Axil—

I agree with you about the buggy-whip technology suggested for the NASA space 
reactor.  My agreement stems from concerns with the potential for nuclear 
accidents (not unlike concern about nuclear reactors in space considered in the 
1950’s and 60’s)  which effected dismissal of  their use in the current space 
program.  The reactor design has not changed much since then IMHO.

A comparison of the various SNAP reactor designs with the current design would 
be instructive.

The following link addresses some of the features of the Kilopower reactor:

Ahttp://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-14-23402xil—

Its lack of references is an obvious  characteristic of an abridged report.

Table 2 of the design report seems to indicate that a fresh “warm” reactor is 
critical with a K-eff of about 1.0118 with control rod in and the Be reflectors 
properly positioned.  It does not indicate the K-eff for super criticality 
which by fast neutrons and probably would cause an  explosive reaction.  It 
does indicate a positive temperature coefficient and makes one wonder at what 
temperature super criticality occurs?

IMHO the analysis should evaluate and describe conditions for super criticality 
as  well as the following enumerated issues:


  1.  Consider linking the KiloPower reactor to the existing thermo-electric 
system used by space probes  current to eliminate the Pu-238 heat source.



  1.  Make a reactor design with a negative temperature coefficient over the 
entire range of temperatures possible.



  1.  Consider other high temperature uranium alloys of tungsten, tantalum, 
zirconium, niobium and their combinations, as well as the molybdenum so achieve 
better thermal neutron  flux at higher temperatures and hence more margin to 
fuel failure.



  1.  Run creep test for years rather than months to evaluate fuel swelling and 
failure.



  1.  Consider better fuel poisons than boron, for example Hf.  Use poison good 
for epi-thermal and fast neutrons to improve margins to super critical 
conditions.



  1.  Provide a reference to the actual risk assessment used to evaluate 
nuclear accidents on and around earth and at potential landing sites and/or 
end-of-life probe disposition.


Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:52 AM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Electrical power conversion for LENR

Before NASA wastes too much of their precious R&D on buggy wip technology, it 
is time for the Quark to take center stage in powering space exploration and 
settlement. Replacing the fission heat source in Kilopower is a no brainer. 
Safety Certification is obviously not required for this technology and the R&D 
resources of NASA can be used to jumpstart the LENR reactor home use business 
when a LENR Kilopower based product is eventually configured. Rossi should get 
some NASA engineers over to his demo.Once they see the Quark in action, they 
will configure Kilopower property with a LENR heat source.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=DcdfMcjUy_U


https://tec.grc.nasa.gov/rps/stirling-research-lab/advanced-stirling-convertor/



NASA's new sterling heat convertor for is a highly efficient, low mass, 
reliable power convertor for future Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS)



(38% greater than 80 W output power), low mass (1.3 kg), hermetic sealing.



[ASC-E2.jpg]

[ASC-layout.jpg]

[Four-ASC-1-convertors.jpg]







Reply via email to