For the per core driven output I get, 1,000 kWs / (52 modules X 3 cores)
= 6.41 kWs per core or 19.23 kWs per module of 3 cores. Based on 107
modules with 1 operational core (as demonstrated) and 479 kWs of output
that is 4.47 kW per core in self sustain mode.
AG
On 11/10/2011 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
The three cores are now in a rectangular shape instead of cylindrical.
I would suggest that there is a thermal resistance(insulator of some
sort) desired between the cores and the heat sink. This would act as
a thermal matching system so that the cores can operate at nearly 600
C while the heat sink is at a far lower temperature.
Time response data demonstrates that two time constants are at work.
One long one related to heat release and a shorter one associated with
the conduction of heat away from the heat sink and heating device.
He could easily disable a core by putting in material that does not
exhibit LENR.
The 1 MW unit must have operated with 3 cores present. One core only
produces 3.4 kW of output power in the driven mode, less in self
sustaining.
The core operates at a temperature that would destroy a
microcontroller. 600 C
I suspect that the two extra wires are actually for sensor reading. A
controlled driven unit would need to measure liquid level and
temperature to function well. I really suspect that the frequency
generating device is to mislead.
The test conducted on October 6 was using one core. The thermal
environment in this case would not be the same as using 3 cores.
Additional positive feedback of heat would occur due to the two
additional cores if they were active. I suspect that Rossi
has performed a delicate balance of thermal impedance when 3 cores are
present. This would suggest that the 1 core test should loose output
power at a faster rate. That would explain why the self sustaining
mode for the 1 MW test ran for such a long time.
It has been apparent that Rossi has made a serious effort to disguise
the real data by his actions. I suspect he wants to keep doubt alive
so that the 'war' does not start until the last moment.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:41 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the
heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done
inside the door knob like reactor.
Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says.
I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead
slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top
and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper
and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the
upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical
assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the
embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger
fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running
on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the
internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that
the "RF Wires" are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe
running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way
data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro
inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later
accessed for analysis.
Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and
module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is
replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would
then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel.
From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes
than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few
nuts and bolts.
