On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:23:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within
days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great
detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been
shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I don't know if it is anywhere on the web. It has been written up as
Laboratory Reports, and in the international professional physics journals.
I will hunt to see if I find anything on the net.

I was told it was offered to the French govt. and an Italian
company(ies) was set up to exploit it.


If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

It has been evaluated seriously in the physics community.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in more
normal ways?

Very roughly, yes. But I am talking of stashing the stuff for weeks or
months, not decades.

in the compost heap (desperately trying to get this OT)
--
Martin

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia
radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers.
Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And probably
elsewhere as well)
The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of getting
rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that material
getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.

[snip]

Franz

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:23:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within
days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great
detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been
shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I don't know if it is anywhere on the web. It has been written up as
Laboratory Reports, and in the international professional physics journals.
I will hunt to see if I find anything on the net.

I was told it was offered to the French govt. and an Italian
company(ies) was set up to exploit it.


If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

It has been evaluated seriously in the physics community.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in more
normal ways?

Very roughly, yes. But I am talking of stashing the stuff for weeks or
months, not decades.

in the compost heap (desperately trying to get this OT)
--
Martin

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia
radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers.
Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And probably
elsewhere as well)
The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of getting
rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that material
getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.

[snip]

Franz

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:56:14 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia
radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers.
Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And probably
elsewhere as well)
The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of getting
rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that material
getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.

Too late the USA beat you to it :-)
--
Martin

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:56:14 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia
radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers.
Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And probably
elsewhere as well)
The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of getting
rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that material
getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.

Too late the USA beat you to it :-)
--
Martin

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:56:14 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia
radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers.
Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And probably
elsewhere as well)
The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of getting
rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that material
getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.

Too late the USA beat you to it :-)
--
Martin

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:23:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe
within
days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a
Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great
detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been
shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I don't know if it is anywhere on the web. It has been written up as
Laboratory Reports, and in the international professional physics
journals.
I will hunt to see if I find anything on the net.

I was told it was offered to the French govt. and an Italian
company(ies) was set up to exploit it.

I did not know that. If that is right, I hope it is moving forward. The
Italian particle physicists and engineers are second to none.

If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

It has been evaluated seriously in the physics community.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in
more
normal ways?

Very roughly, yes. But I am talking of stashing the stuff for weeks or
months, not decades.

in the compost heap (desperately trying to get this OT)

Saved by the gong.

Franz

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:56:14 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I have now had a quick look with Google, using the search terms - Rubbia
radioactive waste - and found a fair selection of papers.
Researh on this process is going on in Holland and in Russia. (And
probably
elsewhere as well)
The main motivation for it was originally that it would be a way of
getting
rid of the plutomium, and hence eliminate the possibility of that
material
getting into the hands of potential troublemakers.

Too late the USA beat you to it :-)

Touche

Franz

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:36:03 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:23:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe
within
days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a
Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great
detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been
shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I don't know if it is anywhere on the web. It has been written up as
Laboratory Reports, and in the international professional physics
journals.
I will hunt to see if I find anything on the net.

I was told it was offered to the French govt. and an Italian
company(ies) was set up to exploit it.

I did not know that. If that is right, I hope it is moving forward. The
Italian particle physicists and engineers are second to none.

Yes that's true, says he remembering fission in a test tube in the
Fermi Lab in Frascati :-)

I think it's very old news, the guy who told me worked at Cern
donkey's years ago, but I think after you were there :-)


If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

It has been evaluated seriously in the physics community.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in
more
normal ways?

Very roughly, yes. But I am talking of stashing the stuff for weeks or
months, not decades.

in the compost heap (desperately trying to get this OT)

Saved by the gong.

Can you come back next week?
--
Martin

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:52:06 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.

It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.

Until the latest generation of wind farm. Dutch wind generators used
more energy in their manufacture than they produced.
--
Martin

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...

There are two problems with elecric motor
vehicles that would have to be
overcome to make them viable.

First problem would be that they really
need some kind of backup power. If
a conventional fuel vehicle (or indeed
any fuel that can be quickly
recharged) runs out of or low on fuel then
it is a quick and simple job to
put more in the tank.

A small Stirling engine/generator running on liquid fuel or LPG could be
onboard. This could cut in when the charge is low, when either parked or
moving. A Stirling is far cleaner burning being external combustion. This
is not a real probelm.

Second problem is one of recharge logistics.

Battery vehicles would represent a considerable advantage in towns and
cities. Quiet and pollution free at the point of use.

However, the majority of people living within
large cities and towns do not have designated
parking spaces, and most of it is on-street parking.

You are allowed to move down a public highway, but not stop on it. Parking
permits do not guarantee a parking place, they just prevent other people
parking.

Pavements would have to be dug up
and publically accessible chargeing points
installed to be able to recharge such a vehicle,
along with a suitable payment mechanism.

The streets were dug up to install comms cables, so tat is not a real
problem.

I can't see the LA taking too kindly to me stringing a
cable across the pavement to my house! Even
in areas with controlled parking zones there is
no right to be able to park outside one's house,
so the price of someone parking in "my" space,
abandoning a car or even leaving a skip
would be complete immobility for me. Visitors?
Hmmm.

I'd have a battery powered vehicle at a sensible
price and with decent performance/range like a
shot. But until these problems are solved, then
it's not viable.

