OT: nuclear fusion might not be quite as far off in the futu

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:63a57518-29fe-
49bb-85d1-6adf88ad6849@googlegroups.com:

> It's just people like you who make ridiculous statements like this.

Yer a fuckin' total retard. THIS JOKE is a known common joke in the
entire scientific community, you fucking putz!

"Working fusion reactor, only ten years off" has been a joke since
the early seventies.

Grow the fuck up. You one of the stupid fucks voted for the
TrumpTard?

Yes: Figures

No: Then stop acting like one.

 

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:14:15 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/4/1824

It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and could get working earlier.

There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in the mix.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Once again you're completely clueless and gullible. Fusion is unobtainable because of political interference. This crap with funding government and academic labs to make a show of research into it is a deceitful ruse. The kind of useless swine who work in those places never get anything to work, they're non-performers. The research has to be moved into a sector hungry for making enormous profit, and that's what's happening now.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/walvanlierop/2019/08/21/fusion-energy-who-has-the-courage-to-take-it-to-market/#4aa7e41f57c7

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 9:27:02 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:47:11 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30/01/2020 11:08 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:36:06 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 6:00:55 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 7:55:05 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else
wrote:
On 29/01/2020 5:14 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy
of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/4/1824

It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and
could get working earlier.

There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to
fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer
to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in
the mix.

I can't judge its merits, but "working with a more advanced
prototype at least three times larger..." That is, "We need a
bigger machine to get energy positive". Where have we heard
that before?

Pretty much everywhere, starting with steam engines.

It is worth paying attention to the size they need to get to -
which is mentioned in the article.

With steam engines an actual working prototype showing how one
gets usable power out of it was demonstrated at the very
beginning. With nuclear fusion, we have exactly the opposite after
more than half a century.

Whoey Louie's grasp of reality is decidedly weak. Nuclear fusion - in
the sun - has been delivering usable power for the past few billion
years.

At present it takes more power to get a hydrogen plasma at the
earth's surface hot and dense enough to fuse than the fusing nuclei
deliver, but that isn't "exactly the opposite" of delivering usable
power, it's just a step along a road to getting there.

The point of the article was that while ITER currently looks like the
likeliest route to commercial nuclear power generation, there are
others, and most of them look as if they could work on a smaller
scale.

Whooe Louie doesn't really understand how technical development
works. It's an exploration of possibilities, rather than an
expedition down the only possible route.


Nevertheless, there has been a specific goal for a long time - obtain
usable power from hydrogen fusion on Earth. There has never appeared to
be a theoretical obstacle (unlike free energy machines, for example),
yet achieving the goal has taken, and is still taking, longer than I
believe anyone imagined it would when research on it started.

If one were inclined to be sceptical, one would have history on one's side.

Have you any idea how long people imagined that it would take when the research got under way?

It's the nature of development that nothing works until you've solved all the problems that stopped it from working. Since it's a process of exploration, rather than trip down a well-charted path, the only people who make confident predictions about how long it's going to take to get to the destination are those who don't know what they are talking about.

And that includes the crowd that are happy to assure us that we'll never get there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Why wait? Andrea Rossi has a working reactor now, he's got a plant in FL
to build them, he's going to make a lot of money. He's convinced some
real scientists that it all works. I suggest you invest! Buy the
rights for Australia, you'll be rich!

https://ecat.com/

ECAT technology is based on LENR which is far superior in comparison to all existing energy sources:

Superior Energy Density: LENR has an energy density that is a factor 100,000-10,000,000 times greater than today’s combustion processes (Oil, Coal, Natural Gas) and reportedly higher than today’s commercial fission.
Green and Safe: LENR is 100% green and carbon-free. LENR is a nuclear reaction, however, it does not require uranium/plutonium, has no nuclear byproducts, and has no harmful effects or safety issues like fission energy.
Limitless: The current fuel for LENR, nickel + hydrogen, is nearly limitless, the most abundant metal and the most abundant gas on earth. No combustion process takes place, instead, the hydrogen is merged with nickel, which is transmuted to form copper + energy. LENR also appears possible using metals other than Nickel such as Palladium for instance.
Cheap, Small and Scalable: The forthcoming LENR devices are all very cost efficient. They are small, easy to manufacture/operate, highly efficient and reliable, with no moving parts and requiring only the replacement of a LENR fuel cartridge every 6 months or so.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 4:13:45 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 7:14:37 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:58:42 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

Or work out a way of pulling some CO2 out of the atmosphere. There was some Dutch professor who thought that digging up and crushing a few million tons of dolomite rock and spreading it on beaches would be the cheapest way of doing that. That would just speed up the normal weathering mechanism which soaks up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

Sounds to me like a potential example of a law of unintended consequences. While dolomite can be beneficial as a pH buffer, if the pH value is could be impacted too much by such large quantities.

