For a cold fusion reactor like any other reactor type, the guiding design goal is to produce a large, cost effective, passively self-limiting, reactor design that is intrinsically safe rather than a design that has 1000’s of inefficient hard to control and resource intensive units. Electric utilities love economies of scale and high power density. Low power density is a great handicap for any reactor to bear. Rossi’s large multi-unit reactor design will lose in the market place to a well-controlled materials efficient simplex reactor boasting a high power density.
These multitudes of small weak units are the great design compromise in Rossi’s approach and he will pay a high competitive price for weakness going forward. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > At 10:19 PM 6/19/2011, Axil Axil wrote: > > Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the > shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting > temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can > replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to > hydrogen > > As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far > cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation > shielding must stay in play. > > The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high > temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder > melts. > > Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo > (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible > refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction > vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses > significant strength. > > The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the > increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as > opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 > low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature > units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency. > > > Randy > June 20th, 2011 at 10:29 > AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=8#comment-47350> > > Dear Mr Rossi > > I saw this post and thought it might interest you. > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48058.html > > Andrea Rossi > June 20th, 2011 at 11:33 > AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=9#comment-47371> > > Dear Randy: > Interesting. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > (and a related post : ) > > Andrea Rossi > June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 > AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497&cpage=9#comment-47373> > > Dear Brad: > 1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions > are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe > 2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. > Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any > explosion risk. > Good questions. > Warm Regards, > A.R. >
