You must go here and vote for George Miley’s LENR reactor.

If he gets the most votes, he’ll be displaying his reactor at this year’s ARPA-E Summit in Washington, D.C. on February 25.

Currently his reactor is registering 117 votes, and the front-runner has 140 votes.

Thanks to for the info.

<— To main blog

23 Responses to “HELP!! TODAY!!”

  1. Roger Bird Says:

    One problem that LENR will solve that no one has ever mentioned is to minimize the dizzying number of energy sources that we would otherwise be facing in the future. Right now we have about 4: coal, natural gas, nuclear, and muscle (electricity is derived). If LENR doesn’t take over, then we will have so many. I usually enjoy reading about this kind of innovation; but I just got tired of reading so many.

  2. alaincoe Says:

    just to note that it is harder, since if you sor by nomber of vote there are candidate with nearly 2000 votes, however teh 8 first can be presented at the contest.
    this need to have more than 350 votes to be number 8

  3. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Interesting competition. I also found Transatomic Power at whose ideas are a direct competition to LENR, and would have many of the same advantages. Combine this very cheap and safe electricity with the GTL directly at the shale-gas oilfields, and most countries would have not only cheap electricity but cheap transport without having to change all the infrastructures. At the moment, such gas is often burnt off at source, since it’s not profitable to sell it – one field has enough wasted to power, say, Chicago.

    I’d rather have an individual-sized LENR generator running my house (the electricity bill just arrived) but using a safe and clean (and cheap) fission system runs a good second. In this case, of course, it would be even better to run the things in parallel, since the Transatomic idea (if it works) would burn the waste from other nuclear power stations, thus saving a lot of money on burying the waste and the associated danger from seismic events unburying it. A reduction in mass of waste from 2 tons/year to 4kg/year makes the final waste-disposal problem much easier anyway.

    Using multiple energy sources, and making best use of the free sources such as wind, wave and solar with some form of nuclear as fill-in makes more sense if we can achieve it.

    The main problem with fission reactors has always been the waste generated. With LENR such waste is not generated, which is why I like it if it can be made to be commercial. Making the waste we have safe, whilst also getting electricity from it, has to be a very good idea, as well, and this idea looks like it may be implementable fairly soon – no new theory to scratch heads over.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Yeah, but how does Transatomic Power work?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – it’s on the website and a precis on the competition Basically it’s dissolving the fuel in molten salt and circulating it. Rather than sitting in the waste-fuel tank cooling down for years, that fuel instead keeps giving energy until it becomes lead which can be removed. It’s just a neat idea, and reduces the running cost of a nuclear plant by a factor of around 20 as well as the cost of getting rid of the waste. The only thing I don’t yet know to be good about it is the decommissioning cost, since that would still be high if the casings became radioactive.

        More information would be nice, but the people behind it look pretty good to me.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I’d say that the one on the right looks pretty good to me. (:->)

        Why didn’t someone think of this in the past? Or is all this just theoretical and they don’t yet actually have a working prototype?

        What temperature can they get to? (Inquiring but lazy mind expects you to answer that.)

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Runs at around 700°C, and I don’t know why someone hasn’t done it before. Although the people proposing it look good, I suspect they haven’t built one. That sort of thing needs either government or a huge company. I think they will be able to build a trial reactor without costing too much, but getting to commercial will take quite a few hundred millions. Still cheaper than most fusion attempts, though. What’s really good is that people will pay you to take the fuel off their hands….

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “What’s really good is that people will pay you to take the fuel off their hands….” Until they figure out what it is that you are doing.

  4. Roger Bird Says:

    I watched the video, and I have a few issues. First, aren’t the little envelopes (forget what they are called) radioactive, so that tossing them is a waste problem which they seem to be ignoring, or did I miss something?

    Second, have they worked out how dense the liquid in the primary reactor has to be to generate heat? Wouldn’t such heat be a small risk for the reactor melting; perhaps not. And wouldn’t such heat be tricky to control? Isn’t there a problem with the heat running away.

    It sort of seems brilliant to me. If LENR take decades to develop, this could certainly be a short term solution to pollution and high energy costs. Of course, we wouldn’t have all that yummy CO2 that helps young liberals find themselves and helps plants to grow. But still, we could eliminate a lot of other real pollution.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      The fuel pellets they take to bits are a problem, which is why they are doing it. The casings will become radioactive in the original reactors, so this is a part of the waste they probably can’t use. The contents will dissolve in the molten salt, and thus will be able to give up nearly all their energy and in the process become much safer to handle. Since the casings aren’t needed in this design, then they won’t become a problem for the future, but they are at least a fairly safe form of waste and can be reasonably stored.

      The fuel density can be easily altered, by adding more “waste” as fuel or by adding more salt to dilute it. In this way the amount of heat generated can be generally set, and the finer control would then be by using moderator rods or similar.