Dolomite - and the carbonates that CO2 produces by acting on it - are insoluble in water.

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dolomite+solubility+in+water

Spreading it on beaches just lets the waves shift it around to expose fresh surfaces to CO2.

More CO2 in the oceans is going to make them marginally more acid, and dolomite would would help that, but only by locking up some CO2 as insoluble compounds.

I can't seem to find any info on CO2 absorption by dolomite other than by pyrolysis of the CaMg(CO3)2 into CaO and MgO which none of the papers talk about the resulting release of CO2. From what you posted it appears the dolomite is simply crushed and not heat treated. Can you explain how that absorbs CO2? I can't find it.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:57:52 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:16:55 AM UTC-5, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 9:27:02 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:47:11 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30/01/2020 11:08 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:36:06 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 6:00:55 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 7:55:05 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else
wrote:
On 29/01/2020 5:14 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy
of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/4/1824

It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and
could get working earlier.

There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to
fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer
to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in
the mix.

I can't judge its merits, but "working with a more advanced
prototype at least three times larger..." That is, "We need a
bigger machine to get energy positive". Where have we heard
that before?

Pretty much everywhere, starting with steam engines.

It is worth paying attention to the size they need to get to -
which is mentioned in the article.

With steam engines an actual working prototype showing how one
gets usable power out of it was demonstrated at the very
beginning. With nuclear fusion, we have exactly the opposite after
more than half a century.

Whoey Louie's grasp of reality is decidedly weak. Nuclear fusion - in
the sun - has been delivering usable power for the past few billion
years.

At present it takes more power to get a hydrogen plasma at the
earth's surface hot and dense enough to fuse than the fusing nuclei
deliver, but that isn't "exactly the opposite" of delivering usable
power, it's just a step along a road to getting there.

The point of the article was that while ITER currently looks like the
likeliest route to commercial nuclear power generation, there are
others, and most of them look as if they could work on a smaller
scale.

Whooe Louie doesn't really understand how technical development
works. It's an exploration of possibilities, rather than an
expedition down the only possible route.


Nevertheless, there has been a specific goal for a long time - obtain
usable power from hydrogen fusion on Earth. There has never appeared to
be a theoretical obstacle (unlike free energy machines, for example),
yet achieving the goal has taken, and is still taking, longer than I
believe anyone imagined it would when research on it started.

If one were inclined to be sceptical, one would have history on one's side.

Have you any idea how long people imagined that it would take when the research got under way?

It's the nature of development that nothing works until you've solved all the problems that stopped it from working. Since it's a process of exploration, rather than trip down a well-charted path, the only people who make confident predictions about how long it's going to take to get to the destination are those who don't know what they are talking about.

And that includes the crowd that are happy to assure us that we'll never get there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Why wait? Andrea Rossi has a working reactor now, he's got a plant in FL
to build them, he's going to make a lot of money. He's convinced some
real scientists that it all works. I suggest you invest! Buy the
rights for Australia, you'll be rich!

https://ecat.com/

ECAT technology is based on LENR which is far superior in comparison to all existing energy sources:

Superior Energy Density: LENR has an energy density that is a factor 100,000-10,000,000 times greater than today’s combustion processes (Oil, Coal, Natural Gas) and reportedly higher than today’s commercial fission.
Green and Safe: LENR is 100% green and carbon-free. LENR is a nuclear reaction, however, it does not require uranium/plutonium, has no nuclear byproducts, and has no harmful effects or safety issues like fission energy.
Limitless: The current fuel for LENR, nickel + hydrogen, is nearly limitless, the most abundant metal and the most abundant gas on earth. No combustion process takes place, instead, the hydrogen is merged with nickel, which is transmuted to form copper + energy. LENR also appears possible using metals other than Nickel such as Palladium for instance.
Cheap, Small and Scalable: The forthcoming LENR devices are all very cost efficient. They are small, easy to manufacture/operate, highly efficient and reliable, with no moving parts and requiring only the replacement of a LENR fuel cartridge every 6 months or so.

Andrea Rossi's LENR based ECAT is a great invention... er, scam. Too bad..

I watched a recent video where he demoed a small box producing power to heat water. All he needed to do was to measure the temperature and volume of the water and compare that to the power being input. His methods of measuring and calculating these powers were very overly complex and obviously flawed in a way to produce an absurdly high COP. In other words, a scam. No, a total scam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KkYMPp4c68

It would be so easy to confirm that his unit works, but like all con artists he won't allow examination of the device except in specific ways he allows which won't give you the proper information.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Oh damn, you ruined it. I wanted Bill to invest.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:16:55 AM UTC-5, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 9:27:02 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:47:11 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30/01/2020 11:08 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:36:06 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 6:00:55 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 7:55:05 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else
wrote:
On 29/01/2020 5:14 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy
of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/4/1824

It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and
could get working earlier.

