Sounds like a fluidized bed reactor to me. It has to be a bottleneck transferring all that heat flux to the kernel walls though. I would think some type of co-deposited Ni/Catalyst onto the kernel walls would do a much better job of heat transfer but maybe that would not provide as much surface area for the Ni - hydrogen reaction.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com > wrote: > A low frequency magnetic field (basically DC turned on and off) could help > agitate the powder and dissipate hot spots, but at temperatures above 360°C > curie temp of Nickel (that appears to be where the reactors operate > according to DGT) static magnetic fields will have no effect on pure nickel. > > We really haven't seen any indication that an applied magnetic field is > necessary or useful to the reaction, The reaction appears to continue even > after the resistive heating element (with it's associated magnetic field) > is turned off. > > I calculate that for nickel particles of 4µm and the reasonable high > density of high pressure hydrogen even in such a small reaction chamber the > convective gas motion is capable of blowing nickel particles around - > basically a slow and gentle geyser in the hotter centre of the chamber > lifting particles up to then fall down the cooler walls, thus slowly mixing > and agitating the powder. > > > On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >> It is not clear at all how DGT is initializing the reaction. Maybe the >> hot chemical that assists the startup is only used to back up the main >> electrical heating element. This may be a way to heat the chemical over >> a relatively long time period without too much power and then having it >> release its heat quickly into the inner cube at the same time the >> electrical heating is available. It would seem possible to effectively >> multiply the peak heating requirement by a factor of 3 or so in this manner. >> >> I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit >> to prevent meltdown. How nice it would be to have data to review as we >> give consideration to these ideas! Guess we might have to wait before we >> get our probes onto a final device. >> >> Do you think that DGT would have determined a safe temperature to preheat >> the core to before having to worry about thermal runaway? Their testing >> should have allowed them to see that there is no danger of runaway when the >> core is at, as example, 300 C. So any preheating liquid at or below that >> temperature could flood the device with no danger. Only after that >> temperature has been achieved would the control system and electrical >> heater have to kick in and work well. >> >> I have long suspected that the RFG is mainly to confuse others and >> misdirect their efforts. DGT does not suggest that they have one in their >> design. The magnetically transparent steel might allow static fields to >> enter freely, but if it is a conductor of reasonable performance, RF fields >> would not enter. >> >> Their working with "nudist" reactors is confusing. I wonder if the >> reactor for this test is only being loaded with a small Hydrogen charge. >> How would they possibly get the heat out of a normally functioning device >> with no coolant flow? I suspect that they are interested in just proving >> that LENR is real but not operating at the required levels. I would expect >> that the P(T) curve would be modified greatly by the charge level. As we >> know, no hydrogen means no power so a small amount must result in a modest >> power gain. I would rather see a fully functioning unit in operation and >> being measured. >> >> We speak of the maximum operating temperature of the coolant as being >> below the specified output temperature. I suspect that we just are not >> aware of the type of coolant that they are using. Now, since they claim >> that they operate at 600 C or more under normal conditions, then why could >> they not use some of the coolant as the initial chemically assisted heating >> material? This would be in line with my suspicion that the pumps are >> stopped while the device is brought up to the desired range. >> >> One thing that I have wondered about for a while is the effects of low >> frequency magnetic fields. I assume that the nickel powder is attracted to >> a magnet at room temperature. Would a slowly changing field cause the >> material to be continually mixed up and agitated? Perhaps this motion >> would keep the material alive. A low frequency magnetic field could >> penetrate a modest conductor. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 12:43 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance >> >> >> Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very >> good, nearly optimal control. >> Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the >> optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters... >> >> but being also able to work without cooling, with "nudist" reactors under >> the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... >> something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core >> to be stabilized from far by a very good temp->power loop (maybe a good PID >> predictor). >> >> One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say >> NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). >> this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically >> transparent steel. >> the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high >> temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) >> but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... >> they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. >> pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... >> >> however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not >> the 600C we see as limit for the tests... >> >> whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback >> (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. >> >> >> 2012/1/24 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> >>> The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the >>> coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then >>> be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's >>> configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately >>> the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I >>> think the DGT design is more ideal. >>> >>> Dave >>> >> >> >
