Radioactivity Neutralization Methods
|
|  Yüklə 12.18 Mb.
|
Figure 6 - Pinhole Camera Side View of Dual EVO Flight Through Vacuum The value of the phenomenon as a means for efficiently performing work results from the fact that while 3.5 MeV is required to propel a proton [1,835 times more massive than an electron] to .1 C in a conventional linear particle accelerator, an electron charge cluster can be accelerated to the same velocity with 2.5 KeV, a differential of 103 electron volts. When undertaken under controlled conditions, the results demonstrate that the acceleration of the protons captured by the EVO does not diminish the velocity of the charge cluster itself. In this case, according to the Shoulders-Jin formulations, the second law of thermodynamics is locally violated, as predicted by Bearden et al. 
Figure 7 - Schematic Diagram of HDCC Accelerator Radioactivity Remediation System When proton-entangled EVO's are directed at the target material, the cumulative effect supplied by the aggregated kinetic energy represented by the entire collection of protons is shown to be sufficient to disaggregate the nuclear particles comprising the target material.  
Figure 8 - EVO Remediation Experimentation While laboratory tests demonstrate that both gamma and neutron emissions are present during this interaction, Jin has also shown that the impact does not create a catastrophic fission event. Instead, at the point of impact, light [in the form of highly energized photons], heat [in the form of infrared emissions], gamma rays and neutrons are emitted as the result of the disaggregating effect of the collision. Within narrow limits, during the pico-seconds following the impact event, the hadrons disaggregated to form a plasma automatically re-arrange themselves to create a nuclear structure which demonstrates a quantum reduction of energy to constitute what is referred to as a more 'steady state,' that is, a condition in which the number and volume of neutrons, gamma rays and other products of nuclear decay are reduced to a lower energy state. This process results in a shortening of the half-life of the target material by 50.0% with each collision and reorganizing event. 
Figure 9 – Disaggregation Impact Cratering In controlled laboratory experiments Jin et al demonstrated conclusively [as Shoulders and others have predicted] that when subjected to a steady, targeted stream of EVO's the gamma and neutron emissions produced by thorium-232 [finely particulated thorium oxalate, as found in common camp stove lantern mantel materials] is reduced to ambient background levels in one hour. Digital images of the target materials taken via tunneling electron microscopy [TEM] conclusively demonstrate the profound atomic and molecular effects produced by bombardment of the target material with proton-entangled EVO's under controlled conditions. The implications arising from this scientifically validated protocol are quite profound. The procedures developed by Jin et al demonstrate that a low-voltage power source can be harnessed to drive a properly engineered electron emitting apparatus in a way that results in the reduction of gamma, neutron and photon emissions in a target material, without the danger of triggering any sort of catastrophic fission event. The research also strongly suggests that this apparatus can be design-engineered to operate on a continuous, controlled basis with complete safety and at relatively modest cost. Simultaneous Acceleration in HDCC Interactions An important feature of HDCC’s is their strong ability to ionize nearby materials and the ability to attract and transport positive ions. The ionization effect is produced by the high energy electrons in the potential well of the HDCC. Newly produced positive ions (e.g., protons) can be trapped in the highly negative potential well of the charge cluster and travel with and be accelerated together with the charge cluster. Experiments show that the number of trapped positive ions is about 10 4 to 10 3 percent of the electron number. Therefore, the local positive ion density could be as high as about 1017 to 1018 ions per square centimeter. It is important to note that this combined charge cluster can be accelerated to high energies similar to the acceleration of an individual electron. 
