Let’s keep an open mind and use logic as a powerful probe of the Rossi reactor.
Robert’s analysis is a good one and it points to some contradictions between valid everyday engineering assumptions and the processes that are going on inside of the reactor. These factors are hard to reconcile. But the pictures of the nickel particles (particle 1) that we are given in the latest third party study show us at least one particle that has not melted since it is still covered with tubercles. This single particle was representative of many more still operational nickel particles. Other nickel particles have melted, so the temperature of the reactor was right on the hairy edge of particle meltdown but not completely over it. To reconcile these contradictions between what engineering would rightly expect and what is really going on inside the reactor points to isothermal heat distribution throughout the entire structure of the reactor. This even heat distribution implies that the entire reactor is quantum mechanically coherent including the alumina body. The entire reactor is a boson condensate. Heat cannot be coming only from the nickel particles because they would be just too hot to produce the concentrated heat flow needed to support expected black body heat distribution. The entire structure of the reactor is producing even heat including the alumina. The nickel powder is setting up the quantum mechanical field conditions to cause the entire reactor structure to produce heat. This assumption is consistent with what we know happens during reactor meltdown. During meltdown the temperature of the reactor goes beyond 2000C which is well beyond the melting point of the nickel powder. The alumina even becomes hot enough to produce sapphires. The energy output of the reactor goes beyond one megawatt. A few flakes of nickel powder cannot produce this much power not even from a nuclear source. We must assume that the alumina is producing the heat and not the nickel powder. Even heat production by the alumina would remove the stress effects on the alumina. Nothing is liquefying. The nickel and lithium is just an enabler of the LENR reaction and not its primary source. The heater wire must be tungsten that is encased inside the alumina to protest is from oxidation. The alumina should have been put under isotopic study to see is it was LENR active. On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Robert Lynn <[email protected] > wrote: > -Max average Ecat temp recorded in test 1412°C, 2.8kW heat output. > - 20mm diameter, 200mm long, thermal conductivity of alumina 6W/m/K at > 1400°C means for 1mm wall thickness would have 40°C through-wall temp > differential, for 2mm would be 80°C. > -So assuming 1mm wall thickness (probably conservative) the internal > reactor temp is at least 1450°C > > Through wall temperature differentials like that induce large stresses as > external surface is subject to tensile stress and inner wall subject to > compressive stress. > http://www.ceramics.nist.gov/srd/summary/scdaos.htm > Alumina at 1400°C has thermal expansion of 8.5e-6/K, tensile strength of > 22MPa, 343GPa elastic modulus so 40K temp difference means 33MPa > compressive stress at inner surface and 33MPa tensile at outer surface. It > would crack and break letting oxygen in, particularly if made thicker > walls. The external surface crenellations would create stress > concentrators that would only make this worse. > > Resistive heating wires inside the alumina tube must necessarily be a lot > hotter than 1450°C in order to push 900W heat into reactor. But there are > no non-refractory heating wires that can survive such high temperatures. > Refractorys can't handle oxygen exposure, and in some cases are no good > with lithium or hydrogen. The wires have to be joined to non=refractory > wires before they contact air and yet at those joints must not melt the > non-refractory wire either. I am also not aware of electrical > feed-throughs that can handle such high temperatures. > > 1455°C Ni melting point, but nano particles of metal have depressed > melting points. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression > > The fuel/reaction particles as the source of all the heat would need to be > at a temperature far above the internal reactor surface temp of 1450°C, > probably at least 50-100°C higher, in order to radiate/convect the heat > away to the walls. > > So at 1450°C we can expect that the Ni fuel particles are much hotter, and > liquid, making for rapid mixing. Forget special crystalline structures > created by secret processes. LENR in a liquid matrix seems to run counter > to a lot of theories. > > Lithium vapour pressure at 1450°C is around 5-10 bar, with approximately > .01g of lithium in reactor and perhaps 20-30mL volume that means nearly all > lithium is in vapour state or as Li liquid condensate on relatively cooler > reactor walls. This reactor is mostly nickel droplets in lithium gas (the > hydrogen will all diffuse away through porous sintered alumina rapidly at > such high temperatures, but perhaps is useful to create reducing conditions > initially). > > This internal lithium vapour pressure would also add to the physical > stress on the alumina - probably 5-10MPa, which would likely cause a > failure given any other stresses (such as aforementioned heat flux induced > differential expansion stresses). > > Nickel vapour pressure is around 1Pa at 1500°C, so in a month long test we > can expect that along with liquid state of Ni fuel droplets' continual > evaporation and condensation, dissolving in lithium condensate of Ni within > the reactor vessel will lead to steady mixing between the droplets. > > Li + Ni vapour will condense into a thin layer on the cool walls of the > reactor - basically acting as a lithium heat pipe and create very > consistent all-over temperatures. Perhaps with small drops of lithium > condensing and rolling down sides with some dissolved Ni, or otherwise > simply leaving a thin coating of Ni and Li on walls. > > Alumina is strongly attacked by liquid lithium reacting with it to form > new compounds - I would expect it to be quickly consuming the available > lithium in the slightly porous alumina. > > And we do see that Nickel "ash" has very little Lithium (.03%, down from > 1.17%) > > Basically all fuel should end up very homogenous. > > Liquid Nickel dissolves alumina and oxygen to a small degree- about 1.8% > and 1.6 % respectively, but only 0-.05% aluminium in analysed ash - that > probably indicates something in error > > http://docs.sadrnezhaad.com/papers/176%20(Interaction%20Crucible%20NiTi).pdf > > If there is a secondary smaller sealed reactor vessel within the alumina > tube then if must be even hotter. > > So so questions that need to be answered: > 1/ Why isn't there more aluminium in ash given claimed temperatures? > 2/ How does theory deal with liquid Ni as the LENR matrix? > 3/ How do heater wires survive these temps without melting - it is well > beyond temps that non-refractory metals can withstand, particularly given > that they must be a lot hotter than the reactor itself, and refractory > metal wires would fail at external joints. Not to mention non-leaking > feed-throughs of heater wires into reactor while maintaining seal integrity > is probably not possible at such high temps due to differential thermal > expansion of metal vs ceramic and limited strength of materials. > 4/ If within the reactor itself how do heater wires survive exposure to > 1450°C lithium without dissolving/disintegrating. > 5/ Given claimed heat flux and internal pressure why didn't alumina tube > fail? > > PS: can anyone calculate hydrogen diffusion rates through the alumina tube? > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1979.tb19114.x/abstract > quoted eqn+units in this abstract aren't clear to me. >
