Promethian Member
  • Member since Oct 4th 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Promethian

    Seemingly you can purchase depleted uranium Uranium metal 99.9% depleted U238 from 35 USD.

    Please let me know if anyone can conduct a test. I would be more than happy to fund it in part.

    I also think there are applications to agricultural lighting or street lighting of said material.

    Preferably to be utilized with lithium-6 in combination for best effects.

    Please tell us more.

    I believe that it also has to be due to the effects that depleted uranium have on the Coulomb barrierdue to its depleted nature.

    I was wondering if it would be possible if Alan Smith could comment or if you could possibly know how to do a test of said device.

    I also believe that there are resonance effects due to the deuterium light or what might be some kind of dancing around of elements in combination with one another.

    Thank you for any input David.

    I did some analysis and there are applications of passing gascious uranium through a hydrogen flux to generate so much heat and power...

    What becomes dangerous is if anyone decides to plasmoid this gascious mixture in a plasma reactor. Really scary stuff.

    He guys did you ever hear about nuclear waste ???

    Fission is dead until we know how to LENR treat the nuclear waste!

    MOX it in resonance reactors. The design applies almost perfectly to travelling wave reactors, which are perhaps the closest thing to a resonance reactor...

    On Some Fundamental Peculiarities of the Traveling Wave Reactor


    On the basis of the condition for nuclear burning wave existence in the neutron-multiplying media (U-Pu and Th-U cycles) we show the possibility of surmounting the so-called dpa-parameter problem and suggest an algorithm of the optimal nuclear burning wave mode adjustment, which is supposed to yield the wave parameters (fluence/neutron flux, width and speed of nuclear burning wave) that satisfy the dpa-condition associated with the tolerable level of the reactor materials radioactive stability, in particular that of the cladding materials. It is shown for the first time that the capture and fission cross sections of 238U and 239Pu increase with temperature within 1000–3000 K range, which under certain conditions may lead to a global loss of the nuclear burning wave stability. Some variants of the possible stability loss due to the so-called blow-up modes (anomalous nuclear fuel temperature and neutron flow evolution) are discussed and are found to possibly become a reason for a trivial violation of the traveling wave reactor internal safety.

    Military reactors are usually charged with an excess of reactivity.

    Efficiency doesn't pay off with nuclear reactors of energy production. People keep on getting this wrong. Instead efficiency should be defined by fuel maintenance.

    Thisreactivity is tamed with “burnable poisons”. (I don’t know the name in English)During the life of the ship, the poison disappear by neutron capture, and inthe same time the fissile isotopes are burned, and poison fission products arecreated, so the reactivity of the reactor could be maintained constant overdozen of years.

    To the best of my knowledge, this depends on the moderator. This is where MOX reactors have a superiority over existing reactors; but... they should be the target for designing these resonance reactors. I believe that a suitable moderator might be able to maintain a resonance rate equal to fuel degradement that would prevent the arisal of neutron toxicity. If you get what I'm saying an equilibrium has to be designed inherently in the reactor. In the case of Chernobyl, this inherent equilibrium was so far away from normal operational standards that led to some kind of runaway resonance effect. I don't want to go into details, as this is pretty secret stuff.

    This is convenient for themilitary, because profitability considerations are not taken into account.

    Again, military applications should adopt the resonance reactor mentioned in the above paper. Only that, graphite is such a poor moderator, that I believe (ehem) hydrogen itself would be an ideal moderator along with a mixture of other elements absorbing and reflecting the neutron influx. I believe the most dangerous reactor designs are graphite based and gasious moderators are ideal for this purpose, and can even be mixed with a MOX fuel composition. Don't go too far with this concept though... You don't want to kettle to boil over.

    A quite interesting proposal, this is possible as part of a molten salt fission reactor?

    The thing about molten salt reactors is that the fuel composition must remain steady and uniform throughout the reactor for it to experience resonance.