Figure 10 – EVO Impact Crater and Debris Field Mathematical Model Jin, Shoulders and Yurth have provided the following formulation for estimating the maximum electric field and holding power in a HDCC ring. As an approximation of the HDCC ring, consider an electron ring with major radius R, minor radius a, and uniform electron density ne, in a background of ions (charge +Ze) of uniform density ni. If we assume a/R << 1, then the self-electric field Er of the slender ring could be expressed approximately in cylindrical coordinates (r, , z) by (in MKSA units) Em = ener/20 (1 fe) (1) where fe = Z ne/ni is a charge neutralization factor. The maximum electric field in the ring could be estimated by the electric field at the edge of the ring (r = a): Em = enea/20 (1 fe), or using the total number of electrons in the ring, Ne = 22a2R ne, it can be written as Em = Ne/420aR (1 fe) (2) Numerically, it gives 
Figure 11 - First LENT-1 Gamma Spectra Courtesy Trenergy, Inc. [December 4, 1997]63 Em = 4.58 1010Ne/aR (1 fe) (V/m) (3) In order for the ions to be accelerated along with the electron ring, the ions must be held within the ring during the acceleration. The “holding power” is defined as the maximum electric field holding the ions in the accelerated ring, Eh . The Eh is related to the maximum electric field Em and can be expressed as Eh = Em (4) Because of the neutralization effect of the ions the Eh is always smaller than Em, i.e. < 1. The size of depends on the ion number and distribution in the electron ring. As an example, consider the 20 m diameter HDCC ring. With the data given by Ken Shoulders64,65,66,67, we have a ~ 0.5 m , R ~ 10 m, Ne ~ 1013 and fe ~105<< 1, and therefore, we get Em ~ 1014 V/m, and Eh 1014 V/m (5) This field strength shows that the collective electric field in the HDCC ring is millions of times stronger than the electric field in a normally intense relativistic electron beam (~100 MV/m), or about eight orders of magnitude increase compared with the average electric field limit in conventional accelerators (1 - 5 MV/m). This holding power is strong enough to hold ions in the moving potential well of the ring during the acceleration. There is a possibility that using a specially designed multi-tip cathode array and a properly calibrated magnetic field [as shown in Figure 4], a large high-density electron ring with dimensions much larger than the 20 microns could be generated. For example, consider a situation in which a large amount of HDCC produced by a cathode, such as a metal-dielectric cathode, could be injected into a cusped magnetic field. The magnetic field would be designed to transform the initially longitudinally oriented electron velocity into an azimuthally oriented velocity. With this strategy, the HDCC beam could be accumulated into a large high-density electron ring. The holding power of the electron ring would be strong enough to hold large amount of ions (e.g., protons) and the ions could be collectively accelerated to high energies. Consider the ion-loaded electron ring with sufficiently high holding power in an external axial (z) electric field E. The rate of energy gain of the ion energy Wi in the axial direction is then dWi (HDCC)/dz = eEMi/cme [(1 – fe )/(1 + fe Mi/Zcme)] (6) where Mi and me are the ion and electron rest mass, fe = Zni/ne is a charge neutralization factor, ni and ne are the ion and electron number, Z is the charge state of the ion, vc = (1 (ve/c)2 )1/2 is the relativistic factor, ve is speed of the electron cluster, and c is speed of light. In the case of small ion loading comparing with electron number, i.e. fe = Zni /ne << Zc me/Mi , Eq. (6) reduces to dWi (HDCC)/dz = eEMi/cme (7) or after integration we have Wi (HDCC) = eVMI/cme = (Mi /vcme)We (8) where V is the applied potential difference, We is electron kinetic energy. In the same potential difference V, the energy gain of a pure ion is Wi = ZeV (9) Comparing the Eqs. (8) and (9) we have Wi (HDCC)/Wi = (Mi /Zcme)We = 1836A/Zvc (10) where A is the atomic weight of the ion. This means that the ion acceleration by electron cluster is about 1836 A/Z times more effective than pure ion acceleration. Table 1 shows some applied potential differences and the kinetic energy of a proton (deuteron) collectively accelerated by the electron cluster. As an example, consider a neutron producing reaction: p + 3Li7 4Be7 + n, In this reaction the proton energy must be not less than the reaction threshold of 1.88 MeV. To achieve this proton energy in a conventional accelerator, the applied total electric potential differences must be not less than 1.88 MV. In the high-density charge cluster accelerator, however, the required potential differences for the same proton energy is only 1.88 MV/1836 = 1.02 KV. Table 1 - The proton (deuteron) energy accelerated by HDCC
