrong for uranium. I sent him the following corrections:



    In this article:


    Progress, stagnation, and flying cars
    A review of Where Is My Flying Car? by J. Storrs Hall
    rootsofprogress.org


    You wrote:


    "[A] single ounce of enriched uranium has more energy than 10,000 gallons of gasoline or 100,000 pounds of anthracite coal." That is incorrect. According to the ANS and the NEI, one UO2 fuel pellet weighs 20 g and "creates as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas."


    Nuclear Fuel
    Uranium is full of energy: One uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.
    www.nei.org


    1 ton of coal = 2000 lbs

    1 oz of UO2 = 28.3 g, so 1 oz = 1.415 times 20 g.

    2000 lbs * 1.415 = 2830 lb coal


    UO2 is 88% uranium, 12% oxygen by weight. So if you are looking at only uranium, it would be 2830/0.88 = 3,215 lb. That's 31 times less than 100,000 lb. Still impressive. Actually, 1 ton of coal produces about 21 to 22 GJ, and 1 fuel pellet produces 18 GJ, but 1 pellet = 1 ton coal is a reasonable approximation.



    You wrote: "A one-inch cube of uranium contains more energy than the average American uses in a lifetime."


    Definitely wrong. 1 cubic inch = 16.4 cm^3. A fuel pellet is 1 cm^3. So that is 18 GJ * 16.4 = 295.2 GJ. 295,200 MJ. 1 gallon of gasoline produces 121 MJ, so that is the equivalent to 2,440 gallons. The average American car uses 489 gallons per year, so that is 5 years per car.


    295,200 MJ = 82,000 kWh of raw heat. However, fission reactors are inefficient. They convert only 1/3rd of the heat into electricity. So that is 27,333 kWh electric. The average American uses 10,632 kWh per year, so that is 2.6 years of electricity.



    Regarding cold fusion, that is my specialty. See:


    LENR-CANR.org — A library of papers about cold fusion

    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf


    You can ask me any question about that. Or you can ask a dedicated copy of ChatGPT that I installed on the website. It has access only to the 2,100 papers on the website.

    https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=2988 It is more reliable than the public ChatGPT, with fewer hallucinations, because I tweaked the AI temperature and other parameters.

  • Your estimates seem more accurate and conservative. Your point about energy conversion efficiency seems quite valid as well. Perhaps there was some loss in the translation of the article?

  • The author of the book "concludes that there is no technological or economic reason why we can’t have flying cars with existing technology—indeed, why we couldn’t have had them already, if sustained work on them had continued past the 1970s." That is wrong on many levels, as I have discussed here. The main problems with flying cars and personal aircraft are:


    Present day FAA air traffic control cannot handle a large increase in traffic. We would need radically new GPS based systems. Crawford says if you tried to launch a flying car venture, "you'd be shot down by the FAA." Yes, and for good reason.


    Flying an airplane is difficult and dangerous. It takes a lot of training. Microsoft Flight Simulator is remarkably realistic these days. I have enough experience with it to know that I and most other people could not possibly learn to fly safely. Personal aircraft will only become possible when airplanes are completely autonomous -- like elevators. Progress in autonomous aircraft is being made, but they do not exist yet.


    Flying cars, that is, machines that convert from road vehicles to flying vehicles, are a bad idea. Not good as cars and not safe as airplanes. It makes more sense to rent a car or use a taxi or an Uber to the airport.

  • Your estimates seem more accurate and conservative. Your point about energy conversion efficiency seems quite valid as well. Perhaps there was some loss in the translation of the article?

    The original article is in English. He just got the numbers wrong. I sympathize. I often get the numbers wrong, sometimes by an order of magnitude. It is embarrassing so I check and recheck!


    Maybe he looked it up somewhere. Maybe he asked Bard, which just now gave me the following misinformation:




    One cubic inch of uranium releases 287,912,815,862,066,148.6 joules of energy. This is a theoretical calculation based on Einstein's equation E=MC sq.


    [Oops! Perhaps that would be if you convert the entire mass to energy? The correct answer is 295,200,000,000 J, as far as I know. Bard's estimate is off by a factor of a million.]


    Uranium is an abundant metal that is very energy-dense. A one-inch tall uranium pellet contains the same amount of energy as 120 gallons of oil. One uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.


