Yes, this is an advantage, and it is one that MFMP has already demonstrated. I guess I should have said that it has no clear advantage over MFMP.
My experiments going forward should allow the pressure to be measured in the small Parkhomov-size volume, do the experiment in a non-boiling calorimeter, capture radiations during the experiment, capture the gas after the experiment, and be able to analyze the solid ash after the experiment. All of this will be done at Parkhomov-like pressures (up to 5000 PSI) and temperatures to over 1100C. Most of Parkhomov's reactor fabrication hours are spent sealing the tubes. LockTherm is only using fused quartz tubes. This won't allow them to work at the Parkhomov pressures. And, we have no reports of excess heat from them. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > Ø > > Ø The LockTherm testing is certainly interesting, but it is not > clear to me that it has any advantage over Parkhomov. > > Well, the one HUGE advantage is that they are able to seal the ceramic > with a compression fitting and are therefore able to both relieve excess > pressure or add hydrogen from a tank. > > This practical advance should reduce the “bone yard” of broken cells… > Every broken cell in that pile represents 30-40 man-hours of lost time – > not to mention the out-of-pocket expense. > > Jones >