There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to
fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer
to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in
the mix.

I can't judge its merits, but "working with a more advanced
prototype at least three times larger..." That is, "We need a
bigger machine to get energy positive". Where have we heard
that before?

Pretty much everywhere, starting with steam engines.

It is worth paying attention to the size they need to get to -
which is mentioned in the article.

With steam engines an actual working prototype showing how one
gets usable power out of it was demonstrated at the very
beginning. With nuclear fusion, we have exactly the opposite after
more than half a century.

Whoey Louie's grasp of reality is decidedly weak. Nuclear fusion - in
the sun - has been delivering usable power for the past few billion
years.

At present it takes more power to get a hydrogen plasma at the
earth's surface hot and dense enough to fuse than the fusing nuclei
deliver, but that isn't "exactly the opposite" of delivering usable
power, it's just a step along a road to getting there.

The point of the article was that while ITER currently looks like the
likeliest route to commercial nuclear power generation, there are
others, and most of them look as if they could work on a smaller
scale.

Whooe Louie doesn't really understand how technical development
works. It's an exploration of possibilities, rather than an
expedition down the only possible route.


Nevertheless, there has been a specific goal for a long time - obtain
usable power from hydrogen fusion on Earth. There has never appeared to
be a theoretical obstacle (unlike free energy machines, for example),
yet achieving the goal has taken, and is still taking, longer than I
believe anyone imagined it would when research on it started.

If one were inclined to be sceptical, one would have history on one's side.

Have you any idea how long people imagined that it would take when the research got under way?

It's the nature of development that nothing works until you've solved all the problems that stopped it from working. Since it's a process of exploration, rather than trip down a well-charted path, the only people who make confident predictions about how long it's going to take to get to the destination are those who don't know what they are talking about.

And that includes the crowd that are happy to assure us that we'll never get there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Why wait? Andrea Rossi has a working reactor now, he's got a plant in FL
to build them, he's going to make a lot of money. He's convinced some
real scientists that it all works. I suggest you invest! Buy the
rights for Australia, you'll be rich!

https://ecat.com/

ECAT technology is based on LENR which is far superior in comparison to all existing energy sources:

Superior Energy Density: LENR has an energy density that is a factor 100,000-10,000,000 times greater than today’s combustion processes (Oil, Coal, Natural Gas) and reportedly higher than today’s commercial fission.
Green and Safe: LENR is 100% green and carbon-free. LENR is a nuclear reaction, however, it does not require uranium/plutonium, has no nuclear byproducts, and has no harmful effects or safety issues like fission energy.
Limitless: The current fuel for LENR, nickel + hydrogen, is nearly limitless, the most abundant metal and the most abundant gas on earth. No combustion process takes place, instead, the hydrogen is merged with nickel, which is transmuted to form copper + energy. LENR also appears possible using metals other than Nickel such as Palladium for instance.
Cheap, Small and Scalable: The forthcoming LENR devices are all very cost efficient. They are small, easy to manufacture/operate, highly efficient and reliable, with no moving parts and requiring only the replacement of a LENR fuel cartridge every 6 months or so.

Andrea Rossi's LENR based ECAT is a great invention... er, scam. Too bad.

I watched a recent video where he demoed a small box producing power to heat water. All he needed to do was to measure the temperature and volume of the water and compare that to the power being input. His methods of measuring and calculating these powers were very overly complex and obviously flawed in a way to produce an absurdly high COP. In other words, a scam. No, a total scam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KkYMPp4c68

It would be so easy to confirm that his unit works, but like all con artists he won't allow examination of the device except in specific ways he allows which won't give you the proper information.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[LM]

Flat displays were also always 10 years in the future, until one day
they weren't.

I don't think the money spent in the (fusion) research is totally
wasted, it often helps local economy.

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:14:11 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/4/1824

It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and could get working earlier.

There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in the mix.

 

LM <sala.nimi@mail.com> wrote in
news:6fo63f9d3etuc2r513m364pjndddi1ls4k@4ax.com:

Flat displays were also always 10 years in the future, until one
day they weren't.

I don't think the money spent in the (fusion) research is totally
wasted, it often helps local economy.

Top posting is lame in Usenet.

Sony Trinitron held the top spot for a very long time, and were the
first with vertically flat displays, then panel displays came into
being with the advent of plasma and LCD technology.

