Experimenting with Linux

April 23rd, 2015

          It has been over 30 years since Richard Stallman [I was told by a woman recently in Barcelona that I sound like him when I speak Spanish] started a free Unix-like operating system called GNU. There have been many flavors of the operating system, different licensing and also many free applications. A spin off was Linux by Linus Torvalds started about 20 years ago.  Generally, though, OpenSource is where people work together to develop software and offer it freely to anyone.  The main restriction in licensing is that users of the software must share what they change and develop.  Related is the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
          As an engineering design company we at Haynes-Bent, Inc. need to be versatile. On a project last year, I had an engineering student employee come on board. Normally we had used Microsoft work stations but the current project actually needed some of the Computer Aided Design (CAD) software that could export file formats such as .stl for 3D designs. This required Linux so we looked at a user friendly version. The company has been using Linux since inception for servers and 3D Electromagnetic (EM) simulator platforms. But employees were more comfortable with Microsoft for E-Mail, internet etc. Looking at Ubuntu, we thought it was a very simple setup and all necessary software was there and ready to use.  One of the software pieces necessary is a spreadsheet program. We chose LibreOffice having previously used the OpenOffice suites for years but was being phased out in favor of LibreOffice. The current project required some spreadsheet work and LibreOffice has the Calc program for that. Some solutions to linear equations was necessary and I had used the Solver application in Microsoft Office in the past but did not know if it was available in LibreOffice. As many times is the case, though, I was surprised by the availability of very similar applications and Calc had a solver that worked just fine.
          For years Linux application groups have been competing with the major software providers to bring useful applications to users.  There are some quirks to the software but generally they work well unless you desire some of the special features such as graphics or template libraries. One must be aware of security risks but that comes with all offered software. The difference with OpenSource versus other vendors is the world is available to scruitinize the code offered in repositories looking for vulnerabilities and loopholes. With bought software, the code is not usually released and thus one does not know what security issue (sometimes intentional) may be. In short, OpenSource software has and is becoming more of an alternative to what is available in the market.

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives and software services from embedded to network servers.

sales@haynesbent.com (630)845-3316

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2015 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Panic Button

August 10th, 2014

     A recent RedEye article about a Panic Button for college students started my thoughts on invention ideas.  As a wireless device designer, I am all for using wireless technology.  As an entrepreneur, though, I assess my business ideas and a good direction for most products is to keep it simple (and cheap).  I would think the best direction for this kind of safety device would be an App for the phone (that you already must have for the product) that can wake up on a code word to do everything a separate pendant would do.  A separate device must be maintained (batteries) and accounted for (remember to wear it).  Most people already carry their smartphone around which, again, is necessary for the product proposed in the article anyway.  Some other concerns are that we need to assess privacy concerns today.  Some like to ensure that their privacy is maintained in non-emergency situations and shut-off location based services.  Some things to think about.

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives and software services from embedded to network servers.

sales@haynesbent.com (630)845-3316

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2014 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Electromagnetic Propagation to Mars

April 5th, 2014

I do quite a bit of math for engineering projects.  Many things need iterations and so I do lots of scripting.  But sometimes I just want to do something for fun.  Awhile back I was watching a special about Mars and they were talking about the NASA‘s Spirit and Opportunity rovers that were supposed to operate for only about three months but have been operating for about 10 years now (Spirit has not responded for about four years now, though).  Some of the reasons they lasted so long is that it had been assumed that so much dust would accumulate on the horizontal solar cells making them inoperative over time.  What they had not anticipated is that, occasionally, there would be Dust Cleaning Events.  This could be just wind but a presenter from NASA at Fermilab once showed a Martian dust devil (remember the atmosphere there is about 95% Carbon Dioxide) which does a much better job.
The show that I was watching about Mars talked about the transit time for radio signals to Mars.  To cause something to happen with regards to the rovers, you have to send a signal and it takes a certain amount of time for the signal to get to Mars or conversely for a rover or an orbiter to communicate with Earth.  We send/receive signals to/from Mars usign the Deep Space Network (DSN).  Through these large satellite dishes, we can communicate with either the rovers or through orbiters which then relay the message to the rover(s).  For the Moon, we put in a NASA SBIR proposal for an easily deployable antenna array to communicate with orbiters.  So how long does it take.  I have heard the number of 15 minutes one-way thrown out at one time.  Here are my calculations:

