For the 1MW demo Rossi wrote explicitely in his forum, the reactors
where in parallel.
So far I remember, he gave differing statements for the other demos.
One should understand, it is not important for Rossi to give precise
information.
He gives unclear information by purpose. It is not his goal to explain.
His goal is to confuse and make rumours spread.
The more rumours, the more it is discussed. The more discussed the more
the news are spread.
It is important that never a clear conclusion arises and that the
discussion never ends.
This strategy was always successful.
We should support him, oh what do I say, this is what's happening just
now ;-)
Am 10.11.2011 21:40, schrieb David Roberson:
Bob, I think you have generated an excellent diagram. It is highly
unlikely that the 3 core modules are actually in series. That would
be very difficult to control and Rossi has a pretty poor controller as
far as I have seen.
This would not be his first statement that is intended to misdirect or
maybe just a slip of his tongue.
The pressure release valve is most likely a check valve. That would
work as a pressure release valve in the current configuration. It
operates at around 116 C. (1.7 bars absolute)
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 1:35 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
I originally surmised heat exchanger fins on the bottom, but several
vorts insisted that there is no evidence for heat fins on the bottom
and that the reactor cell is bolted to the bottom (but I didn’t show
bolts). So I removed the fins on the bottom.
Your comment about the internal water flow is interesting. I will
consider how to represent that input.
I presume when you say “hot input” you are referring to the top T
fitting that is the water/steam outlet. Where is the evidence that it
“IS” 3 bar? Have you identified the part used? The operating steam
temperatures are more consistent with operation at ~1 bar gauge. I
thought it sufficient to simply mark it as “~1”, but if there is
evidence that it could be as much as 3 bar (gauge or absolute?) then
the figure will need to be revised. I don’t really have a problem
with adding the ? though. If the internal pressure really is 3 bar
gauge, then the reactor must be operating full of water and it is
probably superheated liquid water that exits the hot outlet and
flashes to steam as it exits into lower pressure, cooling some of the
water around it and causing a water/steam mix in the output.
Bob Higgins
At 07:16 AM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a) Why no bottom heat exchanger fins?
Rossi said a long time ago that the Gamma thermalization was partly in
the lead shielding. In the original tubular ecats the lead was
probably in contact with the copper pipe. I would expect the bottom
lead to need fins. (I'd put them back, with a "?") Unless .... see
comment c)
b) Lead should surely surround the wafer.
c) Rossi has said that the 3 cores are in SERIES, and then the
fat-cats are connected in parallel. This would imply that water is
injected into the wafer, not the tank, and then goes through three wafers.
d) There IS a 3-bar pressure relief valve at the hot input to the heat
exchanger. The 1-bar should be marked "?"
