Robert,
You wrote [snip] Running at a "self-sustaining" level (i.e., so
reactive that no input is necessary) could result in thermal runaway above
stasis, and no control mechanism (other than increasing the water flow) to
bring the temperature back down." [/snip]
but I disagree that changing the water flow could occur fast enough to bring
the temperature back down before damage would occur. I think this is why the
PWM heater control scheme is employed against a water flow designed to keep the
reactor subcritical. By the time a change in water flow results in lowering of
the temperature of the powder it is already too late and the geometry producing
the runaway heat will have already melted the powder.
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 10:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Water Flow Question
It seems that the water is fixed, and the heater voltage is varied to find the
equilibrium. This is assumed to be the "danger" associated with a feedback
cicuit (loss of control). Running at a "self-sustaining" level (i.e., so
reactive that no input is necessary) could result in thermal runaway above
stasis, and no control mechanism (other than increasing the water flow) to
bring the temperature back down.
The reactor was producing more power in the previous experiments, so they
increased the pump rate. It has a fixed displacement per stroke, but is
variable in strokes/min.
This is the theory, anyway. The jury is still deliberating.
Craig Haynie <[email protected]> wrote:
>How does Rossi control the water flow rate? If too much water flows,
>then it would not all convert to steam and it would pour out of the
>outlet. If it's too slow then the reactor would overheat. Does he
>control the water flow by its effect on reactor temperature? Is there
>some other sort of feedback mechanism?
>
>Craig
>Manchester, NH
>
>
>
>
