This site must have a private server or something to keep the site from glitching
I've been testing this site and the people that control it to see if its here before building this thing again.
If they see no magic or hidden tricks but just a understandable starting point it may be studied ... and improved.
We will see.
No funny stuff on our part. This has always been your safe place, and it will remain that way.
Hi Shane, thanks very much. Respectfully, Reginald B. Little
Anything new involving LENR going on with you?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Display MoreHere is a shared link to a long article about conventional nuclear energy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0…cAeHBIJu6K&smid=url-share
QUOTE:
. . . [P]ledging to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 is a little like promising to win the lottery. For the United States, it would mean adding an additional 200 gigawatts of nuclear operating capacity (almost double what the country has ever built) to the 100 gigawatts or so that now exists, generated by more than 90 commercial reactors that have been running an average of 42 years. Globally it would mean tripling the existing capacity built over the past 70 years in less than half that time in addition to replacing reactors that will shut down before 2050.
The Energy Department estimates the total cost of such an effort in the United States at roughly $700 billion. But David Schlissel, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, has calculated that the two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia — the only new reactors built in the United States in a generation — on average, cost $21.2 million per megawatt in today’s dollars — which translates to $21.2 billion per gigawatt. Using that figure as a yardstick, the cost of building 200 gigawatts of new capacity would be far higher: at least $4 trillion, or $6 trillion if you count the additional cost of replacing existing reactors as they age out.For much less money and in less time, the world can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of renewables like solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal power, and by transmitting, storing and using electricity more efficiently. . . .
Surprised to read a good deal of push-back in the comments section to author Stephanie Cook's "facts". Much more than I would expect from NYTs subscribers. Maybe nuclear is not the lost cause she thinks?
Not if you read the "expert" reports!
Well, I have read each and every one for at least the past 12 years, and many before that. Of course, my background is not yours, so when I read, I look for different things than you. Mainly the validators, observers, or co-author's credentials. All so far have been top notch in that regards, and IMO, if they are willing to risk their hard-earned reputation to put their name on a report, then that means something to me. So, I am fairly comfortable thinking Mills has some legitimate science going on based on that.
The problem as I see it, is that he knows he has something (as just about everyone else in LENR), but it is much more difficult to commercialize then he has been willing to admit. He knew from early on that if he were honest and told potential investors: "this could take 30 years to develop, and then we may still have trouble profiting from of it", there would be no investors, and like many others before him, that would have been the end of the Mills story.
So, out of necessity, he became a businessman with a good sales pitch. And I see much of that in this latest Shareholder Meeting Report.
Mills is very good at it. He has a compelling story for anyone who does not trust expert review of his voluminous and impressive output
They have checked that "expert review" block many times over.
While quiet lately, judging by this Shareholders Presentation, BLP has been quite busy behind the scenes. Heavy emphasis on commercialization, showing "progress", and a timeline:
Display More
Not only is CP presenting this June 18 at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) event, but also Huang and his team from Taiwan with their 2 papers, a group from the Indian Institute of Technology, plus some newcomers from Brigham Young Univ.
I have arrhythmia, I got it in an infectious diseases hospital with herring poisoning, now I can't treat arrhythmia, everyone refuses, the cardiologist said that I will not be able to remove the arrhythmia, so it turns out that it is. So I'm very sick.
Sorry to hear that Gennadiy. Wish you well.
I agree, we need people to replicate the effect. Unfortunately, this is not easy to do. I was able to do this only because I could design and make the required apparatus. Thanks to several wise individuals, I had the money to buy the parts. Cold fusion makes heat, which requires a sensitive calorimeter that costs in excess of $25,000 even when it is self-made. Helium and tritium are even more difficult and expensive to detect. Radiation detection requires special skill because it can be detected mainly within the apparatus. Now energetic electron emission is found to occur. Unfortunately, its relationship to cold fusion is not agreed upon so that it cannot be used to demonstrate fusion as the cause. What is worse, each proposed model identifies different behaviors as proof that fusion occurs. Consequently, a person does not even know what to measure in order to prove that anything special is happening. People like THH will always find a reason to reject any claimed replication.
Thanks, I didn't know it cost that much. I would venture to guess few in the public do, nor appreciate what it takes in terms of skill, and time to attempt replication. Makes me appreciate even more that we now have the DOE/ARPA-E, NASA/USNavy -both of which have been at this as long as you, new-comers USArmy/AirForce labs, EU (CleanHME/HERMES), and the Japanese government (NEDO) funding some sophisticated LENR efforts with access to state-of-the art equipment.
I'm curious; if you have read their most recent work as presented at ICCF24/25, which, if any, do you think is on the right track?
Yikes. Mother nature strikes back against green energy:
This discussion would be great on LENR Theories Discussion. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) Is your theory summarized well in post#2?
Either one, or the other, but please keep the discussion going. Been fascinating to watch from my perspective. Dr. Storms opinion and theory, like no other, may be controversial, but it stirs up such interesting dialogue.
This is a video we missed that came out 9 months ago. Any former, or present Rossi fan would already know the story of Ian Bryce, Dick Smith, Rossi, and the ground/earth wire trick, but here Bryce fills in many details not available before. Very interesting...even for those new to LENR. In it, Ian Bryce recounts his efforts to uncover how Rossi fooled a lot of very smart scientists. Thanks go to David Nygren for finding:
Just so no one gets confused: The Ranga Dias superconductor fraud story is separate from the South Korean team reporting room temp conductivity. While there is still controversy over their findings, there have been no accusations of fraud as with Dias. In fact, they have been partially replicated, and hosted a news conference this month to say they still back their initial claims.
Thanks David for the Fusion Energy video. Yoshino (CP CEO) had his work cut out for him representing LENR alongside Andrew Holland, CEO of The Fusion Energy Association, and I think he did a very nice job of it. Just being on the same stage with Holland was a win of sorts for us, but he also held his own on the merits IMO. Hopefully that added to our credibility with the audience, who, judging by the Q&A, were a very sophisticated group.
Yoshino made a nice counter to Holland talking of the billions being funded to Magnetic/Plasma Fusion research, by pointing out LENR has much more modest needs due to its low temps, no radiation, and compact size. When answering to timelines, Yoshino said "in a few years" as he is "talking with them" which I assume is Miura, to make a 100KW boiler, composed of 10 30cm x 60cm modules, followed later by a 600kw.
Yoshino also mentioned CP's 82 patents, with 200 applications pending. All the questions in the Q&A were for Holland though.
LENR-forum News March 2024 (mailchi.mp)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Shane
Who should be nice about what? Too many words to read through. Data costs too much.
Yes, it is (too much to read through)! But this is his own thread to play with as he likes. We all come here knowing that, so hard to then complain Gennadiy's posts are redundant and long. However, as far as I am concerned, once he posts on other threads and does the same, then he is fair game.
Now, now boys. be nice.
Duncan TTU:
.... "Attempts have been made to replicate the results of Steinetz, et al.
Our initial tritium level measurements are well explained by D(n,g)T alone
We do not yet see evidence of Steinetz, et al.’s results" ...
Do you have a date on this? In Sept 2023 you also posted this RE: NASA’s Lattice Confined Fusion (LCF) about a failed attempt by TTU (Duncan's team) to replicate NASA's LCF, and curious if your post today is something new.
