RexTalionis: While we're arguing over the merits of these, why aren't we developing Thorium reactors which we KNOW would work?

Well, go on then.

Not kidding. If that's the way forward, go do it!

RexTalionis: While we're arguing over the merits of these, why aren't we developing Thorium reactors which we KNOW would work?

THIS.

talian inventor Andrea Rossi says he has devised a catalyzer that can produce large amounts of energy. He won't let anyone investigate his research...

This is why he gets called an inventor and not a scientist. You're kinda missing the point of peer-review there, dude.

...and some have dismissed his so-called "E-Cat" technology as a scam.

I'm going to assume it is until proven otherwise.

The Navy has been funding Polywell fusion research for years. Taking little baby steps, a few million dollars at a time. So far it has not been debunked. I wish they would ramp up the project, build a demonstrator and confirm/disprove it.

Yah, Thorium should be developed. From what I have heard the only reason Uranium reactors are what we use for nuclear power today, is that they produce the fissionable material needed for nuclear weapons, and Thorium does not. So for political and military reason the U.S. government encouraged Uranium reactors and discouraged Thorium. And due to U.S. influence after WWII, the rest of the world just followed suit, rather than go their own way.

So the military-industrial complex won. Eisenhower warned us.

So far as the article goes, I have been seeing different reports of this kind of research off and on for years. with all kinds of criticisms and support.

According to this (new window) and downstream links, NASA and the IARPA is interested, but they also fund a lot of very speculative stuff, just in case it has merit. Sometimes it pays off, mostly it does not.

Until the results some of these researchers are producing are explained, what is going on is unknown. It may just be crap. At least the ones that are sharing data, techniques and results may provide answers, some, like that jackass in Italy, just muddy the waters and obscure any legitimate results that might be there.

Who knows whether it will be useful or not, I sure as hell don't. But it is interesting.

/subby

Bondith: This is why he gets called an inventor and not a scientist. You're kinda missing the point of peer-review there, dude.

Indeed. He also can't explain the theory behind it, but somehow claims to have it work.

Compare with, say, fission reactors: the theory is well-understood and reactors work well, but actually modeling the exact behavior in the core is difficult due to various physical limitations (large-scale nuclear reactions are highly complex).

...but Rossi basically says he doesn't understand what's going on in any real sense, and just tinkers with stuff until it works. That's...unlikely.

Interesting "holographic" model of early stage Thorium reactions in a confined magnetic chamber illuminated by 30 keV particle beams.

RoyBatty: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x169]

Interesting "holographic" model of early stage Thorium reactions in a confined magnetic chamber illuminated by 30 keV particle beams.

You've gotta watch out for the spatial interphase, though. That can mess your shiat up.

Once dubbed "cold fusion" and famously observed in the 1980s by Utah researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, and then roundly criticized and rejected across the entire scientific community over 20 years ago,

ftfy moronic writer

t3knomanser: RoyBatty: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x169]

Interesting "holographic" model of early stage Thorium reactions in a confined magnetic chamber illuminated by 30 keV particle beams.

You've gotta watch out for the spatial interphase, though. That can mess your shiat up.

I'll just use an inverse tachyon beam

namatad: tomWright: Yah, Thorium should be developed. From what I have heard the only reason Uranium reactors are what we use for nuclear power today, is that they produce the fissionable material needed for nuclear weapons, and Thorium does not. So for political and military reason the U.S. government encouraged Uranium reactors and discouraged Thorium. And due to U.S. influence after WWII, the rest of the world just followed suit, rather than go their own way.

yup nixon put the stop to thorium power reactors and favored fast breeder reactors to get mroe fuel/weapons grade fuel

Nixon? really? I would have thought it happened earlier.

namatad: hydro? bwahahahahahahah

What's wrong with hydro if the geography supports it? You can have some *big* generators.

The majority of power in Switzerland is hydro, with all but 5% of the rest being nuclear. They're looking at phasing out nuclear in the next few decades, which is unfortunate, but even so...

This is ridiculous. Nationally funded science research? One hundred percent WASTE.

Truly necessary advances would be provided by the free market. A true visionary would dispose of all this governmental inefficiency and give all Americans a "research funding voucher", which they could spend at the private research institution of their choice.

That way only truly valuable research would be undertaken, without all the government waste, and unleash the profit motive that will make America great again!

