[zapkitty]

gianfranco wrote: Still impossible to upload Excel files…

?

As a test here are 3 varieties of excel uploaded.

And you can always zip a file if the file extension is not allowed.

If it remains a problem I’ll check the allowed file types later…

Attached files

excel_test_upload.xlsx (4 B)  excel_test_upload_2.xml (2 B)  excel_test_upload_3.xls (6 B)  excel_test_uploads.zip (6 B) 

[zapkitty]

… speaking of which, Eric, during the show you mentioned a 10,000 fold increase in density. Where does the escorted particle concept stand at this time? The accompanying decrease in required density would be helpful 😉

[zapkitty]

PeterVermont wrote: … etc

Fixed your URL 🙂

[zapkitty]

First, on Nov 12, TEPCO admitted to the general public that it has already
kept 3 damaged fuel assemblies in the reactor 4 spent fuel pool (SFP) for
upwards of 25 years because TEPCO couldn’t move them to the common
pool or do much of anything else with them.

And then, on Nov 16, TEPCO casually mentions that there are actually some
80 such damaged assemblies known to be stranded in the various reactor
SFPs… and that some have been stuck in those pools for over 40 years.

[zapkitty]

rashidas wrote: Excuse my ignorance but would is it possible to modulate gamma rays in any way? Aneutronic fusion design provides for mitigation of X-rays using “onion” mitigation. Can something similar be done for gamma rays?

I take it that you mean the gamma flux from spent
fuel rods?

I don’t believe that the “onion” has much special
power of shielding beyond the amount of bulk
material it places in the path of the x-rays.

As of now the practical solution to gammas is to
place an appropriate amount of lead or earth or
water or whatever around the gamma source…

… if you can.

[zapkitty]

KeithPickering wrote: In the first place, your link doesn’t discuss Fukushima cleanup at all, which is a separate issue from nuclear waste.

Er… the spent fuel pool atop Unit #4 is not a Fukushima cleanup issue?

Hopefully TEPCO will get away with trying to offload it manually but the fact is that if worst comes to worst then it could become an international contamination issue.

KeithPickering wrote: In the second place, there are a number of reactor designs than can use spent fuel for fossil-free energy. It’s only “waste” if we don’t use it.

So the first thing we need to do is build more fission reactors?

I’d suggest that… if the #4 pool survives offloading… that the first thing we do is ensure that all nuclear power plants and any offsite nuclear waste storage facilities de-crowd their remaining spent fuel pools immediately by dry-casking what they can and building new pools as they are needed.

A pool sitting directly over a reactor is not a good place to store spent fuel.

[zapkitty]

Catching up with the report but first a minor quibble…

Why does “lasers” keep getting capitalized in the LPPX tweets regarding the aneutronic research at Polytechnique?
https://mobile.twitter.com/LPPX/status/397878737993474048?p=v
https://mobile.twitter.com/LPPX/status/398917963559866368?p=v

It’s already caused a bit of confusion and the origins of the noun as an acronym are long past.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlvaroMaldades/status/397711653438894080?p=v

[zapkitty]

Matt M wrote: I understand that the current plasma is being ‘poisoned’ by small amounts of copper and silver. But – won’t the tungsten cathode contribute tungsten impurities to the plasma?

Tungsten is much harder than copper or silver and has a much higher heat of vaporization than either of those metals.

heat of vaporization:
silver: 250.58 kJ·mol−1
copper: 300.4 kJ·mol−1
tungsten: 806.7 kJ·mol−1

Interesting to note that there’s no reading for tungsten in that chart… and there’s a ring of tungsten with “teeth” at the base of the anode.

[zapkitty]

benf wrote: Given that Eric Lerner’s Focus Fusion research was once funded by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labs, are they now trying to reinvent the wheel? They should also set up shop in Middlesex NJ…

Dr. Adams also states that they (NASA) will [em]not[/em] be making inexpensive fusion possible…

[zapkitty]

The issue, as I understand it, is tritium. The ‘T’ in D-T.

Tritium is radioactive hydrogen and, just like H2, it gets everywhere and hooks up with everything… and everyone.

It’s not cesium-127 or strontium 90 but it has costs and issues and it [em]*is*[/em] regulated. And regulated for very good reason.

Even ITER is carefully avoiding tritium until the last possible moment and it’s [em]*designed*[/em] to use tritium as fuel.

Having to engage that regulatory regime is a cost that LPP has determined is unnecessary for success so wouldn’t that render a D-T Focus Fusion setup more of a publicity stunt than anything else?

I believe that quite a number of people working on D-T fusion projects would be saying so… and quite loudly.

[zapkitty]

It’s very neat that LPP has exceeded D-T fusion requirements but D-T is not a good fuel for a Focus Fusion generator.

Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) is a neutronic reaction with a radioactive fuel component. The cost of gearing up the LPP lab to handle tritium would be considerable and the Focus Fusion setup in general isn’t good for the kind of neutron flux or the resulting thermal load that D-T produces.

And thus Eric has stated that LPP will not be doing any D-T testing.

[zapkitty]

Breakable wrote: I don’t see much point in trying to recover the threads. Let leave history to the historians.

Are we not historians, we who admin forums? 🙂

Per stats from major search engines no small amount of desired
information is traced back to forums.

[zapkitty]

dennisp wrote: How many threads are we talking about? What topics?

Definitely a horrible forum design.

Unknown. It only came to my attention when I realized that a lot of topics
had gone flat-out missing in “Noise”

Replies to the banned are AWOL… neither deleted nor accessible and
throwing this error message:

The following errors were encountered
You are not authorized to perform this action

I’m just wondering how far the damage goes because if one of the banned
replied in a non-Noise thread then any replies chained off of that post,
even sensible, relevant ones, would be dereferenced as well.

[zapkitty]

So I accidentally deleted the two members with genuine bans and we lost access to threads they’d been a part of.

I’m a bit ticked off that deleting a banned member such as sadovnik would wreck so many threads. That is not good forum design.

Their data can be reconstructed from forum db backups without having to roll back the entire forum but is it worth the while?

[zapkitty]

dennisp wrote: Old articles seem better to me
than broken links. I’d vote we keep denseplasmafocus.org up.

As I understand it the dpf org was supposed to be a meeting place for
dpf articles and talk. Rezwan started it before the siren song of
neutronic fusion led her astray 🙂

Reg-wise the dpf members have their own group but not many in it…
seems the forum mostly shared the FFS member group.

Don’t really know what members2 was about but it’s gone now.

And again, my apologies to anyone inconvenienced by the purge and
please let us know if something needs fixing.

… but the purge is far from complete, comrades! I estimate that 35-45%
of the remaining member regs are counter-revolutionary wreckers intent
on… er, I mean spam regs.

[Author]

Posts