Let's be clear then: The important consideration is the business risk of the event and "melt down" has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars. On that basis alone it is reasonable to disqualify the term "melt down" in this context. In terms of the capital equipment damage, the E-Cat HT is analogous to the fuel element in a nuclear power plant. Yes, the fuel element is a write-off but the damage to the rest of the capital equipment would be minimal if experience with other steam powered generation systems is instructive.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gibbs asked about "melt down" which has a particular meaning in the >> context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, >> melt down. >> > > Oh Yes It Does. > > Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone > who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, > such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it > with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become > incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order > of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. > > That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, > which she will not. > > Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of > 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese > do not wish to discuss the matter. > > - Jed > >