I had a Toshiba CRT that was HDTV and was like 37 inches of huge,
thick, flat (externally) front glass. It had a very slight curve
*inside* where the beam struck the mask. I am sure that relativistic
beam acelleration on huge flat displays was a pure PITA for the
engineers.


Now we have come fool circle with slightly horizontally concave
displays.

Next thing we'll be wearing double bubble shaped goggles that give
each eye a 100% 3D surface to view the imagery on.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 1:50:18 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:14:15 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/4/1824

It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and could get working earlier.

There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in the mix.

Once again you're completely clueless and gullible. Fusion is unobtainable because of political interference. This crap with funding government and academic labs to make a show of research into it is a deceitful ruse. The kind of useless swine who work in those places never get anything to work, they're non-performers. The research has to be moved into a sector hungry for making enormous profit, and that's what's happening now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walvanlierop/2019/08/21/fusion-energy-who-has-the-courage-to-take-it-to-market/#4aa7e41f57c7

I'm not clueless and gullible enough to think that fusion energy is unobtainable because of political interference. It's not unobtainable at all - the sun is working fusion reactor - and we've got at least one working fusion reactor that generates appreciable fusion energy, though not as much as the energy needed to keep it running.

Getting enough gas hot enough for long enough to get appreciable nuclear fusion - the Lawson criterion, which has been around since 1955

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion

is demanding. It has taken quite a while to get close. ITER represents a relatively cautious approach to the problem. There are others as spelled out in the PNAS article I cited when I started this thread.

Wittering on about political interference and the natural superiority of the free market approach, as the Forbes article does, is a standard ploy for people looking to suck in private investment

Falling for it makes you completely clueless and gullible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 4:24:54 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:57:52 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:16:55 AM UTC-5, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 9:27:02 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:47:11 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30/01/2020 11:08 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:36:06 AM UTC+11, Whoey Louie
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 6:00:55 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 7:55:05 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else
wrote:
On 29/01/2020 5:14 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy
of Sciences opens with a tolerably interesting article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/4/1824

It's likely to be a more compact solution than ITER, and
could get working earlier.

There's a guy in Sydney who wants to use a pulsed laser to
fuse boron nuclei, who seems to think that he's even closer
to a practical solution, but there are venture capitalists in
the mix.

I can't judge its merits, but "working with a more advanced
prototype at least three times larger..." That is, "We need a
bigger machine to get energy positive". Where have we heard
that before?

Pretty much everywhere, starting with steam engines.

It is worth paying attention to the size they need to get to -
which is mentioned in the article.

With steam engines an actual working prototype showing how one
gets usable power out of it was demonstrated at the very
beginning. With nuclear fusion, we have exactly the opposite after
more than half a century.

Whoey Louie's grasp of reality is decidedly weak. Nuclear fusion - in
the sun - has been delivering usable power for the past few billion
years.

At present it takes more power to get a hydrogen plasma at the
earth's surface hot and dense enough to fuse than the fusing nuclei
deliver, but that isn't "exactly the opposite" of delivering usable
power, it's just a step along a road to getting there.

The point of the article was that while ITER currently looks like the
likeliest route to commercial nuclear power generation, there are
others, and most of them look as if they could work on a smaller
scale.

Whooe Louie doesn't really understand how technical development
works. It's an exploration of possibilities, rather than an
expedition down the only possible route.


Nevertheless, there has been a specific goal for a long time - obtain
usable power from hydrogen fusion on Earth. There has never appeared to
be a theoretical obstacle (unlike free energy machines, for example),
yet achieving the goal has taken, and is still taking, longer than I
believe anyone imagined it would when research on it started.

If one were inclined to be sceptical, one would have history on one's side.

Have you any idea how long people imagined that it would take when the research got under way?

It's the nature of development that nothing works until you've solved all the problems that stopped it from working. Since it's a process of exploration, rather than trip down a well-charted path, the only people who make confident predictions about how long it's going to take to get to the destination are those who don't know what they are talking about.

And that includes the crowd that are happy to assure us that we'll never get there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Why wait? Andrea Rossi has a working reactor now, he's got a plant in FL
to build them, he's going to make a lot of money. He's convinced some
real scientists that it all works. I suggest you invest! Buy the
rights for Australia, you'll be rich!

https://ecat.com/

ECAT technology is based on LENR which is far superior in comparison to all existing energy sources:

Superior Energy Density: LENR has an energy density that is a factor 100,000-10,000,000 times greater than today’s combustion processes (Oil, Coal, Natural Gas) and reportedly higher than today’s commercial fission.
Green and Safe: LENR is 100% green and carbon-free. LENR is a nuclear reaction, however, it does not require uranium/plutonium, has no nuclear byproducts, and has no harmful effects or safety issues like fission energy.
Limitless: The current fuel for LENR, nickel + hydrogen, is nearly limitless, the most abundant metal and the most abundant gas on earth. No combustion process takes place, instead, the hydrogen is merged with nickel, which is transmuted to form copper + energy. LENR also appears possible using metals other than Nickel such as Palladium for instance.
Cheap, Small and Scalable: The forthcoming LENR devices are all very cost efficient. They are small, easy to manufacture/operate, highly efficient and reliable, with no moving parts and requiring only the replacement of a LENR fuel cartridge every 6 months or so.