Constants

d_earth_perihelion = 91.4 million km
d_earth_aphelion = 94.5 million km
d_mars_perihelion = 206,655,215 km
d_mars_aphelion = 249,232,432 km

Semi-major axis
Mars Average = 228 million km
Earth Average = 92.96 million km

Minimum  Distance

The closest that Earth and Mars will ever be is when Earth is at aphelion (farthest from the sun) and Mars is at perihelion (closest to the sun).  Also, they would have to be on the same radial from the sun at that time.  The chance of this happening is very unlikely.

Maximum Distance

Assuming the Earth and Mars are in opposition (across the Sun from each other).  Then both need to be at aphelion.

Two sources used:  One was a webpage specifically talking about the topic and the other came from my calculations based on “various sources” such as planetary tables.  One should always look at multiple sources in research.

Answers

The answers are based simply on the speed of light in a vacuum and takes each value and divides by that to determine the propagation time for the Electromagnetic (EM) Wave (debate wave verus particle another time) that is the signal sent to the rovers.  It is a simple calculation not taking into account any delay if the signal is relayed by an orbiter nor any compensation since space is not entirely a vacuum or the propagation through the Earth and/or Martian atmosphere (since that all should be negligible).

Answers for Source 1
One way time for closest   3.033333 minutes
One way time for farthest  22.277778 minutes
One way time for average   12.500000 minutes

Answers for Various Sources
One way time for closest   6.233333 minutes
One way time for farthest  19.094444 minutes
One way time for average   7.502222 minutes

Constants – Various Sources
Closest – Source 1         54.600000 million km
Closest – Various          112.200000 million km
Farthest – Source 1        401.000000 million km
Farthest – Various         343.700000 million km
Average – Source 1         225.000000 million km
Farthest – Various         135.040000 million km

So, fifteen minute one way was probably right at that time.   Comments/corrections welcome.

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives and software services from embedded to network servers.

sales@haynesbent.com (630)845-3316

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2014 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Helping Businesses

   February 16th, 2014

Having been in business for almost a decade now, I have worked with many companies in solving their issues from software to electromagnetic compatibility (EMC).  Basically, my company helps with techical problems related to electronics hardware and software.  In working with the end client, I usually find out more that I bargained for about the company.  One of the reasons I personally enjoy consulting versus direct employment is to stay above company politics.  We are usually called in because a company is failing.  We can help technically but usually do not help nor offer advice on some of the root reasons that they are failing.  If I did tell them, they would probably not change what is necessary anyway.  There was only one company in which I told them honestly how they could improve their business.  There were two reasons for this.  The first is because they gave us return business.  The second is because I was in direct contact with the owner who could actually effect change.  This was a smaller business.  In larger businesses, the culture and political kingdoms setup are sometimes too ingrained to change.  The nice thing is that the one company that took my suggestions is still in business and thriving.  The other businesses are either stagnant, offshored a large chunk of their US workforce or went out of business.  We give good technical support to our customers according to what they define as deliverables.  Sometimes that is just not enough but it is our contract.

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives and software services from embedded to network servers.

sales@haynesbent.com (630)845-3316

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2014 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Leaded Coil Test System

December 4th, 2013

Leaded Coil Test System

Over the years we have helped customers with some of their issues concerning coil impedance from antennas to custom inductors.  We have a system available to test coils in a factory environment and collect data.  It will provide coil inductance for frequency points you specify.  Some customization may be needed for a custom coil setup but generally is a cheaper and easier to use system then using a RLC meter or Vector Network Analyzer (VNA) since the later are not typically geared towards factory envirnoments.  Our system is typically geared towards lower frequency devices (<1GHz) but may be able to be customized for higher frequencies.  Contact us if you have interest/need at sales@haynesbent.com.

Ronald Kollman – President – Haynes-Bent, Inc. – (630)845-3316

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) specializing in Radiofrequency Hardware Design, Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) , 3D Electromagnetic (EM) Simulation and software systems.

