On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:42:10 Jay Caplan wrote [snip]I agree. Since several devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may well see superb results.[/snip]
Jay, Nicely said - you beat me to it but additionally I would like to point out that Rossi referred to this as a "NEW" ecat. I think he meant it was fresh off the assembly line with a fresh charge of powder. This goes back to a previous thread where we were discussing the level of activity sites from the moment of formation and the "protection " of these sites from overheating. It might even be necessary to keep the outer reactor surface permanently wet to protect the most active geometry from simply degrading down to a sustainable "dry" geometry by overheating and melting the smallest portions of the cavities closed. Rossi doesn't want to see his devices follow the performance woes associated with MAHG devices that would initially appear to produce anomalous heat but would quickly degrade down to almost nothing. I Agree with both you and Jones that an improved, faster and controllable heat sinking methodology is key to a free running reactor but think this will also require a new design where the entire reactor is designed as a heat exchanger and where the powder only exists as a thin layer/alloy sputtered or spin melted to the inner surface of the reactor wall (copper or SS). I would expect any bulk powder not annealed to a heat sink to very quickly reduce its active regions by overheating and melting the Ni in those regions where Casimir geometry is smallest the moment gas molecules permeate the geometry. Fran
