breath for a response from IAEA because they are notorious for this.
the required fuel (tritium) does not exist as a natural resource, b) the required method to enrich lithium-6 does not exist
One answer here: The separation of Lithium into 6Li/7Li is very easy but prohibited by US law!
The Deuterium/Lithium Bomb uses pure 6Li!
One answer here: The separation of Lithium into 6Li/7Li is very easy but prohibited by US law!
The Deuterium/Lithium Bomb uses pure 6Li!
It is indeed a semi famous fact that no other than the controversial Bob Lazar, as owner of United Nuclear (a supplier of chemical products with Nuclear focus), installed a system to separate 6Li at the ceiling of his home. He used it as material to store H for his H powered Corvette. He claims 6Li can store a high density of H.
I disagree with parts of Krivit's letter.
"Deuterium is not widely available, but it can be extracted from water, which is widely available."
Deuterium is ubiquitous, available in unthinkably large amounts, on earth and everywhere in the solar system. There is enough to power civilization at far higher rates than now, for longer than the sun will last. Saying it is "not widely available" is absurd. The only reason deuterium is expensive is the energy cost of separating it from ordinary water. With plasma fusion or cold fusion the energy overhead would be 0.05%, compared to 10% to 20% for coal or oil.
"No fusion reactor produces, or has ever produced tritium in a closed circuit."
I do not think this would difficult to arrange, and there are other ways to make tritium.
". . . This is an extremely misleading and deceptive question and answer pair. It misleads the reader to think that a) present fusion devices produce more than ten megawatts of potentially usable power, b) that any fusion device has produced any potentially usable power . . ."
It says "fusion power." It does not say "usable power" or "electricity." I do not find this deceptive, but perhaps that is because I have been reading fusion papers since the 1970s. Perhaps this would confuse a reader unfamiliar with fusion.
"As explained above, the fuel for fusion does not presently exist. Thus, this statement is entirely false."
As I said, deuterium fuel is everywhere, in unthinkably large amounts. Lithium is also available in far larger amounts than we could ever consume.
One answer here: The separation of Lithium into 6Li/7Li is very easy but prohibited by US law!
The law can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Li-6 separation is prohibited because it takes a lot of mercury, which is dangerous. It can be made safe, or perhaps some other technique can be developed.
There is no need to copy the Sun with lithium 6.7 Li, deuterium 2 H and tritium 3 H. On Earth, for example, nickel 63 Ni and water H 2O could be suitable for cold fusion:
→ ῡ + 63Ni28 +1 H→ 63Cu29 +e - + ῡ +1 H+Q → ῡ +p + +e - → ῡ +p + → e ++n → n→p ++e - + ῡ → +1 Ч →
I disagree with parts of Krivit's letter.
"Deuterium is not widely available, but it can be extracted from water, which is widely available."
I disagree too, but simply adding the word 'Pure' in front of 'Deuterium' would fix it.
I disagree too, but simply adding the word 'Pure' in front of 'Deuterium' would fix it.
It would still be weasel words. He said "deuterium is not widely available." Pure or impure, it is one of the most widely available substances on earth. For that matter, nothing is pure. You need to purify iron or salt, or water before drinking it. I guess you can use sand as-is for construction, but not for silicon wafers.
Krivit should not mix valid arguments with statements such as "deuterium is not widely available." It makes the whole letter lose credibility.
Again, this is the direct quote ==> " Deuterium is not widely available, but it can be extracted from water, which is widely available."
Deuterium is widely available. It is everywhere on earth. In any sample of water, 1 in 6700 hydrogen atoms is deuterium. It is one of the most widely available substances on earth. It makes no sense to say it is "not widely available." This is like saying hydrogen is not widely available because it is all bound to oxygen in water; or saying that aluminum is not widely available because it is all in bauxite. It is easy to separate hydrogen from oxygen, and almost as easy to separate hydrogen from deuterium. It takes a lot of energy but the various methods are well established and unlimited amounts could be separated. So it is widely available.
As I said, the energy cost would be trivial compared to the energy produced by fusion. The dollar cost would fall from ~$500 per kilogram to a few pennies.
Kindly please post acknowledgement of your error, and please apologize to Krivit.
It is not an error. Saying deuterium is not widely available yet water is available makes no sense. It is contradictory. All water everywhere includes deuterium. It can easily be extracted at close to zero cost. Do you understand that?