    [Correct-o-mundo.]



    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBS63jXZWAk0QnAd6B0VaCZ8kgZB-shS3Xtddbuc8S-C04Kdon


    .


    Nuclear energy is more efficient than other energy sources because of uranium's high energy density


    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPGVdvgnzRzHmVWAoHI35HoAqFu1Pjdcs2DJoo5gKdMRqyBGZj


    . Only ten uranium pellets can power the average household for an entire year.

  • Your estimates seem more accurate and conservative. Your point about energy conversion efficiency seems quite valid as well. Perhaps there was some loss in the translation of the article?

    The problem of energy conversion efficiency are shared by all systems that convert heat to any kind of more usable energy (be it mechanic or electric). MHD conversion was a promise in the late 1960s and aimed at 47% efficiency direct heat (heated plasma) to electricity, but it found then unsurmountable technical difficulties with the plasma instabilities to reach that high efficiency.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • The problem of energy conversion efficiency are shared by all systems that convert heat to any kind of more usable energy (be it mechanic or electric).

    True, but fission reactors are inherently inefficient for several reasons. Mainly because the core cannot be more than 600 deg C or the zirconium cladding will melt. This means the primary water has to be much cooler than that, 315 deg C and the secondary loop is even cooler. So Carnot efficiency is low.


    What level of enrichment are you using? What level of enrichment was Crawford using?

    I used the energy production numbers from the ANS and the NEI. They also said uranium is 88% by weight. I do not know what the enrichment level is, but the ANS can probably tell you.


    Whatever the enrichment level is, I expect it is the standard for all power generators. It is probably optimum. I doubt Crawford knows the enrichment level.

  • My estimate:

    295,200 MJ = 82,000 kWh of raw heat. However, fission reactors are inefficient. They convert only 1/3rd of the heat into electricity. So that is 27,333 kWh electric. The average American uses 10,632 kWh per year, so that is 2.6 years of electricity.

    Bard's estimate:

    Only ten uranium pellets can power the average household for an entire year.

    These estimates are not far apart. My stats are per capita. I assume Bard found this estimate somewhere on the web, and did not make it up. Bard's estimate is for the average household, which is ~2.5 people. My estimate was 2.6 years of electricity per capita. Or 1 year per household. That would be 16 fuel pellets powering one household for 1 year. Bard says it takes 10 fuel pellets. For a rough average, 10 is reasonably close to 16.

  • Dear Shane,
    Would you happen to know if Steven Krivit's presentation in Poland was recorded? I would love to see it.
    I too am grateful for all of the work he did exposing the hot fusion illusion.

    Shane can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe everything was recorded.


    The ETA for getting them online is year end.

  • Dear Shane,
    Would you happen to know if Steven Krivit's presentation in Poland was recorded? I would love to see it.
    I too am grateful for all of the work he did exposing the hot fusion illusion.

    It was and hopefully it will be released soon after the ICCF25 organization get's consent to use it and publishes it on YouTube, I believe? I recently received a consent to publish email so hopefully they will start coming out soon?
    I thought his presentation was very good by the way, and he seems quite focused on the Widom-Larson theory, which I think has pretty good approximations for hydrogen dense lattice structures and there boundary layers. This is from my limited understanding of the physics though, so please take it with a grain of salt. *:P

  • Here's an interesting story...😅
    I was having a conversation recently with someone I admire in the field, who asked me if I had released all the data I gathered for the ICCF25 research paper I did publicly, I said everything important excluding raw datasets and failed LLMs.

    It made me curious to go back and review all my published data, which I admit was a lot. 😅
    I then realized that I had forgot all of the Theoretical Datasets and some of the equations I used in the paper for simulation models.
    This must be why is is so important to have people review and questions a persons work.

    Very thankful someone took interest in the work to make me review it again.
    If you wish to review the datasets and use them in your own projects, they live here :
    https://github.com/ConsciousEn…NR/tree/main/LENR_ARA_GPT
    and

    https://huggingface.co/ConsciousEnergies/LENR_ARA/tree/main

    Keep in mind these are preliminary findings and text based Theoretical models.
    Compiling rational mathematical models will take a lot more effort and time in doing it by myself.
    If your interested in collaborating, please don't hesitate to reach out.


    Hope everyone who finds this message is well.

    Warm regards,
    Diadon

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.