With the electron current density of 0.1 to 10A/cm2 per pulse, the ion current density could have about 1 to 100mA/cm2 per pulse, which correspond to 1017/cm2 - 1018/cm2 protons per pulse. Proposed Development Approach Nuclear Remediation Technologies, Inc., was created for the purpose of developing, deploying and commercializing this technology by remediating high-level radioactive emissions in spent nuclear fuels, as an economically and technologically feasible enterprise. Technology Development Issues Much work remains to be completed before EVO technologies can be properly investigated, understood, and exploited for practical, commercial applications. While it may be heartening to discover that the emissions produced by finely particulated thorium-232 can effectively be remediated in limited laboratory experiments, it is another matter entirely to understand how EVO's work at a level which will permit them to be safely and consistently applied to remediate the growing stockpiles of high-level nuclear materials in the US and elsewhere. NRT has developed a multi-phased protocol designed to provide researchers with a full and complete understanding of the dynamics, mechanisms and parameters associated with the EVO technologies. The formulations, experimental evidence and basic research already concluded by Shoulders, Jin and others in China and the EEU/CIS suggest that eventually, with sufficient time and careful, deliberate investigation, it should be possible to design-engineer an apparatus which could be used to completely remediate nuclear emissions produced by all classes of spent nuclear fuels on-site and at perhaps 1/1000th the cost of nuclear spallation or linear accelerator devices, with none of the dangers associated with their use. To meet this objective, it is estimated that upwards of $10 million USD will be required over a period of 36 – 60 months to conduct the investigations, accumulate and analyze the data; design-engineer, construct and test prototype apparatus to a point of sufficient maturity to allow for controlled field trials. Three serious issues stand in the way of developing commercial applications using EVO technologies. Research and Development Plan The overall objective of the project is to complete a regime of R & D and, ultimately, to commercialize the HDCC Collective Ion Accelerator. The objective will be achieved through three phases. Phase I Phase I is to determine the scientific and technical feasibility of the HDCC Collective Ion Accelerator concepts through extensive research and testing process and further develop the technology. Phase I – Objectives: Determine the scientific and technical feasibility of the high-density charge cluster collective ion accelerator concepts, and further develop the technology. Phase I is expected to require 24 months for completion, assuming full funding support from the outset. Phase I - Tasks: 1. Demonstrate the scientific foundation and theoretical proof of the HDCC Collective Ion Accelerator concepts.
2. Establish basic R & D experimental environment
3. R&D special cathodes for producing high-density charge clusters
4. R&D various collective ion acceleration concept, and select best acceleration scheme
5. Phase I report describing all tasks completed in Phase I, including recommendations for the construction and testing of the pre production prototype system in Phase II. Note: Some of the facilities and equipment needed in Phase I and Phase II are shown in Appendix 2; Appendix 3 lists key personnel needed in Phase 1. After completing Phase I tasks successfully, the project could smoothly proceed to Phase II.
Phase I is estimated to require 24 months to completion at an estimated cost of ??? Phase II Phase II is to determine engineering feasibility through the construction and testing of the pre production prototype system. Phase III is the commercialization phase. Phase II and Phase III depend on the results of Phase I and have not been cost estimated for the purposes of this proposal. Phase II Objectives Develop an engineering prototype of the compact HDCC collective ion accelerator and perform test experiments to determine engineering feasibility. Phase II Tasks: 1. Evaluate Phase I pilot test data to determine design engineering criteria, 2. Design engineer a suitable prototype for use in a controlled laboratory environment 3. Construct, assemble and test (alpha) pre production laboratory prototype system 4. Compile laboratory test data, performance evaluation and analysis of alpha test results. 5. Modify the laboratory prototype design as a basis for the pre production field test prototype. 6. Design engineer the pre production field system, construct/assemble prototype, and evaluate beta test prototype in controlled laboratory conditions. 7. Modify the pre production beta test prototype design based on controlled laboratory test results and performance evaluation. 8. Construct (5) beta test prototypes for pre production field-testing, data collection, and test monitoring. 9 Phase II report describing all task sets, test results, and final design specifications for commercially viable SIA units.