It would take 6,162 tons of heavy water to produce all of the energy we consume on earth (403 quads). One cubic kilometer of water has 150,000 tons of heavy water in it, enough for 24 years. There are approximately 1.4 trillion cubic kilometers of water on earth, so we have enough for 58 billion years. If we start to run short, there is at least 25 times that amount of heavy water readily available in the solar system (plus much more in Jupiter). The sun is expected to last around 10 billion years, so we have at least 60 times more deuterium than we can use. Probably more like 1,500 times more.
As Arthur Clarke said, energy is the most abundant resource in the universe.
"deuterium is not widely available"
Krivit's partial truth applies to cold fusion as well
using deuterium as a fuel
D2O is widely available but not as widely available as H2O naturally
you can buy D2O for a price and then convert it to D2 by electrolysis
which is a standard technique for producing H2 from H20
which has a small finite energy cost
Lets take the price of D2O as $460/kg..
What is the material cost per Kwh equivalent of the 23 Mev fusion yield per D atom?
assuming 100 % conversion efficiency to electrical Kwh?
I get something like 0.01 cents/Kwh
If you include maybe 10% conversion efficiency this becomes
0.1 cents/Kwh... maybe someone can check this?
If you buy deuterium gas from suppliers
it is available, but not widely
and will cost you an arm and a leg..
If a viable cold fusion technology was invented today it would not take long for
deuterium gas supply to become both widely available and much cheaper
following the laws of supply and demand
luckily Li6 is not required for cold fusion
Ni Pd ? maybe Ag.. Sm.. Gd..
Lets take the price of D2O as $460/kg..
What is the material cost per Kwh equivalent of the 23 Mev fusion yield per D atom?
assuming 100 % conversion efficiency to electrical Kwh?
I get something like 0.01 cents/Kwh
That is wrong. 1 kg of D2O produces 69 million MJ, or 19 million kWh. See Borowski, S.K., Comparison of Fusion/Antiproton Propulsion Systems for Interplanetary Travel. 1996, NASA, Table 1, “Cat-DD”:
https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/ComparisonFusionAntiproton.pdf
At $460/kg that comes to 0.0024 cents per kWh ($0.000024). However, nearly all of the cost of heavy water goes to pay for the energy used to extract it. With today's techniques, it would take 0.05% of the energy from fusion to separate out the deuterium. So the cost would be close to zero. Not $460 but more like 4 cents. So the cost per kilowatt hour would be $0.00000024.
Average global per capita energy consumption is 3,204 kWh. In the U.S. it is 11,267 kWh. So if you live 85 years in the U.S. you will spend ~$0.23 on heavy water over a lifetime.
The methods now used to extract heavy water were developed in the 1940s. Experts say much better methods can be developed. They would produce less pollution and use less energy. So we are looking at ~$0.05 over a lifetime.
t
Within the framework of the modern scientific paradigm, it is in principle impossible to invent a viable cold fusion technology. Without theory there is no experiment and technology.
Within the framework of the new scientific paradigm, if we postulate the primacy and absoluteness of the movement of matter, cold nuclear fusion is a way of moving the matter of our united World, everything is very simple:
1) The Sun and the Earth are generators of cold nuclear fusion,
2) The Sun and Earth move relative to each other,
3) Consequently, their engines are cold fusion generators, which they themselves are!
This simple logical chain in the new scientific paradigm leads to a crazy conclusion: a cold fusion generator, an “anti-gravity engine” and an electric current generator, in the end, any engine and energy source at a fundamental level is a cold fusion generator!
All that remains is to write a few mathematical formulas and a diagram of the cold nuclear fusion reaction.
RobertBryant
Without theory there is no experiment and technology.
debatable...
faraday's electric motor 1821
and sequels for a few decadess
Institute - History - The invention of the electric motor 1800-1854
experiment without much theory
btw quantum theory came out of meticulous experimentation
debatable...
faraday's electric motor 1821
Of course, the theory is based on our experience and experiments, but we just shouldn’t put the cart before the horse.
Faraday made a great theoretical discovery: the moving electromagnetic field.
By the way, if one part of our united World, namely, the electromagnetic one, moves according to the laws of electromagnetic induction of Faraday-Maxwell, then the other part, namely, the material and energy part, must move according to similar laws according to the principle of symmetry, that is, according to laws of material and energy induction.
In 1900, Max Planck hypothesized that energy is emitted and absorbed in discrete “quanta.” This made it possible to explain the black body radiation spectrum observed in experiments.
In principle, now, in this historical period of the development of science, it is necessary to “repeat” Faraday’s experiment: only instead of a moving magnetic field there is a moving neutrino field, and instead of an electric one there is a material field.
you can buy D2O for a price and then convert it to D2 by electrolysis
The Canadian state had a D2O reserves of several 10'000 tons... what did drive the prize to a low end.
