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. ***Based upon what I have read here on Vortex, that risk is minimal yet it still does exist. Rossi got all upset at Celani for carrying a Geiger counter and reporting that, during startup, it went off the scale. If the device melts down at that particular point (minimal chance, but still does exist) then there is a large release of radioactive material.
My prediction: So many people will get enamored with this idea of cheap nuclear energy that they will squash any investigation into this danger. That aspect is not a particularly a good thing. But it will happen. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >
