This meltdown condition is revealing. When you take a process to its extreme, its nature is revealed in a truer light. It is unreasonable to believe that the power to meltdown the reactor came from only 3 grams of nickel powder. The heat produced by the runaway was isothermal throughout the volume of the reactor. This implies that the entire hydrogen envelope supported the reaction. The reaction must have had to moved away from the nickel powder which would have already been melted to a secondary reaction mechanism that must have been be supported exclusively in the hydrogen gas.
In this secondary reaction mechanism is where the real power density in LENR will be found. If this type of reaction can be controlled, a 2000C reaction can be very useful in process heat production like steel making, concrete production, and glass making. Also the BEC temperature range is higher than I through possible. If the BEC had broken down, Rossi and his crew would have been bathed in radiation. BEC would also support superfluidic heat distribution throughout the volume of the reaction chamber. The explosion at the end of the meltdown might have been the release of the compressed hydrogen gas when the material holding that gas under pressure failed. On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Eric Walker" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:43:45 PM > Sorry about that; I accidentally pressed "send" when I didn't mean to. > > Eric > > I had this strange feeling of deja vu ... > > To Jed : > > > Andrea Rossi > December 28th, 2013 at 6:47 PM > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=4#comment-891266 > > Jed Rothwell: > The team of Prof. has been increased. > I cannot give more information about this issue. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > And on self-destruct --- 1MW in 10 seconds !!!!! > > > James Bowery > December 28th, 2013 at 7:54 PM > > Dr. Rossi, > > When you say that reactors “explode” when out of control, do you mean they > actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely destructively over-heat? > (As apparently happened to a HotCat in this photograph during the prior > validation test:) > > > http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/AAAAAAAAJYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG > > > Andrea Rossi > December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=4#comment-891334 > > James Bowery: > Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say > something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the > safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to > reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the “mouse” > excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense > that we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature ( we > arrived on purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of > situation). A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, > has calculated that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to > 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has > increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse > had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, > and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the > cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot you see in the > photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 > seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic > that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a > ruby. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not > molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of > steel. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > > > > > >