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2013 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Nikola Tesla

July 10th, 2013

I guess today is Tesla’s birthday from some of the posts on the internet.  Having been a fan before all of the pop hype, I felt that I should write something.

Dealing with large electrical motors and their designs, I started to become interested in the design of the slip (induction) motor designs in the 1980s.  It seemed so elegant even around a century after invention.  That, of course, led me to read a little bit about the inventor when I discovered Mr. Tesla.

To digress a little bit, an induction motor was quite novel at the time.  Motors at that time required brushes to bring electricity to the rotor (part that turns) and create a magnetic field.  The stator (coils in the housing) would create a magnetic field and kind of always relatively the same at least with respect to the rotor.  Tesla decided to change that and make the magnetic field rotate in the stator using three (3) phase alternating current (AC).  Not only that, he was able to get rid of the brushes and use the rotating field to induce current into the rotor to create a magnetic field which interacted with the rotating field to cause the rotor to spin.  It is a very elegant idea and quite an interesting control system as the loaded motor slows down but then the relative speed causes more torque to bring it back.  This system also gets rid of the brushes which saves quite a bit on maintenance.  About the only drawback is that it is not a constant speed under varying loads.  With solid state electronics today, we can compensate for that, though.  They could back then if they had control over the generator speed.

I will just recant some things that I learned about him over the years:

1)  Edison was a sort of hero to Tesla.  Tesla finally got to go visit him around 1884 and Edison gave him some work on the spot.  Later Edison promised him $50k to increase the efficiency of Edison’s generators.  Tesla worked hard and finished the work in a few months since he wanted the money for a research lab.  Edison said that the $50k was a joke.  Tesla quit and that was the end of his views of Edison as a hero (I think it ended earlier as he got to know the man).  Tesla was pro-AC and Edison was pro-DC (direct current).  This later led to the “War Of The Currents”

2)  War Of The Currents:  Edison had an established DC power infrastructure in place in NYC.  Tesla’s ideas jeopardized his business and so Edison instigated public sentiment against AC by having a “road show” go around and electrocute animals to show the dangers of AC.  I saw a video from the time showing an Elephant being shocked to death.  AC was superior to DC in that it could be stepped up/down in voltage for efficient long distance transmission so was a threat to Edison’s business especially when Tesla was hired to consult on the Niagara Falls Power Project (hydroelectric) which could send power all the way to NYC.  Edison also recommended AC to be used for the first execution using electricity which failed miserably and made Edison look bad.  Side Note:  I was able to see inside the old generator building on a visit to Niagara.  It was closed but there was an open door so I got to look around for a bit undisturbed and got a real feel for the history and time.

3)  Wireless Power Transmission (WPT):  Tesla was fascinated by resonance and was alleged to cause a building to sway one time by a mechanical device that tapped on a support for days at the resonant frequency of the building slowly building up a resonance.  His “Tesla Coil” design is an auto transformer tuned to resonance.  With this, one can build up large electric fields and that is where the “lightning” discharges come from.  His coil design enabled his wireless power transmission theory based on his calculations for the resonant frequency of the earth (later discovered by the US Navy in the 1950s and known as the Tesla-Schumann cavity resonance).  He found investors and setup a lab near Colorado Springs because he enjoyed the natural lightning activity there.  It is alleged that he was able to wirelessly illuminate about 200 light bulbs about 26 miles away.  His investors seemed to have “pulled the plug” on his project when they realized that they could not charge for power.  It was a good idea but there is too much power lost even if we decided to provide electricity in a socialistic way.  In addition, there may be other effects such as increased risk of cancer (power lines are alleged to cause Leukemia for those exposed for a long time) and on the environment.  Side Note:  Around 1993 I found a museum in Colorado Springs with many artifacts from Tesla.  Later in 2004 I went back and it had all been taken.  I think they said it was all transferred to a museum in Croatia for him.

