Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen
As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation shielding must stay in play.
The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder melts.
Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses significant strength.
The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency.
Randy
June 20th, 2011 at 10:29 AM
Dear Mr Rossi
I saw this post and thought it might interest you. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg48058.html
Andrea Rossi
June 20th, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Dear Randy:
Interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(and a related post : )
Andrea Rossi
June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Dear Brad:
1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe
2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk.
Good questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
