Jones:
If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