4)  Radio:  Tesla actually filed a patent for a radio in 1887 and was granted a few months before Marconi in late 1900.  But, even though Marconi’s patent claims were rejected because of Tesla’s, the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company was created in Britain backed by Edison and Andrew Carnegie and American Marconi was later created.  For no reason, in 1904 the US Patent Office reversed their decision and gave Marconi the patent for invention of the radio.  Marconi won the Nobel Prize in 1911 and Tesla sued but did not have the money to pursue.  When Marconi later sued the government and in 1943 the US Supreme Court upheld Tesla’s initial claims a few months after he died.  Interesting Article

5)  Other inventions:  Remote controlled boats and plasma weapons just to name a couple.

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives.

sales@haynesbent.com (630)845-3316

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2013 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Personal Electronc Devices (PEDs) on Aircraft

May 23rd, 2013

     We all usually have had to shutdown our electronics devices when flying. This is usually limited to takeoff and landing when instrumentation is key. Not to touch on the technical nature too much but radiofrequency (RF) signals are used in many aspects of flight and pilots use instrumentation that use these signals to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. The operator (airline) is in charge of allowing/denying Personal Electronics Device (PED) use [14 CFR 91.21] except cellphones which are prohibited [47 CFR 22.925]. Most airlines restrict PED use during takeoff and landing. Currently the FAA is looking at relaxing that regulation [FAA-2012-0752]. Prompting this could be any number of things: passenger complaints about not being able to use their devices or PED manufacturers that want their equipment used more etc.
     Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) is the study and regulation of both what is called susceptibility/immunity (how sensitive something is to electromagnetic interference) and interference (what a device produces electromagnetically). There are all kinds of standards like FCC (USA) CE (Europe), RTCA (Aircraft), MIL-STD-461 and many more. These standard set levels of electromagnetic interference that a device like a PED are allowed to put out and how much interference aircraft equipment can take before disrupting it’s operation. These standards are discussed and revisited constantly based on many criteria such as FAA incidents, new technologies, new aircraft type (i.e. the new Boeing 787 prompted a new standard because of the carbon composite fuselage) etc. And PEDs are not the only items which standards are addressed. For example, as a passenger, your plane may be hit by lighting. So there are tests and standards to see if equipment is susceptible to a lightning strike to a certain level. None of the testing ensures 100% safety but the standards attempt to address issues that can affect safety and changing technologies.
     The increased desire for passengers to use PEDs is one of those changing technologies. It is a difficult problem. There are some documented instances where PEDs cause issues on planes which jeopardizes the safety of the plane. But, you just do not know what harm they can cause and it is better to err on the side of safety. We can set equipment testing to a higher standard but some of the equipment uses frequencies and therefore there is really not much you can do about the susceptibility. One possibility is to require qualification of PEDs for airline use. That would be unpopular because it would increase the cost of the devices. Just taking the stance that PEDs should be allowed because of demand is not a valid approach, though. It should be investigated using scientific methodology. The FAA does a somewhat fair job trying to mediate demand with scientific principles. They take public comments, industry insights and more. The investigations will always continue as the types of wireless devices and pervasive use increase. Anything can happen, a device can break and operate abnormally, devices can interact with each other and much more that can jeopardize safety. Insurance should look at increasing the rates to airlines that allow PEDs to be used during takeoff and landing. You can even pass the cost off to the individual passenger that can not live for the ten minutes or so without their device.

Some other references

     A new look at gadgets on airplanes
     FAA-2012-0752 – Closed for Public Comment now

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives.

sales@haynesbent.com (630)845-3316

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2013 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

CAFOs

May 6th, 2013
CAFOs – Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

     Among environmentalists it is a derogatory term.  There is probably some justification in the perception.  As an engineer and business owner, though, I like to find solutions to problems and not just complain about issues.  It mainly means a farm that keeps the animals close together for efficient operation.  One can feed them more easily and you do not have to chase them down to slaughter them.  If chickens, you just automate the process of getting eggs and making money.
     The CAFOs are not liked by environmentalists.  There are issues with regard to the highly concentrated waste that comes from the animals which is overly rich and sometimes laced with antibiotics that can harm the environment.  This concentrated waste is sometimes just held in pools and/or spread on fields for fertilizer only to run off into streams.  There are also disease issues in keeping the animals so close together (hence the need for the antibiotics).  And some feel that it is not humane.  I will leave my personal feelings aside on that since it will not change much anyway.
     As an engineer I like to look for solutions that solve multiple problems.  Recently I was looking at this problem.  There are many solutions out there but the one that seemed to surface was a system to digest the waste and take the methane off.  The processed waste is then better for the fields and the methane can be sold or used for power generation to reduce the electric bill for the farm.  It seems like a good idea and there are some places implementing it right now.  It is not a new concept and some farmers (mainly in the past) lived over their animal slurry pits and took the gas off for cooking.
     Recently I was looking into mentoring some electrical engineering students to automate such a process just as a philanthropic endeavor.  The students seemed uninterested as did investors.  That is sad as it would seem to solve two problems.