What was the solution to hinder cold fusion research????
It's unbelievable but reality. Canada did simply give away the whole stock of D2O (99.8% purity)) for a deep underground,totally useless neutrino experiment that will bring zero = 0 progress to mankind.
So you will now have to pay 1000$ for 1kg D2O instead of 40$ max what is its real value. Some freemason can buy a new yacht and a nice Caribbean island as they can cache in 960 extra $$$ for each kg they once bought from Canada...
The Canadian state had a D2O reserves of several 10'000 tons... what did drive the prize to a low end.
What was the solution to hinder cold fusion research????
Cold fusion research is not hindered by D2O. You can buy as much as you want. Nobody needs 10,000 tons. Such are large mass was probably left over from the CANDU reactor moderator water. If so, they could not sell it. It is far too contaminated. See p. 55:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbookreview.pdf
It's unbelievable but reality. Canada did simply give away the whole stock of D2O (99.8% purity))
99.8% is not high purity. There is no need to give it to cold fusion researchers. Heavy water is a minor expense.
By the way, if you need D2 gas, I do not recommend buying heavy water and splitting it. Electrolysis with ordinary equipment produces a lot of contamination. It is better to purchase high purity gas.
The big problem with heavy water is that it is hydrophilic. When you expose it to air, it rapidly combines with ordinary water and the purity decreases. There is no way to reverse that in the lab.
Canada did simply give away the whole stock of D2O
Canadian Isowater has been simmering for the last decade or two..
they have updated 1976 technology?
and apparently will build a new production facility 20 tonnes per year
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110027165A1/en,
Hopefully their "green"D2O is a bit cheaper than $460/kg
At $460/kg that comes to 0.0024 cents per kWh ($0.000024).
Multiply by three for electricity. But as I explain in the book, many applications that now use electricity can be done with heat, instead. Such as thermal refrigeration. Plus applications such as space heating can be done with waste heat from home cogenerators, so the cost really is zero.
new production facility 20 tonnes per year
This is a joke production size to not harm the market prize ? The German during WWII did produce some 1000T/year some in Norway too which led to a claimed famous sabotage act that had no influence at all....
he German during WWII did produce some 1000T/yea
If only the Third Reich had cold fusion ... more than enough energy for a few hundred years..
If only the Third Reich had cold fusion ... more than enough energy for a few hundred years..
If China had a theory of jet propulsion, would it have launched bamboo rockets into space 1000 years ago?!
Lenora thinks this would be a miracle:
"Fusion reactor makes AND consumes its own tritium!"
That is not miraculous, as long as the reaction makes as much tritium as it consumes. Or more tritium than it consumes. Many reactions both generate a product and then consume it. This is true of both chemical and nuclear reactions. For example, when wood burns, it first converts to volatile gases including hydrogen, methane and so on. This is pyrolysis phase, which I just learned is endothermic.
Our invisible friend ChatGPT explains how a nuclear fusion reaction can both produce and consume tritium:
ME: Describe a fusion reaction that both makes and consumes tritium.
ChatGPT
In nuclear fusion, tritium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen) plays a significant role, especially in reactions designed for energy production. One of the pathways where tritium is both produced and consumed is in the fusion reactions involving deuterium (D, another isotope of hydrogen) and lithium. This process is pivotal in proposed fusion reactors, like those based on the Tokamak design.
Here's how tritium is both consumed and produced in a fusion reactor context:
1. Consumption of Tritium in Fusion Reaction:
The most commonly considered fusion reaction for energy production is between deuterium (D) and tritium (T), which produces helium-4 (He-4), a neutron (n), and a significant amount of energy.
D+T→He-4+n+17.6 MeV
2. Production of Tritium:
Tritium is scarce in nature due to its radioactive decay (with a half-life of about 12.32 years), so it needs to be bred within the reactor itself. This is achieved using the neutron produced in the D-T fusion reaction to react with lithium (Li), which is part of the reactor's blanket. There are two primary reactions for tritium breeding:
n+Li-6→T+He-4
n+Li-7→T+He-4+n−2.5 MeV
The first reaction directly produces tritium and helium-4 without consuming additional neutrons, making it an efficient source of tritium. The second reaction can also produce tritium but requires a high-energy neutron and results in a net loss of energy.
In summary, in the context of nuclear fusion, tritium is consumed in the fusion process with deuterium to produce energy, and it is produced by neutron interaction with lithium. This dual role of tritium is a key aspect of sustaining a fusion reaction over time, making the D-T fusion cycle a prominent candidate for future fusion-based power generation.
