It would be nice to be able to measure the temperature inside the reactor. Any estimate on the mass of the stainless steel vessel? Harry
> >From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 11:01:47 AM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze > >Say WHAT? > >On 04/19/2011 10:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >Query: is “problematic” Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for “physically >impossible”? >> >> >>The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a heat >>requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel from room >>temperature. Quick check: Let's see, 420 joules = 0.00012 KWh, so the specific heat of steel is about 0.00012 KWh/KG/Deg C. (A quick check of specific heat table gives reasonable agreement with your figure, so we'll go with yours.) Melting point of steel depends on the steel but we'll say 1500 C. So, the energy required to raise a kilogram of steel to its melting point is about 1500 * 0.00012 = 0.18 KWh, and the energy required to raise a ton of the stuff to its melting point is about 900 times that, or about 162 KWh. This is quite a bit smaller than your number. Perhaps you're including energy to disrupt the crystal structure; I don't know if that's necessary when figuring energy to melt steel (it sure is if you're melting water, of course). In any case, for the sake of argument I'll use your number. Let's move on: >130 KW was the supposed heated delivered by the Rossi device, according to the >report - applied in 15 minutes, which is 420 KW/hr Please note that you have just *divided* the power by the duration (which was 1/4 hour) and claimed that's the total energy, which is not quite right. In fact, KW/hr is a senseless unit, unless you're talking about a rate of increase in heat production. 130 KW for 15 minutes is actually 32.5 KWh. >This amount of heat would have melted over a ton of steel No, it wouldn't. 32.5 KWh is a great deal smaller than 375 KWh. It's also a great deal smaller than 162 KWh. and Rothwell thinks it that it represents reality in a 5 kilo reactor ! Your argument would have been more persuasive had you not divided where you should have multiplied.