* See also my plan to replace the Federal Bureau of Investigation with individual crime-solving vouchers.

heypete:
What's wrong with hydro if the geography supports it? You can have some *big* generators.

Two things.

First, there's not a lot of good places left to build large hydro plants in the US or in Europe.

Second, every environmental group on the planet would lose their minds if we started building more of the "low head" hydro plants (yes, that's what they're called), or tried to put more big ones in the few places left.

namatad: StopLurkListen: This is ridiculous. Nationally funded science research? One hundred percent WASTE.

wow
so you actually have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about how science and basic research is currently funded in the real world.
without that government funding you would not have a computer and would not be posting here, therefore you are a moron or a troll.

bye bye

That was a joke, I figured it was over-the-top enough to be obvious, especially the FBI postscript, but ... Poe's Law. Sorry.

FTA: "He is in the early stages of pitching a plan to establish a national research program that would help scientists study tabletop energy. "

I am in an early stage of pitching a tent to study laptop energy.

namatad: StopLurkListen: This is ridiculous. Nationally funded science research? One hundred percent WASTE.

wow
so you actually have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about how science and basic research is currently funded in the real world.
without that government funding you would not have a computer and would not be posting here, therefore you are a moron or a troll.

bye bye

You should have looked more closelier at the the rest of the post

cirby: First, there's not a lot of good places left to build large hydro plants in the US or in Europe.

Yeah, I know.

Second, every environmental group on the planet would lose their minds if we started building more of the "low head" hydro plants (yes, that's what they're called), or tried to put more big ones in the few places left.

Giggity?

Honestly, I appreciate the goals of environmental groups: having a clean, unpolluted planet benefits every living thing (except perhaps those bacteria that can eat PCBs, but that's a different story), but there seems to be a huge amount of conflicting goals. Reducing pollution is good, and a good place to start is with reducing highly-polluting coal power plants (and the mining needed to fuel them). However, it seems what whenever anyone proposes any sort of alternative there's lots of objections from the environmental groups (wind turbines chop up birds, hydro screws up rivers and involves large reservoirs, nuclear = RADIATION, solar panels are produced with scary chemicals, etc.) and so nothing really changes and more coal gets burned.

Of course, there are legitimate objections, but there's also a lot of derp from a number of sources and things get mired up for years. It's unfortunate.

Perfect is the enemy of good, and we need to start somewhere. Personally, I'm a fan of more grid-tied solar. The panels pay for themselves in a few years and are warranted for 25+ years. Current tech produces panels in a similar manner to silicon integrated circuits, and is getting cheaper and cheaper. New developments are making panels that are flexible, more durable, etc. No wilderness needs to be bulldozed to put in big solar power stations. The buildings are already there and are already soaking up energy (which requires additional energy to remove via air conditioning). Sure, solar doesn't work at night, but it's a start.

Combined with insulating homes better, more efficient lighting tech, more fuel efficient cars, and more people using public transport to get around, that's a pretty darn good start.

/American living in Switzerland for grad school. It's remarkable to see the difference in regards to energy use, recycling, and public transport here compared to Arizona.

namatad: we REALLY need some kind of visual SARCASM symbol

LOL

I recall a while back, a farker nominated re-purposing the tilde and calling it the "sarcastrophe".

~Obviously, it caught on~

I think an awesome project would be to use old defunct steel mill land in he Chicago - Gary corridor to build high temp gas-cooled reactors, and co-locate a thermal depolymerization or plasma arc waste treatment plant alongside. Throw in high temp hydrogen production out of lake water, you get a farking conucopia of energy production and safe waste reduction.

RoyBatty: [upload.wikimedia.org image 300x169]

Interesting "holographic" model of early stage Thorium reactions in a confined magnetic chamber illuminated by 30 keV particle beams.

So actually... it's magnets.

traylor: So actually... it's magnets.

In what manner do those operate?

mark12A: The Navy has been funding Polywell fusion research for years. Taking little baby steps, a few million dollars at a time. So far it has not been debunked. I wish they would ramp up the project, build a demonstrator and confirm/disprove it.

That actually IS fusion, not LENR.

Of course, the Navy is also farting around with cold fusion as well.

Is it originating in a small chapel in Ethiopia?

erewhon: mark12A: The Navy has been funding Polywell fusion research for years. Taking little baby steps, a few million dollars at a time. So far it has not been debunked. I wish they would ramp up the project, build a demonstrator and confirm/disprove it.

That actually IS fusion, not LENR.