Andrea Rossi's LENR based ECAT is a great invention... er, scam. Too bad.

I watched a recent video where he demoed a small box producing power to heat water. All he needed to do was to measure the temperature and volume of the water and compare that to the power being input. His methods of measuring and calculating these powers were very overly complex and obviously flawed in a way to produce an absurdly high COP. In other words, a scam. No, a total scam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KkYMPp4c68

It would be so easy to confirm that his unit works, but like all con artists he won't allow examination of the device except in specific ways he allows which won't give you the proper information.

Oh damn, you ruined it. I wanted Bill to invest.

Fat chance of that. I've actually met and chatted to Prof Heinrich Hora.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/laser-boron-fusion-now-%E2%80%98leading-contender%E2%80%99-energy

He's got a much more plausible approach to sell, and a much more impressive reputation to sell it with. There are venture capitalists putting money in to make it happen, but I doubt if I've got enough money to be a potential backer - it's not as if anybody has approached me.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:35:01 AM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 4:13:45 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 7:14:37 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:58:42 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

Or work out a way of pulling some CO2 out of the atmosphere. There was some Dutch professor who thought that digging up and crushing a few million tons of dolomite rock and spreading it on beaches would be the cheapest way of doing that. That would just speed up the normal weathering mechanism which soaks up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

Sounds to me like a potential example of a law of unintended consequences. While dolomite can be beneficial as a pH buffer, if the pH value is could be impacted too much by such large quantities.

Dolomite - and the carbonates that CO2 produces by acting on it - are insoluble in water.

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dolomite+solubility+in+water


Spreading it on beaches just lets the waves shift it around to expose fresh surfaces to CO2.

More CO2 in the oceans is going to make them marginally more acid, and dolomite would would help that, but only by locking up some CO2 as insoluble compounds.

I can't seem to find any info on CO2 absorption by dolomite other than by pyrolysis of the CaMg(CO3)2 into CaO and MgO which none of the papers talk about the resulting release of CO2. From what you posted it appears the dolomite is simply crushed and not heat treated. Can you explain how that absorbs CO2? I can't find it.

Oops. I got the rock wrong. It wasn't dolomite but olivine,

The January 2020 Physics Today - which I happened to get late last night has seven pages - page 44 to page 51 - on "Negative Carbon Dioxide Emissions" mentions this approach with quotes from a Columbia University geochemist, Peter Kelemen.

I should have done more googling before I posted what I thought that I remembered.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 8:53:37 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:35:01 AM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 4:13:45 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 7:14:37 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:58:42 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

Or work out a way of pulling some CO2 out of the atmosphere. There was some Dutch professor who thought that digging up and crushing a few million tons of dolomite rock and spreading it on beaches would be the cheapest way of doing that. That would just speed up the normal weathering mechanism which soaks up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

Sounds to me like a potential example of a law of unintended consequences. While dolomite can be beneficial as a pH buffer, if the pH value is could be impacted too much by such large quantities.

Dolomite - and the carbonates that CO2 produces by acting on it - are insoluble in water.

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dolomite+solubility+in+water


Spreading it on beaches just lets the waves shift it around to expose fresh surfaces to CO2.

More CO2 in the oceans is going to make them marginally more acid, and dolomite would would help that, but only by locking up some CO2 as insoluble compounds.

I can't seem to find any info on CO2 absorption by dolomite other than by pyrolysis of the CaMg(CO3)2 into CaO and MgO which none of the papers talk about the resulting release of CO2. From what you posted it appears the dolomite is simply crushed and not heat treated. Can you explain how that absorbs CO2? I can't find it.

Oops. I got the rock wrong. It wasn't dolomite but olivine,

The January 2020 Physics Today - which I happened to get late last night has seven pages - page 44 to page 51 - on "Negative Carbon Dioxide Emissions" mentions this approach with quotes from a Columbia University geochemist, Peter Kelemen.

I should have done more googling before I posted what I thought that I remembered.

That's ok, none of us are perfect. So my concern is valid. At least as of 2017 when this quote was published in a paper.

