ENERGY IS MONEY CREATION,FREE ENERGY IS FREE MONEY
- I AM A NEW MEMBER TO THIS GROUP.FREE ENERGY IS A MEANS TO FREEDOM FROM
A SYSTEM OF CONTROL.THE ENERGY SYSTEMS WE HAVE TODAY ARE ALL ABOUT
MONOPOLY CONTROL OF THIS BASIC NEED.WITHOUT ENERGY OUR CIVILISATION
WOULD BE DUST IN WEEKS.IN MY LIFETIME OIL HAS GONE FROM LESS THAN $1 A
BARREL TO US$60 PLUS....YET ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION OIL HAS NOT REACHED
ITS PEAK.CAN YOU IMAGINE OIL AT US$100..US$200..OR MORE PER BARREL.THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MONEY AND ENERGY IS A CLOSE ONE.WE NEED A METHOD
TO PRODUCE ENERGY WITHOUT POLLUTION,WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A
NETWORK,WITHOUT RESTRICTION, A SOURCE THAT DOESNT STOP IF THERE IS NO
WIND OR NO SUN OR NO OIL.I HOPE WE FIND IT.IM LOOKING.............
- You are addressing questions to me that should be
addressed to Chris.
It is his reactor that is doing the transmutation.
--- howardmccalla <howardmccalla@...> wrote:
> > > transmute has an exact meaning, technically. Do
> > > mean "convert chemically"?
> > Chris means convert one atom into another.
> > Such as carbon into nitrogen.
> > John Grant
> transmutation is a good trick and has met with only
> limited success
> with medium to heavy elements. None with light
> elements. The most
> obvious question is "where are you getting your
> theories?" It is
> difficult to produce a stream of particles with
> sufficient energy to
> either split or combine nuclei.
> Correct me if I have missed something, but attempts
> with light
> elements is a total bust because there is not
> sufficient mass to
> absorb neutrons or high energy electrons even if you
> can hit the
> target. The yield, even in heavy elements is on the
> order of a
> fraction of a percent. Also if you are dealing with
> a gas, the
> likelyhood of a collision becomes much smaller. As
> you surely know,
> any reaction involving the splitting or altering of
> the nucleus is
> accompanied by substantail energy release(fission
> bomb, nuclear power
> plant, etc.) They all occur with atoms of a much
> higher mass and
> atomic number. I think that your theory is unfounded
> and likely
> Now, a question about the difference between
> transmutation and phase
> change was raised.
> A phase change occurs when a material changes from a
> state in which
> it is homogeneous and relatively stable (or at least
> lacking enough
> free enrgy to react) to a second state of material
> which is also
> relatively stable and homogeneous. The atomic
> structure is not
> changed at all. In most instances, energy is
> absorbed or released and
> physical properties such as atomic weight are not
> changed. Examples
> from everyday include boiling water, melting ice,
> hardening of hypoeutectoid hardening of steels.
> Chemical changes are just that- reactions between
> species of atoms
> with the release or absorpion of energy. The nucleus
> is not changed.
> The properties of the final product may be radically
> diffenent than
> the initial states. Examples from everyday include
> burning of carbon
> to make CO2 with a substantial release of energy,
> striking a match.
> Or charging a battery.
> Now to several practical question tied to my comment
> yesterday: If I
> understand you, you will pass CO2 through a nuclear
> reactor to
> convert it to nitrogen and oxygen. (1.) CO2 would
> have to very highly
> compressed to have any chance of it being hit by a
> neutron or proton.
> Of course, it will have to be a solid of at least be
> the "triple point" of CO2. I have this flash image
> of you shoveling
> dry ice into a reactor. Obvious not practical. (2.)
> Assuming that you
> could place the CO2 in the correct place, do you
> intend to make NO2 ??
> You still have to chemically separate the nitrogen
> and oxygen. How is
> the oxygen impacted by your bombardment? I would
> assume that it is
> also changed into something of a different atomic
> weight. (3.) How do
> you intend to split CO2 into C and O2? Carbon is a
> solid at most
> reasonable temperatures. Even the nano-diamonds.
> Finally, what you achieved? Nitrogen in the form of
> NOx is also a
> detrimental gas, implicated in the formation of smog
> and "smaze" in
> areas where large amounts of gasoline are burned in
> autos. It is also
> classed as a cancer-causing compound. Lung disease
> is aggrevated by
> I gather that you are probably having a bit of fun
> at the expense of
> the new member. The degradation of our environment
> and the increasing
> risky stategies employed to provide a questionable
> society overdone
> consumer products is hardly a matter to be treated
> with jest.