Here are some references:

     Anearobic Digestion
     Biogas
     EPA – Best Management Practices (BMPs) for AFOs

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives.

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2013 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ

Bringing Manufacturing Back To The US

Bringing Manufacturing Back To The US
May 4th, 2013

     As we focus on bringing manufacturing back to the US, we must not forget that design and education is a higher mission. It seems that we have given much to other countries during the offshoring boom through lost intellectual property and knowledge. Money has gone to other countries and now they come back and invest in the US. It almost seems like an economic attack.
     Manufacturing in the US is only going to be a good thing for the country if we have highly automated systems that are also developed in the US AND the technical jobs created to setup and maintain the machines are good paying jobs. They should be very good paying jobs since they are replacing large numbers of workers in the process. We need to develop the highly automated systems ourselves to limit our dependency on other countries. Unfortunately countries like ABB (Switzerland), Invensys (Britain), Siemens (Germany), Schneider (France), Mitsubishi (Japan) are leaders in the marketplace. On the bright side, especially for the Midwest, companies like Rockwell Automation (Milwaukee, WI) and Emerson (Ferguson, MO) are a couple of US based companies that were on the Fortune 500 (dated). The later does not necessarily translate to US based jobs for citizens but at least it is base to help bring back prosperity to the US.

     Top 50 Automation Companies (2010)
     Top 50 Global Vendors

     Now, who is going to make the mounts of widgets and gadgets to be manufactured by these highly automated systems? That falls to some of the large companies around but also small design companies that operate more efficiently with low overhead. The development of products is expensive with the engineering and prototyping necessary. With lower volume larger cost items it is even more imperative to keep design costs low. But, small companies can fill that gap. For example, my company is looking at becoming the second source for a high end radio design. The initial design was developed by a large company. But, since the initial design bugs and real requirements were worked out through a government contract with the larger company, we can now come in and develop the same product to be a second source.
     In short, as we gear up for increased manufacturing in the US we must also have designs and a market to sell to. The global market is waning and so we must look to products to sell in the US and bring business back to the US. Small Business design companies and manufacturing seem to be the way to go and the small mom & pop type companies for prototyping initial designs (click on the graphic) are going to be key in recovery.

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation. We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives.

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2013 – All rights reserved. May not modify. May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman

