Being fast to start and avoiding meltdown mean that they have a very good, nearly optimal control. Maybe part of the secret is classic control theory, helping to design the optimal retro-action, once you know the core thermal parameters...
but being also able to work without cooling, with "nudist" reactors under the sky, mean they don't need the coolant to survive... something is stabilizing the core, or at least helping/damping the core to be stabilized from far by a very good temp->power loop (maybe a good PID predictor). One idea would be that they use very fast induction heating, but they say NO RFG... maybe induction is not RFG for them (true in a way). this might explain why they use (as someone explain here) a magnetically transparent steel. the stability of the core might be about the powder behavior at high temperature, relative to induction... (why not curie point? 627 C?) but in their spec they talk about resistors, not induction coils... they talk about a chemically assisted preheating... undisclosed. pre-heat 6 seconds... max op temp 1050C... however coolant oil is limited to 350C, and 430 for molten salts... not the 600C we see as limit for the tests... whatever they did, it is smart job... either a tricky intrinsic feedback (like lead-bismuth nuke do), or optimal control, after good modelization. 2012/1/24 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > The design of the DGT device allows them to lower if not stop the > coolant flow into the heated core unit. The heating of the core can then > be much faster and also require less net energy than Rossi's > configuration. I would expect that both designs would need approximately > the same temperature for efficient output. This is just my opinion, but I > think the DGT design is more ideal. > > Dave >