Enhanced weathering of (ultra)basic silicate rocks such as olivine-rich dunite has been proposed as a large-scale climate engineering approach. When implemented in coastal environments, olivine weathering is expected to increase seawater alkalinity, thus resulting in additional CO2 uptake from the atmosphere. However, the mechanisms of marine olivine weathering and its effect on seawater–carbonate chemistry remain poorly understood. Here, we present results from batch reaction experiments, in which forsteritic olivine was subjected to rotational agitation in different seawater media for periods of days to months. Olivine dissolution caused a significant increase in alkalinity of the seawater with a consequent DIC increase due to CO2 invasion, thus confirming viability of the basic concept of enhanced silicate weathering. However, our experiments also identified several important challenges with respect to the detailed quantification of the CO2 sequestration efficiency under field conditions, which include nonstoichiometric dissolution, potential pore water saturation in the seabed, and the potential occurrence of secondary reactions. Before enhanced weathering of olivine in coastal environments can be considered an option for realizing negative CO2 emissions for climate mitigation purposes, these aspects need further experimental assessment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382570/

So they don't really have a full understanding of the currently unintended consequences of using olivine to foster CO2 absorption. In other words it's premature to think we have a solution. More work ahead. Maybe we can get Andrea Rossi to work on it, now that the LENR thing is pretty well worked out and all the energy we want is available.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:05:11 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 8:53:37 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:35:01 AM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 4:13:45 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 7:14:37 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 12:58:42 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

Or work out a way of pulling some CO2 out of the atmosphere. There was some Dutch professor who thought that digging up and crushing a few million tons of dolomite rock and spreading it on beaches would be the cheapest way of doing that. That would just speed up the normal weathering mechanism which soaks up excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

Sounds to me like a potential example of a law of unintended consequences. While dolomite can be beneficial as a pH buffer, if the pH value is could be impacted too much by such large quantities.

Dolomite - and the carbonates that CO2 produces by acting on it - are insoluble in water.

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dolomite+solubility+in+water


Spreading it on beaches just lets the waves shift it around to expose fresh surfaces to CO2.

More CO2 in the oceans is going to make them marginally more acid, and dolomite would would help that, but only by locking up some CO2 as insoluble compounds.

I can't seem to find any info on CO2 absorption by dolomite other than by pyrolysis of the CaMg(CO3)2 into CaO and MgO which none of the papers talk about the resulting release of CO2. From what you posted it appears the dolomite is simply crushed and not heat treated. Can you explain how that absorbs CO2? I can't find it.

Oops. I got the rock wrong. It wasn't dolomite but olivine,

The January 2020 Physics Today - which I happened to get late last night has seven pages - page 44 to page 51 - on "Negative Carbon Dioxide Emissions" mentions this approach with quotes from a Columbia University geochemist, Peter Kelemen.

I should have done more googling before I posted what I thought that I remembered.

That's ok, none of us are perfect. So my concern is valid. At least as of 2017 when this quote was published in a paper.

Enhanced weathering of (ultra)basic silicate rocks such as olivine-rich dunite has been proposed as a large-scale climate engineering approach. When implemented in coastal environments, olivine weathering is expected to increase seawater alkalinity, thus resulting in additional CO2 uptake from the atmosphere. However, the mechanisms of marine olivine weathering and its effect on seawater–carbonate chemistry remain poorly understood. Here, we present results from batch reaction experiments, in which forsteritic olivine was subjected to rotational agitation in different seawater media for periods of days to months. Olivine dissolution caused a significant increase in alkalinity of the seawater with a consequent DIC increase due to CO2 invasion, thus confirming viability of the basic concept of enhanced silicate weathering. However, our experiments also identified several important challenges with respect to the detailed quantification of the CO2 sequestration efficiency under field conditions, which include nonstoichiometric dissolution, potential pore water saturation in the seabed, and the potential occurrence of secondary reactions. Before enhanced weathering of olivine in coastal environments can be considered an option for realizing negative CO2 emissions for climate mitigation purposes, these aspects need further experimental assessment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382570/

So they don't really have a full understanding of the currently unintended consequences of using olivine to foster CO2 absorption. In other words it's premature to think we have a solution.

It's the solution that nature has been using for the past few billion years..

Getting it to go a bit faster may have minor unexpected side effects, but it's being going on with some enthusiasm for the past 50 million years since the India continental plate ran into the Eurasian continental plate and started pushing up the Himalayan mountains, which have being eroding away ever since, so the side effects aren't going to be dramatic.

Any academic looking a the process will want to get more money to look at it in more detail, but that isn't evidence that we shouldn't do it.

> More work ahead. Maybe we can get Andrea Rossi to work on it, now that the LENR thing is pretty well worked out and all the energy we want is available.