The problems can be overcome.

The fantastic power/weight of electric motors and eliminating heavy and
power sapping transmission, combined with advances in batteries, make it
viable to have an engine/electric hybrid. The current crop have the engine
as No.1 power unit with the electric motor as backup. It would be the
reverse, with the engine assisting, if necessary, and acting as backup
power, if necessary, and generating power for the batteries.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:36:03 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:23:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short
lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe
within
days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a
Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in
great
detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has
been
shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

I don't know if it is anywhere on the web. It has been written up as
Laboratory Reports, and in the international professional physics
journals.
I will hunt to see if I find anything on the net.

I was told it was offered to the French govt. and an Italian
company(ies) was set up to exploit it.

I did not know that. If that is right, I hope it is moving forward. The
Italian particle physicists and engineers are second to none.

Yes that's true, says he remembering fission in a test tube in the
Fermi Lab in Frascati :-)

I think it's very old news, the guy who told me worked at Cern
donkey's years ago, but I think after you were there :-)

It shows how out of touch one becomes, living in thr Yorkshire Dales.

If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

It has been evaluated seriously in the physics community.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long
lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in
more
normal ways?

Very roughly, yes. But I am talking of stashing the stuff for weeks
or
months, not decades.

in the compost heap (desperately trying to get this OT)

Saved by the gong.

Can you come back next week?

{:-))

Franz

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message
...


I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof,
twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the
Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a
25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more
than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No.

Efficiency is the ratio of converted power out to power in .

The area doesn't come into it.

In this case it does. Area is the most important factor as it is limited
on
a roof. Solar panel X can be more efficient (ratio of converted power
out
to power in) than panel Y. But panel X may take up four times the area of
panel Y. It means eff all if the area is not taken into account. For a
given area which is the most efficient? Area, area, area.

If the efficiency of a panel is 60% per square ft then, on the assumption
that you understand what physical dimensions and units are, the efficiency
of 1 sq.ft is 60%, the efficiency of 2 sq.ft is 120% and so on. I
suppose you realise now that you have hit on a method of producing perpetual
motion.

Let me ask a final question:

Given that, as you say, the efficiency is 60% per sq foot, what will the
efficiency of a set of panels covering 200 sq. ft be?
Note, I am asking for the efficiency of the whole set, not the "efficiency
per sq.ft", as you put it.

I take it that we agree that the efficiency is the ratio between the power
in the insolation and the power delivered to the heating system

Franz.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:



So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily

than

with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as
"efficiency

per

square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is

usually

simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a

system.


Actually that is not totally so. Efficency is a term that can be
applied
to more things than power.

For example, one could define the efficiency of a roof in terms of
the
amount of water that runs off versus the total amount that falls on
it.


One can define an efficient business as one that has the highest
sales
value, or margin value, per employee.

Efficiency is a measure of the efficacy against a theoretically
perfect
system,

That is the beginning of a circular argument.


of something doing the job it is designed to do. As normally
measured by how much it produces of the desired output versus how
much
input it needs.

If we for example take solar energy, it is not menaingful to say that
e.g. civering every roof in lonbdon with a .3% efficient solar panel
is
inefficient, if the cost of so doing would actually be less than
building and running an equivalent power station over the same .
timescales.

One could argue that in terms of various resources one or the other
is
more efficient.

The power station takes up less space, but uses more fossil fuel. The
electric panel is inefficient in overall thermodynamic terms, but
maybe
more efficient in the actual use of sunlight, since we don't have to
wait a couple of million years for the trees to turn back into
oil...The


power station has far less labour content involved, but perhaps uses
more materials.

uppose fo an instant that we cracked fusion power. Who cares about
efficiency, since the actual waste products - helium and heat - are
totally insignificant in a global context. At that point electcity
would
become the cheapest form of energy, subject to no taxes at all
probably,
and we would all be driving electric cars, and heating our houses
electrically, immediately :-)

Thanks for the homily.

I agree that in general usage, "efficiecy" is bandied around with gay
abandon. However, the discussion about solar panels was a
scientific/engineering one. To talk about "efficiency per unit area"
in
such a context is pure nonsense.


What balls!

I reserve a part of a roof of 20ft x 10ft, 200 squ foot. I put in
flat
plate collectors, I get n volume of solar heated hot water on a
certain
isolation at a certain time of year. I put in the same 200 squ foot
Thermomax solar collectors. I get n x 2 volume of hot water on the
same
isolation and certain time of year. For each squ foot of roof the
Themomax
is 100% more efficient. Is that clear?

I could use 400 squ foot of flat plate collector on the roof, twice
the
area, and produce the same volume of solar hot water as the Thermomax
solar
collectors which takes up half as much square footage.

The area is "very" important in this instant. Is that clear?

Yes, but efficiency is independent of that IMM.

Thats tantamount to saying a 5oKw boiler is twice as efficient as a 25Jw
one.

It is not. Solar collectors produce hot water. Some produce more than
others for the same area, hence more efficient for a given area.

No. Not more efficient for a given area. Just more efficient. The area is
irrelevant.
Some unkmeasured area of flat panel may produce 1 kW. The same area of
Thremomax may produce 2 kW. The thermomax is therefore twice as efficient
as the flat panel. The area you have used for doing the comparison is quite
irrelevant.

Franz