I did try lead in various combinations with other materials. It does
not have very good characteristics. I am working to duplicate the
output power wave form, given the input power vs time, not just
explain the energy balances. I'll have more to say when I finish.
Horace
On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Colin Hercus wrote:
Hi Horace,
I was wondering if it's possible to do this with lead rather than
another material as long as you have sufficient insulation to
reduce the heat flow from the lead to the water. I did a simple
simulation and it looked like about 25kg of lead with about 12W/C
heat flow would do the trick.
I was also thinking that you might get some stratification of the
water with cooler water at the bottom and hot near the top. In
latter stages of "life after death" this could be really important
to keep the outflow at 100C.
For Oct 6th test it also requires water flow to match Mat Lewan's
measured rate rather than Rossis 11kg/h, which also leaves the
possibility of the flow rate being increased to "shut down" the
reaction.
Best Regards, Colin
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Horace Heffner
<hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question. I overlooked the fact
that you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW
run.
(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-
vaporization issues.)
Yes. I am having problems keeping track of things, and have not
been able to read much on vortex of late. Sorry I am a bit behind
responding, and our messages crossed.
Something of possible interest is that the (real) cement slab data
is here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6Sb.png
This can be compared to the fire brick data here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png
The cement data shows the peak energy output much delayed vs the
fire brick, around T540 vs T330. However the peak power out
delivered is less. A similar phenomenon should occur if controls
are used to cut back the power out to make a 6 hour run vs 4 hour
run. If the power out were actually from nuclear energy, not
thermal energy stored using electric power, then such a large drop
in output should not be necessary to accommodate the longer run
time. Rossi actually stated on his blog, if I recall correctly,
that the power was reduced from 1 MW because the (prospective)
customer required 6 hours instead of 4.
Obviously the shortcoming from the 1 MW output expectation
(objective?) was the fault of the customer! 8^)
Obviously, I claim, as I wave my arms wildly. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