The Australian mining industry would love to have a excuse to dig up loads of olivine, grind it down to a fine dust, extract any saleable minerals and truck the rest off to be dumped on an unused stretch of the Australian coast. They'd even set up solar farms to power the operation. There's quite a lot of unused Australian coast line, and plenty of room for solar farms nearby.

Low energy nuclear reactions wouldn't add anything to the business model, even if they were actually real, as opposed to money-raising flim-flam.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 1:31:39 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:05:11 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 8:53:37 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

I should have done more googling before I posted what I thought that I remembered.

That's ok, none of us are perfect. So my concern is valid. At least as of 2017 when this quote was published in a paper.

Enhanced weathering of (ultra)basic silicate rocks such as olivine-rich dunite has been proposed as a large-scale climate engineering approach. When implemented in coastal environments, olivine weathering is expected to increase seawater alkalinity, thus resulting in additional CO2 uptake from the atmosphere. However, the mechanisms of marine olivine weathering and its effect on seawater–carbonate chemistry remain poorly understood. Here, we present results from batch reaction experiments, in which forsteritic olivine was subjected to rotational agitation in different seawater media for periods of days to months. Olivine dissolution caused a significant increase in alkalinity of the seawater with a consequent DIC increase due to CO2 invasion, thus confirming viability of the basic concept of enhanced silicate weathering. However, our experiments also identified several important challenges with respect to the detailed quantification of the CO2 sequestration efficiency under field conditions, which include nonstoichiometric dissolution, potential pore water saturation in the seabed, and the potential occurrence of secondary reactions. Before enhanced weathering of olivine in coastal environments can be considered an option for realizing negative CO2 emissions for climate mitigation purposes, these aspects need further experimental assessment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382570/

So they don't really have a full understanding of the currently unintended consequences of using olivine to foster CO2 absorption. In other words it's premature to think we have a solution.

It's the solution that nature has been using for the past few billion years.

Getting it to go a bit faster may have minor unexpected side effects, but it's being going on with some enthusiasm for the past 50 million years since the India continental plate ran into the Eurasian continental plate and started pushing up the Himalayan mountains, which have being eroding away ever since, so the side effects aren't going to be dramatic.

Lol, I love that you trivialize the potential issues. Basically you are saying it's a "natural" process so it must be good. lol


> Any academic looking a the process will want to get more money to look at it in more detail, but that isn't evidence that we shouldn't do it.

I never said we shouldn't do it. I said we need to not treat this as a solution until we have confidence we can do it without mucking up something else. The material works by raising the pH which allows more CO2 to be absorbed by the ocean. There will be a limit to how much this can be used before it has too great an effect on the pH making the waters too alkaline. That can be every bit as bad as too acid.

More work ahead. Maybe we can get Andrea Rossi to work on it, now that the LENR thing is pretty well worked out and all the energy we want is available.

The Australian mining industry would love to have a excuse to dig up loads of olivine, grind it down to a fine dust, extract any saleable minerals and truck the rest off to be dumped on an unused stretch of the Australian coast. They'd even set up solar farms to power the operation. There's quite a lot of unused Australian coast line, and plenty of room for solar farms nearby.

The problem with coastline is it's one dimensional while the problem area is two dimensional. The paper mentioned problems trying to use this solution in deep water. So we will see just how limited this is as a solution.


> Low energy nuclear reactions wouldn't add anything to the business model, even if they were actually real, as opposed to money-raising flim-flam.

That was the point. I was just taking a jab at Rossi, the silly goose.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

[about minerals that absorb CO2}

It's the solution that nature has been using for the past few billion years.

> The Australian mining industry would love to have a excuse to dig up loads of olivine, grind it down to a fine dust, extract any saleable minerals and truck the rest off ...

Sounds hard. Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum? There have
been some trials...

<https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/scientists-in-iceland-are-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-rock/>

Shipping the heavy bits versus letting the wind bring the gas to your site: I know which transport
bill I'd rather see in my mailbox.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 31/01/20 03:05, Rick C wrote:
> That's ok, none of us are perfect.

Yup, too true.

It is also refreshing when somebody explicitly acknowledges
having made a mistake.

It encourages me to give them (Bill S in this case) the
benefit of (my) doubt when they make other statements.

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 31/01/2020 08:42, whit3rd wrote:

<snip>

Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum?

Dig up carbon. React with atmospheric oxygen to produce energy. Bury
resulting CO2.

So the nett effect is you produce energy by burying Oxygen

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 6:58:19 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 1:31:39 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:05:11 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 8:53:37 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

I should have done more googling before I posted what I thought that I remembered.

That's ok, none of us are perfect. So my concern is valid. At least as of 2017 when this quote was published in a paper.