(to be developed) Conclusions & Recommendations The development of an efficient, cost-effective solution to the nuclear waste stockpile problem constitutes one of the most important technology innovations of the 21st century. In order to succeed, it must be financed with quiet, patient, long-suffering private sources of capital. Its research initiatives must be conducted under conditions which are so thoroughly secret and confidential that none of its detractors will be able to interdict the process. Whether or not such a combination of resources and circumstances can be created in time to prevent the irremediable pollution of the earth's ecosystems remains to be seen. Considerable latitude has been taken by those who have sought to leverage the prospects represented by such a solution as a means for personal enrichment. In fact, it is partly because a number of irresponsible, unethical and essentially amoral individuals have sought to perpetrate a scientific fraud on prospective investors, by making unsupportable claims about the NRT EVO-based technologies, that it has become increasingly difficult to find acceptable financial and political partners. NRT has taken proactive steps to affirmatively prevent others from engaging in this sort of reprehensible behavior, but the taint of over-exaggerated claims has already been unreasonably appended to the technology itself. In the past, NRT has conducted due diligence and funding negotiations with a number of parties who have claimed to be willing and able to provide the money and political support needed to successfully develop an EVO-based solution. To date, after more than a decade of such activities, none of those who have made these kinds of representations have been able to verify either. To date, NRT has expended more than $250,000 over 17 years in a frustrating search for suitable financial support. As a consequence, all parties expressing an interest in pursuing financial partnership arrangements with NRT are required to verify their financial capability before any confidential information will be released for their evaluation and review. Proposed Project Overview [insert 6] System Design, R&D approach, Management & Control Systems, Goals, Objectives, Anticipated Results, Budgetary Issues, People Issues, Equipment/ Resource Issues [IP Development Pipeline Approach] Research and Development Challenges/ targets [insert 7] EVO propagation system (1) probe configuration, materials, geometries, arrays, etc., (2) burst duration @ ≤ 5 x 10-9 seconds, (3) magnetic targeting controls in D2O gas envelope, (4) energy capture and conversion elements [especially gamma, beta, heat, and light]
[objectives, benchmarks, milestones, resources, budget, time line, people/ skill sets, location, etc. proof-of-concept demonstration prototype] R&D Model – Phase II [objectives, benchmarks, milestones, resources, budget, time line, people/ skill sets, location, etc. alpha field test prototypes] R&D Model – Phase III [objectives, benchmarks, milestones, resources, budget, time line, people/ skill sets, location, etc. beta field test prototypes] R&D Model – Phase IV [objectives, benchmarks, milestones, resources, budget, time line, people/ skill sets, location, etc. on site commercial prototypes in (6) fields of use] Summary and Conclusions References 1. H. Alfven and P. Wernholm, Arkiv Fysik 5, 175 (1952). 2. C. Joshi, et al., Nature, Vol. 311, No. 5986, 525 (1984). 3. C. L. Olson, Report SLA-73-0865, Sandia Laboratories (1974). 4. M. L. Sloan and W. E. Drummond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 1234 (1973). 5. P. Sporangial, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1180 (1976). 6. G. I. Budker, Proc. CERN Symposium on High energy Accelerators and Pion Physics, Geneva, Vol. 1 (1956). 7. C. L. Olson, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2260 (1986) 8. Kenneth R. Shoulders, "Method of and Apparatus for Production and Manipulations of High Density Charge", U.S. Patent 5,054,046, issued Oct 1, 1991. 9. Kenneth R. Shoulders, "Circuits Responsive to and Controlling Charged Particles", U.S. Patent 5,054,047, issued Oct 1, 1991. 10. Kenneth R. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," U.S. Patent 5,018,180, issued May 21, 1991.
author, P.O. Box 243, Bodega, CA 94922-0243.
XVIIth international Symposium on Discharges and Electrical Insulation in Vacuum, July 21_26, 1996, Berkeley, Calif., pp 720-731, 38 refs, 10 figs, 5 tables. 13. Shang Xian Jin & Hal Fox, "Characteristics of High Density Charge Clusters: A Theoretical Model", J. of New Energy, vol. 1, no 4, Winter 1996, pp 5-20, 16 refs, 2 figs. 14. Ken Shoulders & Steve Shoulders, "Observations on the Role of Charge Clusters in Nuclear Cluster Reactions", J. of New Energy, vol. 1, no 3, pp 111-121, Fall 1996, 7 refs, 22 figs. 15. Shang Xian Jin & Hal Fox, "High Density Charge Cluster Collective Ion Accelerator”, J. of New Energy, vol. 4, no 2, Fall 1999, pp 96-104, 47 refs, 4 figs. 16. C. L. Olson and U. Schumacher, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol. 84: Collective Ion Acceleration, Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York, 1979.
on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol. 2 No. 2, April 1995. (End of Executive Summary)
While a number of other people and groups have reported the development of treatment systems that could be applied to remediate the problems associated with high-level nuclear radiation, I am unaware of any that have evolved to a point of validation equivalent to the one we have focused our energies on. As you know, we have been actively prohibited from pursuing this work by the DOE and some of their independent contractors. As a result, the problems created by the Fukushima disaster remain unresolved and probably unremediable. – David Yurth Source: David Yurth’s February 24, 2014 email to Gary Vesperman
|