Regarding the fluidized bed reactor, I was primarily thinking of the following advantages since we are dealing with solid, albeit small particles:
The increase in fluidized bed reactor use in today’s industrial world is largely due to the inherent advantages of the technology.[7]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_reactor#cite_note-two-6> - *Uniform Particle Mixing:* Due to the intrinsic fluid-like behavior of the solid material, fluidized beds do not experience poor mixing as in packed beds. This complete mixing allows for a uniform product that can often be hard to achieve in other reactor designs. The elimination of radial and axial concentration gradients<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradients> also allows for better fluid-solid contact, which is essential for reaction efficiency and quality. - *Uniform Temperature Gradients:* Many chemical reactions require the addition or removal of heat. Local hot or cold spots within the reaction bed, often a problem in packed beds, are avoided in a fluidized situation such as an FBR. In other reactor types, these local temperature differences, especially hotspots, can result in product degradation. Thus FBRs are well suited to exothermic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic>reactions. Researchers have also learned that the bed-to-surface heat transfer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer> coefficients for FBRs are high. I also had a wild thought that maybe they also kept a very small continuous constant delta P of H2 across the kernal/reactants to keep the hydrogen and particles moving/fluidized. I remember reading that previous tests gave off excess heat while loading and unloading the H2 into the lattice so why not keep the hydrogen always loading/unloading thru a constant recirculating flow. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < [email protected]> wrote: > Can’t remember, but it was either me or Axil… what’s important is that > someone (you) were able to see a place in the puzzle where that piece fit > in!**** > > ** ** > > The 64 trillion $ question is:**** > > Do we (Jones, Fran, Axil, some of you PhD newcomers) have enough of the > pieces put together to ‘see’ what the picture is all about???**** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance**** > > ** ** > > Mark - I thought you found the “entanglement” paper. Or … did you not make > the possible inter-connection between ‘entanglement’ and ‘tunneling’?**** > > ** ** > > Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum > entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the > application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all > this is QM so prepare to be confused.**** > > ** ** > > This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid > quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. **** > > ** ** > > I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control > circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically > dumped and refilled by computer control. **** > > ** ** > > I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a > simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range > of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi’s prior results of the > applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the > quiescence cycle, at least in the short term – at the expense of using > perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. **** > > ** ** > > Otherwise – why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 > month run? **** > > ** ** > > I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra > hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to > carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely).**** > > ** ** > > And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure > loss – it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form > the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the “depleted H2” can > still be oxidized in a chemical reaction.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint **** > > ** ** > > Jones wrote:**** > > “Stated simply, quiescence involves “too much depletion” in the mass of > the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. > This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have > already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors.”**** > > ** ** > > Re: the statement, “…and **you** have already found papers suggestive…”*** > * > > ** ** > > I started LOL… that **I** found? This post touches on the element of > ‘meta-physics’ that SVJ has mentioned recently.**** > > ** ** > > One of the things that I enjoy doing it ‘serendipitous surfin’… which is > hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on > vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and > reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and > googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across > something that just says to me, “this is important”. Don’t know why, since > many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics > understanding that I don’t have… I can usually narrow it down to specific > phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it’s the subconscious > mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the > bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it’s important. > The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, > paying the bills, etc., to make the ‘connections’; to see how a given paper > or discovery is important.**** > > ** ** > > That’s where Vortex-l, ‘The Collective’, comes into play… it’s as if the > Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! > Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they > go, and some can see where those pieces ‘fit’ in. Does that make sense??? > It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that > trolls don’t understand, nor respect.**** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance**** > > ** ** > > Mark,**** > > ** ** > > The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum > Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? **** > > ** ** > > There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D > could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that > decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory > involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, > just as are seen in traditional physics – then it is a thermonuclear theory. > **** > > ** ** > > Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM > based – if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to > account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern > CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer > and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will > have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. > The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability.** > ** > > ** ** > > The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling – where instead of a > small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much > more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. **** > > ** ** > > If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great > detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the > mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation > (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is > easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. **** > > ** ** > > Stated simply, quiescence involves “too much depletion” in the mass of the > hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. > This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have > already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors.**** > > ** ** > > Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is > likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and > reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT > may be doing this already.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint **** > > ** ** > > 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**** >
