By the way, the reason that Papp moved on from using solid water in his early system to the later system that used noble gas was that water was highly corrosive on the surfaces of his cylinder. Noble gases were not as abrasive.
Remember that the shock waves from water cavitation can completely destroy a 100 ton ships steel propeller if not prevented through proper propeller design. On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > How is the delicate surface of the solar cell protected from the plasma > shock wave that is produced by the 12,000 amp arc discharge? This wave will > be traveling at half the speed of light and include heavy electrons, ions, > fragments of solid water, fragments of the various Mills solid catalysts > all heated to 20000C heat, and intense EMF including x-rays > > The erosive power of such an arc discharge can cut though inches thick > steel and the power of that arc will be multiplied by a COP of form 10 to > 100 if all goes well. > > How does the protective first wall stand up to 2000 blasts a second and > still let through the EMF and deflect the electrons etc? What keeps the > first wall perfectly optical transparent and protected from optical > erosion over time? > > Distance from the blast zone must be minimized to keep the inverse square > law from stealing power and COP from the reaction so the first wall will > need to be butted up against the blast zone. > > Just as in hot fusion, the durability and strength of the first wall will > be a critical parameter in the engineering design of the Sun device and > that first wall must remain transparent to EMF for months or years. > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> From Terry: >> >> >> >> > As would we all. I fear however that subjecting photovoltaic cells to >> >> > extreme pulsed energy compared to solar constancy will shorten their >> >> > lifetime immensely. Considering the energy cost of manufacturing >> >> > these cells, they are hardly cost effective over time without >> >> > subsidies in their normal use. >> >> >> >> I'm not so sure about that. Keep in mind that the cost of energy >> (electricity) itself would presumably plummet, becoming essentially a >> disposable resource. This factor in itself (presuming that BLP's latest >> experimental data is accurate) ought to help make the mass-production of PV >> cells vastly far more cost effective than current techniques. >> >> >> >> It is also my understanding that concentrated sunlight gathered by >> parabolic mirrors have already been used to collect energy for high energy >> PV cells. I gather these configurations don't have a problem withstanding >> the intensities involved. It is my understanding that the intensity of 2000 >> BLP reactions per-second would not be all that different than what a triple >> junction PV cell designed for concentrated sunlight would need to >> withstand. At present, I'm inclined to be less pessimistic about this >> legitimate concern. >> >> >> >> Numerous stress tests are obviously in store. >> >> >> >> Personally, I think we are clever monkeys. We'll find a way. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Steven Vincent Johnson >> >> svjart.orionworks.com >> >> zazzle.com/orionworks >> > >