    I also was thinking, the Chernobyl incident as you said was hotter or had features that it shouldn't have had without resonant effects??

    This is true; based on the composition of isotopes detected in the fuel post meltdown (I surmise that fuel ejected and not subject to a meltdown occurrence also experienced this phenomenon).


    After a recent thread about what may have happened at Chernobyl in regards to excessive nuclear resonance, I figured I would start a thread about a hypothetical nuclear reactor based on the principles of control rod resonance.

    This hypothetical reactor would probably last for hundreds of years without changing the fuel composition or in other words, the control rods would be maintained at the same rate of resonance as to prevent the fuel from degrading. Can anyone surmise if this is possible?

    I further hypothesize that a resonance reactor would be utilized for direct energy production. Hypothetically, the reactors would create a monopole that would allow (from both sides) to produce direct energy production.

    I wonder if anyone else thinks this is possible or if any of this makes sense. I predict that such a reactor could utilize already spent fuel (although more complex to maintain) to enrich it to the appropriate state.

    Hoping on some interesting thoughts about the issue.

    As a side note, here is one such reactor already proposed some 30 years ago:…c/39/059/39059924.pdf?r=1


    I might be talking a little too loud, but A LOT can be figured out about reactor designs and seemingly, (anti-neutrino shielding, if not even neutrino shielding) seems very likely...

    In my mind, it wouldn't take much to make subs with neutrino signatures A LOT more undetectable. What worries me, is that Russia, Israel, and even India seem to be at the leading edge based on the above two pictures.

    I'm going to be a lot more quiet now.

    Sorry, I feel like something that shouldn't have been said, despite necessary, was said.


    Employing antineutrino detectors to safeguard future nuclear reactors from diversions

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements are in place worldwide to ensure that nuclear material and facilities are used only for peaceful purposes. Antineutrino detectors, sensitive to reactor power and fuel changes, can complement the tools already at the disposal of international agencies to safeguard nuclear facilities and to verify the States’ compliance with the agreements. Recent advancement in these detectors has made it possible to leverage them to reduce the likelihood of an undetected diversion of irradiated nuclear material. Here we show the sensitivity of antineutrino monitors to fuel divergence from two reactor types: a traditional light-water reactor and an advanced sodium-cooled reactor design, a likely candidate for future deployment. The analysis demonstrates that a variety of potential diversion scenarios can be detected by such a system. We outline recent developments in monitoring capabilities and discuss their potential security implications to the international community.



    Now, I can have good dreams at night.

    Seems like anti-neutrinos seem to be also a key player also:

    Every second greater than 1025 antineutrinos radiate to space from Earth, shining like a faint antineutrino star. Underground antineutrino detectors have revealed the rapidly decaying fission products inside nuclear reactors, verified the long-lived radioactivity inside our planet and informed sensitive experiments for probing fundamental physics. Mapping the anisotropic antineutrino flux and energy spectrum advance geoscience by defining the amount and distribution of radioactive power within Earth while critically evaluating competing compositional models of the planet. We present the Antineutrino Global Map 2015 (AGM2015), an experimentally informed model of Earth’s surface antineutrino flux over the 0 to 11 MeV energy spectrum, along with an assessment of systematic errors. The open source AGM2015 provides fundamental predictions for experiments, assists in strategic detector placement to determine neutrino mass hierarchy and aids in identifying undeclared nuclear reactors. We use cosmochemically and seismologically informed models of the radiogenic lithosphere/mantle combined with the estimated antineutrino flux, as measured by KamLAND and Borexino, to determine the Earth’s total antineutrino luminosity at 41598_2015_Article_BFsrep13945_IEq1_HTML.gif. We find a dominant flux of geo-neutrinos, predict sub-equal crust and mantle contributions, with ~1% of the total flux from man-made nuclear reactors.


    What's up with the world if we don't already have Neutrino detectors in order to prevent nuclear war/proliferation/detectors...

    Either there's some conspiracy or hard limits at play.

    Are we really not there technologically?