From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 17:25:40 EDT
> Thanks for your kind reply.
>
> Unfortunately, what I call the Godzilla Syndrome (an irrational fear of
> radiation) halted so many reactor projects and cause the 15 year
timeline.
>
> Fission is actually much more eco-friendly than fossil for energy
> production, is it not?
>
> Interesting how the Japanese, nuked not one but twice, have embraced
> fission.
>
> Analogous is their common sense view of mercury levels in seafood.
>
> Did they not experience the horrors of mercury induced birth defects at
was
> it, Manama (sp) Bay?
>
> Yet they relish bluefin tuna while our mercury level limits make it off
> limits to us.
>
> Jay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
> To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
>
>
> > Jay,
> >
> > > Or, is "cold fusion" a "dead duck" because of a lack of encouragement
> > (read
> > > "funding") of innovative creativity in the scientific community?
> Perhaps
> > > this is the price of preferring to focus on concepts already
discovered
> > yet
> > > enormously expensive to develop.
> > >
> >
> > I was working at UKAEA Culham (the centre for Fusion research) at the
time
> > of the "Cold Fusion" indicent. I can tell you there was no lack of
> > encouragement. Cold fusion was the one topic of discussion at lunch.
> > Scientists all round the world attempted to reproduce Pons and
> Fleischmann's
> > results, including some people I know well at the neighbouring lab at
> > Harwell. They even lost important business opportunities because they
> were
> > required by Harwell senior management to try and replicate the Cold
Fusion
> > results. As far as I'm aware, not a single lab round the world managed
to
> > get a sustained fusion reaction, despite the most strenuous attempts and
> the
> > highest professional care being taken. There was a total absence of any
> > success, and eventually some of the theoretical physicists I shared
lunch
> > with were becoming increasingly skeptical of the whole idea, as the
> nuclear
> > reaction being proposed was a "disallowed" transition that had a very
low
> > probability & there was only some hand-waving explanation of how the
> > "disallowed" transition could take place in the Palladium lattice.
> >
> > Eventually, IIRC, Linus Pauling effectively debunked the whole idea by
> > explaining away the excess heat that P&F had generated in terms of
> chemical
> > interactions with the Palladium (I think it was Palladium?) lattice.
> >
> > > We can hope that like so many discoveries, a new theory of controlled
> > fusion
> > > will be discovered when someone is looking at an altogether different
> > > problem.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > We can, of course, hope that something like this will turn up; but in
the
> > meantime, as I have said before, the Tokamak is the nearest to
delivering
> > the goods & it's still a long way off. IMHO, if we are to fill in the
> > energy gap before fusion becomes realistic, then we are going to have to
> > bite the bullet and go for much more conventional nuclear power
(fission).
> > This is not going to be popular, but if the alternative is to slump to a
> > third world type economy, we'd better start doing that pretty quickly; I
> > understand it takes around 15 years to build a fission power station ...
> >
> > Iain.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
> > > To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>; "Darryl Maddox"
> > > <dpmaddox@arn.net>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 2:33 AM
> > > Subject: Re: the hydrogen economy
> > >
> > >
> > > > Jay,
> > > >
> > > > > We could sure metaphor ourselves into a topic on the nature and
form
> > of
> > > > > education of the young and not so young if our goal is creativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fusion seems to be an area where science has focused its research
> > > dollars
> > > > > globally.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is watching the focus of the research itself? Are other
areas
> of
> > > > > investigation being ignored or starved as billions go into the
> > > > > electro-magnetic method?
> > > > >
> > > > > From recent postings it would seem that the cost has halved. Will
> > more
> > > > > money be fruitful if the rate of innovation in the process
> > accelerates?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think you're slightly missing the point here. The cost has halved
> at
> > > the
> > > > expense of cutting back the program and almost certainly delaying
the
> > time
> > > > when we can have useful fusion. The original concept for ITER was
for
> > it
> > > to
> > > > be an experimental reactor, that would of itself produce usable
> energy.
> > > The
> > > > aim now is to establish the experimental basis for the design of
such
> a
> > > > reactor.
> > > >
> > > > The main alternative to the electro-magnetic method is laser
implosion
> > > > fusion. The idea is that you have tiny pellets of Deuterium-Tritium
> > which
> > > > are symmetrically imploded by massive laser beams, and thereby
caused
> to
> > > > explode like mini H-bombs. The method is called "inertial
> confinement",
> > > > because it is the inertial of the matter in the fuel pellet that
> causes
> > it
> > > > to stay together long enough for usable energy to be derived. A lot
> of
> > > > reserach and money has gone into this method, but as far as I'm
aware
> > it's
> > > > less economically viable than the magnetic confinement method. The
> > laser
> > > > facilities required are absolutely gigantic - the lasers are the
same
> > size
> > > > as the Jet Torus hall. One of the prime motivators for funding such
> > > > applications is the obvious military interest in developing high
power
> > > > lasers. But it seems extremely unlikely, given the massive laser
> > > facilities
> > > > required, that this method would be any cheaper than the Tokamak
> > concept.
> > > >
> > > > One of the reasons for the huge cost of the experiments is that they
> do
> > > not
> > > > produce useful energy & require a massive input of energy to power
the
> > > > magnetic coils. The JET experiment, near where I live has a whole
> > > > sub-station of Didcot Power Station to provide the power during
> pulses.
> > > > Even that is not enough during the 30 second shot & half the energy
> > > supplied
> > > > is from a massive flywheel generator that is spun up to 225 RPM
during
> > the
> > > 9
> > > > 1/2 minute down time between pulses, and during a shot its speed
goes
> > down
> > > > to half that. Note that ITER will be producing nothing but Hydrogen
> > > plasmas
> > > > for the first 7 years, so it too will not produce usable power, and
> even
> > > > when it does, there will not be any attempt to recycle the power.
As
> > far
> > > as
> > > > I know, the ITER coils will not require such a huge input of power,
> > > because
> > > > it will use superconducting coils. However, one still needs to
input
> > > > massive amounts of energy to heat the plasma up to the required
> ignition
> > > > temperature. (By input of EM energy from coils and also by
injection
> of
> > > > high energy beams of neutral particles).
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, the "Cold Fusion" concept is a dead duck.
> > > >
> > > > Iain.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 17:26:00 EDT