Thorium Power Generation

  April 29th, 2013

     For awhile now I have been interested in Thorium as an alternative energy source.  We have been using nuclear energy for a long time as a nation.  Even with the incidents that we have had in the US, impact has been minimal.  Reactor designs and controls have been improving steadily.  There is still the waste issue to address but it is one of the cheapest sources of energy for the US even with the waste disposal costs.
     So, basically, you can get lots of energy without much mass with nuclear power.  For a refresher, the energy comes from the difference in mass during fission and/or fusion.  For example in fission a large atom such as Uranium breaks into two smaller elements and other particles with a total mass less than that of the original atom.  Multiply this difference in mass (m) by the square of the speed of light (c) and you get the energy (E) from the famous equation associated with Einstein.  In nuclear power plants, we use this E to produce heat to make steam to turn turbines to turn generators to make electricity.  It is the same process for almost all electric generating stations but others use coal, oil, natural gas etc. to get the thermal energy (heat).
     There are many radioactive elements around.  The Uranium in commercial power plants is mainly the U-235 isotope and you can see the abundance here.  Another mildly radioactive element is Thorium (Th-232) which is found more abundantly in nature (Thorium).  Therefore it can be used as a nuclear fuel.  The byproduct of the decay of Th-232 is U-233 which can then also be used in other reactors as the fuel is used up.  Presently commerical nuclear plants are inefficient since they used only up to 5% enriched U-235 which necessitates changing the fuel about every six months.  This is a costly endeavor whereby US Navy reactors have enrichment of over 90% and the reactors can run without maintenance for over ten (10) years without core change outs.  Some of the reasons for only allowing low enrichment are safety, national security and economics and are probably the reasons why commercial plants are limited to 5% enrichment of U-235.  If a source of U-233 and infrastructure could be setup then Thorium plants could augment the commercial nuclear plants in the US and use the byproduct of Th-233 for more energy versus waste and storage.
     Currently Thorium is found naturally all around us.  It is a byproduct of mining in the US and is a problem (Forbes Article) as desired elements may not be obtainable if too much Thorium exists during mining.  But, as a nation, we need the other materials found in mining such as rare earth metals.  As a nation we need rare earth metals for many things we use from day-to-day in many products such as electronics, cars, turbine engines, lights etc. and the US is quite dependent upon these.  China currently has a monopoly on rare earth metals (China Monopoly) and may be using that as an economic weapon (Rare Earth Weapon).  So, if we can find a use for Thorium, we can also increase mining for rare earth metals in the US and make ourselves less dependent.  It exists anyway, why not utilize it?  Many of the arguements is that it is radioactive but that argument is moot since we mine Uranium for it’s radioactivity.  Thorium is naturally is only an alpha emitter (basically a Helium atom) and can be stopped with a piece of paper and is less of a danger.  But, Thorium is a radioactive material and should be handled as such.  With care, though, it is less dangerous that Uranium mining which we do already.
     As for Thorium reactors to produce power, there are a few designs that are proposed and a few test reactors have been built.  What will drive may be only if big business gets behind it and lobbies for it unfortunately.  But, the big nuclear plant companies probably do not want to invest in newer technologies right now due to public outcry against nuclear power and lower budgets in general.  Our focus in the US is towards alternative energies such as wind and solar.  Those two technologies are good to some extent but are not without their issues (Issues with Solar/Wind).  Thorium reactors could be a solution to other issues such as our import dependencies on rare earth metals, oil and Uranium for the current nuclear plants.  Other countries such as India are really looking into using Thorium.  Personally I want a great environment for myself and my posterity and, if we put good regulations into place and hold reactor designs to high standards, the impact of using nuclear power for our electricity needs is relatively safe.  I was told once that more Uranium has been put into the atmosphere due to coal burning than the total released by all of the reactors in the world.  Right now we push the environmental problems off to other countries and ignore those issues but the world is a small place and even that will catch up to us.  We are not isolated here in the US.  It would be better to do things in a country that has good envirnomental regulations than to push that off to other countries.  Eventually it will affect the US.  The tradewinds from the “East” blow into Canada and the US, we get good from China that may be tainted with pollutants etc.  We can not control these other countries but at least we can reduce our dependency and reduce what we import from them to reduce their production by being more self sufficient and not buying from them.
     In short, why are we not pursuing Thorium?  One of the reasons is that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (amended) controls Thorium.  It should control Thorium but should be rewritten to allow use of Thorium.  In fact, it may be beneficial to get the Thorium out of the ground to be used.  Another reason may just be our general fear of nuclear power.  Unfortunately we only have so many methods for producing power.  Fossil fuels are waning, alternative energies are not really going to add sufficient energy nor are they reliable and most alternate forms are more expensive.  When the public finally has to foot the bill for alternative energies, they are probably not going to be happy especially since we seem to be in an economic slump without a light at the end of the tunnel.  Nuclear power generation can be safe with sufficient study and regulation.

One place for additional information is the Thorium Energy Alliance Site.
They provide quite a bit of information on the subject.

Ronald Kollman – RF Hardware Designer and President of Haynes-Bent, Inc.

He was formerly in the US Navy’s Nuclear Power Program.

Haynes-Bent, Inc. – Radiofrequency (RF) hardware design, EMC/EMI analysis and 3D Electromagnetic simulation.  We also provide Technology advise for investors and executives.

Twitter, LinkedIn

Copyright © 2013 – All rights reserved. May not modify.  May only link to the published page – Haynes-Bent, Inc & Ronald David Kollman