Enhanced weathering of (ultra)basic silicate rocks such as olivine-rich dunite has been proposed as a large-scale climate engineering approach. When implemented in coastal environments, olivine weathering is expected to increase seawater alkalinity, thus resulting in additional CO2 uptake from the atmosphere. However, the mechanisms of marine olivine weathering and its effect on seawater–carbonate chemistry remain poorly understood. Here, we present results from batch reaction experiments, in which forsteritic olivine was subjected to rotational agitation in different seawater media for periods of days to months. Olivine dissolution caused a significant increase in alkalinity of the seawater with a consequent DIC increase due to CO2 invasion, thus confirming viability of the basic concept of enhanced silicate weathering. However, our experiments also identified several important challenges with respect to the detailed quantification of the CO2 sequestration efficiency under field conditions, which include nonstoichiometric dissolution, potential pore water saturation in the seabed, and the potential occurrence of secondary reactions. Before enhanced weathering of olivine in coastal environments can be considered an option for realizing negative CO2 emissions for climate mitigation purposes, these aspects need further experimental assessment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382570/

So they don't really have a full understanding of the currently unintended consequences of using olivine to foster CO2 absorption. In other words it's premature to think we have a solution.

It's the solution that nature has been using for the past few billion years.

Getting it to go a bit faster may have minor unexpected side effects, but it's being going on with some enthusiasm for the past 50 million years since the India continental plate ran into the Eurasian continental plate and started pushing up the Himalayan mountains, which have being eroding away ever since, so the side effects aren't going to be dramatic.

Lol, I love that you trivialize the potential issues. Basically you are saying it's a "natural" process so it must be good. lol

Not exactly. What I do say is that there is quite a bit of it going on already, so the issues you seem to want to imagine should already be visible.

"Natural" doesn't come into it.

Any academic looking a the process will want to get more money to look at it in more detail, but that isn't evidence that we shouldn't do it.

I never said we shouldn't do it. I said we need to not treat this as a solution until we have confidence we can do it without mucking up something else. The material works by raising the pH which allows more CO2 to be absorbed by the ocean.

It doesn't. Olivines are silicates, and they absorb CO2 by turning into carbonates. The silicon oxide that gets displaced ends up as silica sand.

Water helps the process, but it's pH is pretty much irrelevant, and there's no net displacement of hydrogen ions. Do try to find out what you are talking about before you argue with me about chemistry - I do know a bit about that subject. even if I'm weak enough on geology to confuse olivine and dolomite (at least until I think about it).

> There will be a limit to how much this can be used before it has too great an effect on the pH making the waters too alkaline. That can be every bit as bad as too acid.

Twaddle.

More work ahead. Maybe we can get Andrea Rossi to work on it, now that the LENR thing is pretty well worked out and all the energy we want is available.

The Australian mining industry would love to have a excuse to dig up loads of olivine, grind it down to a fine dust, extract any saleable minerals and truck the rest off to be dumped on an unused stretch of the Australian coast. They'd even set up solar farms to power the operation. There's quite a lot of unused Australian coast line, and plenty of room for solar farms nearby.

The problem with coastline is it's one dimensional while the problem area is two dimensional. The paper mentioned problems trying to use this solution in deep water. So we will see just how limited this is as a solution.

Only if we try it.

Low energy nuclear reactions wouldn't add anything to the business model, even if they were actually real, as opposed to money-raising flim-flam.

That was the point. I was just taking a jab at Rossi, the silly goose.

He's collecting money, which makes him a dangerous goose.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 9:51:37 PM UTC+11, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 31/01/2020 08:42, whit3rd wrote:

snip

Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum?

Dig up carbon. React with atmospheric oxygen to produce energy. Bury
resulting CO2.

So the nett effect is you produce energy by burying Oxygen

That's exactly what we are doing at the moment. There a lot more oxygen gas in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but every last atom of fossil carbon that we burn as fuel takes one molecule of oxygen out of the atmosphere, so there's detectably less oxygen in the atmosphere than there was when we started measuring the oxygen content accurately enough to let us notice.

Buying CO2 is safer that leaving it in the atmosphere to act as greenhouse gas, but wherever you put it the oxygen tied up in it isn't around for us to breath.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:42:58 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

[about minerals that absorb CO2}
It's the solution that nature has been using for the past few billion years.



The Australian mining industry would love to have a excuse to dig up loads of olivine, grind it down to a fine dust, extract any saleable minerals and truck the rest off ...

Sounds hard. Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum? There have
been some trials...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/scientists-in-iceland-are-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-rock/

Shipping the heavy bits versus letting the wind bring the gas to your site: I know which transport
bill I'd rather see in my mailbox.

How do you get just the CO2 to go into the hole and not the oxygen and nitrogen?

I believe that is the point, separating the CO2 from the air. That's the harder bit of the job.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209