      As regards meltdowns – it’s already molten, and their “freeze plug” is what stops it all draining away so if power fails then it will simply drain into a matrix where things are too far away from each other to produce too much heat. It’s fail-safe. The only real problem would be if the whole reactor was suddenly under water and the salt dissolved in the sea (or lake). That could be a pain, though of course that applies to any other nuclear waste store.

      As they say, it builds on previously-tested technology and so a lot of the design-work and testing has already been done. It shouldn’t take too long to get a good working design re-drawn and validated.

      As you say, it would eliminate pollution we have no reasonable way of dealing with right now. The sooner this gets into operation the better.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I thought later that rising temperature in the molten mixture would not increase radioactivity. With a pipe bomb (or other chemical reaction), rising temperature increases the speed of reaction. But I doubt if the “chemical” temperature of radioactive material is going to knock more particles out of the nuclei. The temperature would tend to be much more stable than similar chemical situations. Once they had the formulas down, stability could be easily maintained.

        But I don’t understand the purpose of coolants, given what I said above. Who cares if the electricity is turned off?

        Water would be a problem, but I doubt if anyone is ever again going to be so stupid as to build a nuclear power plant right next to the sea. I honestly don’t understand how the Japanese could have dropped the ball on that one. They have tsunamis all the time.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        If the heat is not taken away, the fuel heats up. The reaction-rate hardly varies, but the containment may have a problem and soften or melt if it gets too hot. We’d assume that in a total lack of control like this, there’s something nasty happened to cause it, but the failure here just drops the core into a safe formation rather than blow up or burn.

        The current liquid Sodium (or other molten metal) coolants are efficient but would be dramatic in contact with air – salts should be safe in that sense.

        With a lot of reactor designs, if the cooling fails then something has to be done to stop a problem happening, but with this design you do nothing. Failure of the cooling here causes the shutdown automatically. That’s neat.

        On building in the wrong place, never underestimate the power of stupid. Because of the need for cooling water with any closed-cycle steam-generator, they will be built close to water. With the need for cheap power existing everywhere, but with few really safe sites, power-stations will be built in places subject to earthquakes and tsunamis. We’d hope that by now people are more aware of the serious consequences of failures, but some politician will probably find a reason to override the engineers to put a nuclear generator in an unsafe place.

  5. GreenWin Says:

    According to George himself, he reports a “landslide win.” We did see the LENR community turn out in less than 24 hours some 370 votes. Had there been a week’s notice, significantly greater numbers would have appeared.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      And I don’t understand the win part. (Another forum, rather than answer that question, simple censored it.) Wiley got 9th. I would hardly called that a win. Please explain to a dummy like me. “Explanations for Dummies”

      • brucefast Says:

        My understanding is that 8 projects will be selected from the voted list. The top two are automatically in. 6 are selected by the organization that put on the vote, using our opinions as a guide.

        I went to the site, which says nothing about what winners were chosen. However, Dr. Miley may know that his project was selected as one of the 6. If so, its a definite win!

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      I suppose the win was that he got a lot more votes than he expected. It seems likely that if Miley says it works, it probably does, but I haven’t really been following him and I’m not aware of much news on that during the last year. Can he get to a commercial product with enough money put in? I don’t know, and the specified website didn’t give me much information.

      I voted for him, of course, and I would suppose that a lot of people would have done the same for the same reasons. Get a good scientist funded to get a good result somewhat quicker than it would happen without the funding. At least I have more information on his probity than I do for the politicians I’m supposed to vote for.

      Any idea why we were given so little notice? I actually had 5 hours left by the time I got the message.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Probity: Noun — The quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency.
        Synonyms — honesty – integrity – rectitude – uprightness – sincerity

        I just love to check out the other viewpoint: I would imagine that most politicians stretch the truth because they have to appeal to such a large range of voter viewpoints. If all politicians expressed only their viewpoint and nothing else and voters voted for only the guy who reflected their beliefs, we would probably have to select our politicians via plurality rather than majority.

  6. Roger Bird Says:

    Something new:

  7. Rishe Says:

    Communication in this day and age is absolutely crucial! We use our phones throughout the day to communicate with those we enjoy chatting to.

  8. Craig Binns Says:


    You’ve got another bunch in an area where I’ve made no responses; the thread about the e-cat powered car driven by a Cyclone steam engine. Alas, Cyclone have yet to sell a single engine AFAIK, and Rossi has yet to sell a single small e-cat (or a single big one, in my opinion) so there’s little left to do but read spam. But please do delete it.

  9. Craig Binns Says:


    This one’s not so smart. Kreditrechner must have s***t for brains.

  10. brucefast Says:

    Please quit responding to spambots. It makes ‘em harder to delete. If they are just gloating about the website, or declaring their trouble with the website, they are spambots. I do wish wordpress’s spam filter were a bit smarter. (It detects about 50 spams for every one it misses.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 72 other followers

%d bloggers like this: