A pressurized water reactor or similar is needed for electricity production. The reaction would proceed a lot faster at the higher temps and would need better controls compared to just the water heater setup now running at around 100C. Hot water production for factories and large building heating is the low hanging fruit - safer and easier compared to home hot water heating, or electricity production, which is why it is the first application proposed.
I think the reaction happens primarily in close proximity to the internal heater, with slowing rates of reaction as distance increases from the heater towards the periphery. Temps should fall off proportionately from the heating element to the outer volume. Perhaps the next advances will involve different types and shapes of internal heaters that would be more efficient as far as promoting more reaction per given reactor volume for a pressurized steam temp reactor.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum_disilicide but this material may not last at all in hot H2. The outer jacket heater seems to be there to help during startup to warm the surrounding water and copper jackets until the reaction kicks and the water flow is initiated. I doubt if a commercial model would need the external heater at all, just trigger reaction with the internal heater till it has made enough heat to warm the water and jackets, then initiate the water flow.. Since the reaction vessel is surrounded with water, the reactor wall is less than 105C or so. Which is why I suggested earlier that a lead reaction vessel would simplify matters, offering shielding as well as containment and the ability to easily cast the reactors to desired shape from molten lead. For pressurized steam production, lead might be too close to the melting point for reactor wall. As I speculated, Rossi would have no reason to take this all the way to pressurized steam, or to home size reactors (non-electric generating) since there is a huge market to heat water for larger buildings and factories. By the time anyone gets to making electricity or home heating units, it will be so deep in NRC regulation that it may take decades to see the light of day. Jay Caplan ----- Original Message ----- From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:43 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? > Let me add my two cents: > > If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of > 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's > surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed > temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. > > However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been > transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor > core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional > heat. Currently this doesn't happen. It's my understanding that the > current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not > appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the > transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure > cooker! The water immediately after it has been transformed into steam > quickly expands. The steam quickly shoots out the exhaust pipe - i.e. > the infamous black hose. IOW, the steam doesn't have a chance to hang > around long enough to absorb additional heat and subsequently increase > in temperature much above 100.1 C. > > Some on this list may still recall several months ago the fact that > there was a protracted argument precisely based on this specific steam > temperature issue. Some argued: WHY was the steam only measured to be > 100.1 C when it exited out of the black hose, especially if the e-Cat > reactor was claimed to be hundreds of degrees higher. Because the > exiting steam temperature seemed to be rigidly fixed at 100.1 C some > on this list became absolutely convinced Rossi was involved in a scam > operation. However further experiments have proven that such concerns > appear to be groundless, particularly (and ironically) when > experimenters increased the water flow to show a simple 5 degree > temperature increase. (More accurate calometric measurements > resulted.) Hopefully, we won't have to revisit that protracted > argument again. > > IOW, I doubt Rossi's e-cats, if engineered properly, would have a > problem raising steam to significantly higher temperatures than 100.1 > C. > > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
