<mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> A molten salt coolant in a flow calorimeter with an inlet temperature of
> e.g.
> 300 C and an outlet temperature of 300+ C, would allow both accurate
> measurement
> and high power operation concurrently. The whole should be well insulated
> to
> ensure low losses.

That would hold the entire cell at a high temperature, both inside and
outside. I have a feeling the reaction wants to see temperature gradients.
It wants to see heat flowing through the top mesh, to the next, to the next
and out the stainless steel wall. I don't know why, and I do not have
rigorous proof of that, but that's what the data seems to indicate.

Mizuno probably has a stronger grasp of this. There are a zillion details
he knows that I do not. He also has quite a lot of conventional material
science theory that explains why low loading probably works better. This
started off as a 23-page paper that would have ended up 50 pages if we had
put in everything interesting. For the last several weeks I have been
ruthlessly cutting out everything that does not directly tell the reader:
"How To Do This, Hands-on." Focus, focus, focus.

We can always write another paper.

> Such an arrangement would not only allow for accurate measurement, it
> would also
> constitute a prototype power reactor.

I don't think we will have any trouble making this into a power reactor! It
gets hot in a hurry. We have estimates of the amount of Ni that was
activated, and projections of how high the power will go when more of it is
activated. We are far below the limit. I am sure of that. The question is:
can it be controlled at high heat, with a high output to input ratio? I
sure hope so. But I sure hope Mizuno does not try to test that himself in
the lab. Because the place is a dump, and a fire trap, and severely damaged
by the earthquake. His SEM and other instruments were never fixed. The
GoFundMe kept him in business, but just barely. I hate to think of him by
himself doing high temperature experiments in such dangerous conditions. I
am hoping that other people replicate and then run with this. Frankly, I am
hoping thousands of people replicate.

I hope many people try to replicate, because based on my experience, most
who try to replicate will screw up. Typically, you find out years later
they did their own version which was nothing like the original. I am just
making up a pretend example here . . . but the paper says keep the pressure
between 100 and 300 Pa. Some know-it-all guy will say: "This is gas
loading, so we need high pressure. Make it 30 atm!" Which is 3 million Pa.
It won't work. He'll tell the world, "This is a fraud! It doesn't work" but
he won't reveal any details of his experiment, so we will never find out he
got a critical parameter wrong by a factor of 10,000.

I can *feel* that happening! Right now! Some nitwit out there is getting
ready to do this wrong, despite weeks and weeks of our efforts to provide
clear instructions. So I hope enough people do it according to the
instructions that some of them will succeed. But you never know.

One person did it already, and it seems to work.

- Jed

Reply via email to