Of course, the Navy is also farting around with cold fusion as well.

Hey, if they figure it out, they'd just have discovered high density local power generation... no more supply lines, or volatile fuels, and newly-available power sources for ridiculous kinds of weapons (insert Iron-man arc-reactor reference here)...

It's laughable until you're the first group/nation to discover it... then you own the board.

StopLurkListen: namatad: StopLurkListen: This is ridiculous. Nationally funded science research? One hundred percent WASTE.

wow
so you actually have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about how science and basic research is currently funded in the real world.
without that government funding you would not have a computer and would not be posting here, therefore you are a moron or a troll.

bye bye

That was a joke, I figured it was over-the-top enough to be obvious, especially the FBI postscript, but ... Poe's Law. Sorry.

CAN'T.STOP.LAUGHING

FTA: Scientists for years have been using different methodologies to create excess heat in the lab without using a lot of energy. Once dubbed "cold fusion" and famously observed in the 1980s by Utah researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons

Article fails spectacularly right there. No, scientists have not been seeing excess heat (other than from perfectly normal chemical reactions). Or as one early advocate for Cold Fusion said, explaining his decision to abandon it: "The cleaner I make my equipment, the smaller the effect I see." (This was a kind of way of telling his colleagues "what you're seeing is an electrolytic effect from trace contaminants in your equipment").

For those too young to know (or care), Fleischmann and Pons' moment in the sun went almost exactly like this:

F: As a chemist, I can't explain where this energy is coming from
P: As a chemist, I claim it must therefore be something from physics
F&P: The only possible explanation is fusion. Cold fusion!
Physicists: If it's fusion, there must be fast neutrons emitted. Do you have neutrons?
F: ...no...
P: ...because this is some previously unknown form of fusion where the neutrons get reabsorbed into the material.
Physicists: Bull. Get back to us when you have neutrons.

...and in the two decades since, nothing has significantly changed.

ThreadSinger: Hey, if they figure it out, they'd just have discovered high density local power generation... no more supply lines, or volatile fuels, and newly-available power sources for ridiculous kinds of weapons (insert Iron-man arc-reactor reference here)...

They wanted Polywell to work so they could stuff it in submarines. Off and on, it appears that it still ends up getting funding, but it's on the classified end of things. Not sure who's doing the work because it doesn't seem to be emc2. (elaborate shrug)

czetie: For those too young to know (or care), Fleischmann and Pons' moment in the sun went almost exactly like this:

F: As a chemist, I can't explain where this energy is coming from
P: As a chemist, I claim it must therefore be something from physics
F&P: The only possible explanation is fusion. Cold fusion!
Physicists: If it's fusion, there must be fast neutrons emitted. Do you have neutrons?
F: ...no...
P: ...because this is some previously unknown form of fusion where the neutrons get reabsorbed into the material.
Physicists: Bull. Get back to us when you have neutrons.

...and in the two decades since, nothing has significantly changed.


And enough people carefully tried to replicate without getting the results that the energy was clearly experimental error.

cirby: heypete:
What's wrong with hydro if the geography supports it? You can have some *big* generators.

Two things.

First, there's not a lot of good places left to build large hydro plants in the US or in Europe.

Second, every environmental group on the planet would lose their minds if we started building more of the "low head" hydro plants (yes, that's what they're called), or tried to put more big ones in the few places left.


I buy my electricity, and my provincial government is the sole shareholder in Hydro Québec. We're almost 100% hydroelectric.

Yay! Cheap power for me!

But you're right, it would be much more difficult to build those massive projects today.

BTW, Hydro Québec sells a tremendous amount of power to the Northeastern US.

heypete: namatad: hydro? bwahahahahahahah

What's wrong with hydro if the geography supports it? You can have some *big* generators.

The majority of power in Switzerland is hydro, with all but 5% of the rest being nuclear. They're looking at phasing out nuclear in the next few decades, which is unfortunate, but even so...

Fun fact, over 16% of the world's power is supplied by hydro. The next highest is gas at about 20%.

heypete: namatad: hydro? bwahahahahahahah

What's wrong with hydro if the geography supports it? You can have some *big* generators.

The majority of power in Switzerland is hydro, with all but 5% of the rest being nuclear. They're looking at phasing out nuclear in the next few decades, which is unfortunate, but even so...

Unfortunately it also screws over the ecosystem in you river.

Man, when are people gonna figure this Cold Fusion stuff out?

...what?