Another way to approach analysis is to take the report results as a given and envision how the reactor would need to be configured and junction to provide those results.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Robert Lynn < [email protected]> wrote: > 1% lithium in 1g fuel, so 0.01g, boils at 1342°C. At 1 bar,1342°C would > fill about 180mL volume, reactor volume probably about 30-50mL so will be > filled with lithium gas under pressure - operating as a heat-pipe to > equalise pressure. > > I have just realised that we can probably infer the existence of an inner > reactor vessel because we see helical wires or wire shadows of only one > angle - we can't see both sides of wire helix through an open core because > there is an inner core vessel in the way. I had thought there was no such > vessel, so my conclusion about the wires being hotter no longer stands up. > The wire temperatures are electrically controlled to alter the amount of > radiative heat flux that leaves the inner vessel - a crude method of > controlling heat flux that suggests great improvements in COP if better > methods of heat flux control are employed (high temp coolant fluid or > moveable insulating shields). > > That inner vessel must be crazy hot! around 300°C higher than the already > hot outer wall in order to radiate the heat to the outer wall and hot > wires; eg if Ø20mm outer wall is at 1200°C (approx max given revised COP of > around 2 from temp reading that is obviously in error due to non-melting of > inconel, though could be significantly lower) then an inner alumina tube > of Ø12mm outer diameter radiating 1kW would need to be more than 1500°C > surface temperature (Actually higher given hot wires surrounding it), so > again it seems temperature within vessel must be up to range where nickel > is melted and lithium is gas at 5-10bar. > > I wonder if that smaller hotter inner tube and translucence of outer > alumina tube is what is screwing up the thermographic calorimetry? If the > camera is picking up the inner tube at 300°C temp higher than the outer > then the exterior tube temp might only be 1100°C and the COP could be a lot > lower > > On 13 October 2014 10:01, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The amount of lithium seems to be tiny from what I have read. Do you >> think that enough of it is in there to perform the function you are >> suggesting? >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Lynn <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, Oct 12, 2014 1:35 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature >> hot-cat Lugano demo >> >> if there was an inner metal cylinder to contain reactants (particularly >> insanely leak-prone hydrogen at high temperatures) then it would be sealed >> by welding not half assed approaches like alumina glue. Until you have >> worked with hydrogen (I worked with stirling engines containing hydrogen) >> it is hard to appreciate just how disrespectful it is of things like >> hermetically sealed containers and thin walled materials of all types. >> Anyone with similar experience would find the idea of such a small reactor >> with low volume small fuel charge and large thin wall operating for a month >> at 12-1400°C while retaining hydrogen fuel totally unbelievable. >> >> Also alkali metals are nasty on all metals that I am aware of at high >> temperatures - particularly in heat pipe type applications like this - pure >> lithium condenses on cooler wall surfaces, instantly dissolving metal atoms >> from the surface and washing them away to the hot zone where the lithium is >> evaporated. This leads to fast corrosion/eating away of basically all >> metals as they are all slightly soluble in lithium, made worse by elevated >> temperatures. This reactor is a lithium heat pipe, with hot nickel powder >> heat source at the bottom of the tube and lithium washing down the walls >> continually to deposit dissolved atoms at the bottom evaporation zone. >> >> On 13 October 2014 01:18, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Robert I think you make good points, not sure what the inner cylinder is >>> made of and I guess that if it is metal it has to be thin in order >>> to not show up on the weight. There is also the possiblity that eddi >>> current's heat the cyllinder at high temps but then can we keep the >>> wires cold. Also, this is speculative, but we really don't know the >>> inner process if this thing works, can there be a local magnetic field due >>> to the reaction, the thing is the only way I can figure out that the >>> nuclear process is happening without radiation is that the there is a >>> deallocated >>> electron squeezed between the reactants in the nuclear process that >>> mediates the energy and momentum to the outer metal in the reaction in stead >>> of releasing radiation, so there is a movement in the electron, if this >>> is somewhat synchronized locally we might get some magnetics to show up. >>> This >>> is only speculating, but I think that we should be careful whith what we >>> don't know, you seam to find good arguments against inductive heating, and >>> this might leave us with resistive heating and a good evidence that the >>> core is hot due to the reaction and not because of resistive heating. >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Robert Lynn < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> far above curie limit for Ni, magnetic fields won't move powder >>>> magnetically, only ions, but temps are too low for significant Li or H ions >>>> to exist, and no ionising radiation sources in evidence. >>>> >>>> On 13 October 2014 00:49, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes but in that case the core can be hotter then the cables. We don't >>>>> know about the powder, and the changes of magnetic fields inside the core >>>>> could stir the powder around and by changing that behavior you might end >>>>> up >>>>> controlling the reaction rate. Also inductive heating of an inner >>>>> containing cylinder does produce a fast response to the actual cylinder >>>>> which controls the heat radiative environment in there. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Robert Lynn < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> inductive heating only works on conductive materials with sufficient >>>>>> thickness/area through which the changing magnetic flux passes to allow >>>>>> eddy currents to form. With 150Hz pulses Nickel particles of tiny scale >>>>>> would not be affected (like thin motor laminates) - it would only work to >>>>>> heat a secondary metal body that could then heat via radiation (very >>>>>> inefficient, and of no practical benefit). >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 October 2014 00:35, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> How do we know that iti s resistive heating that is taking place? >>>>>>> Bob Greenyer at MFMP sugested that it is an inductive heater this means >>>>>>> that the wires >>>>>>> get a bit cooler then the heated core. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Robert Lynn < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fig 12b. page 26. Only just notice that they say they are >>>>>>>> "inconel" resistance wires. But how can the resistor wire, external >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> reactor, glow more brightly than the reactor itself (implying it is >>>>>>>> hotter)? Also if the reactor external surface is at 1250-1410°C, then >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> top of the 30-50°C temperature drop through the walls the resistive >>>>>>>> wire >>>>>>>> would have to be even hotter (up towards 1500°C) in order to be able >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> radiate the 900W! And there are no "inconel" metal wires that can >>>>>>>> survive >>>>>>>> such temperatures in air for a month. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is also a mistake in their discussion for these figures, >>>>>>>> the metal resistors within the reactor would necessarily have to be >>>>>>>> hotter >>>>>>>> than the reactor itself if they are to be able to output heat into the >>>>>>>> reactor. But then again at >1450°C inconel resistance wires would have >>>>>>>> turned into puddles anyway. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The 2mm high fins on the outside, subjected to convective air >>>>>>>> cooling would be 30-50°C colder than the base of the fins due to the >>>>>>>> longer >>>>>>>> conduction path and hence greater temperature drop through the alumina. >>>>>>>> And that should influence the thermography to under-read, but also >>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>> the temperature within the reactor would have to be even higher to >>>>>>>> create >>>>>>>> 1400°C average surface temperature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So this proves that the thermographic temperature readings are >>>>>>>> off by a very long way - at least 150-200°C too high if inconel wires >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> max-out at about 1300-1350°C were to have survived for a month. We now >>>>>>>> know there is a huge error, we just don't know the source of the >>>>>>>> error, or >>>>>>>> how big the error is. But eg 1210°C vs 1410°C would drop power output >>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>> 40% from that claimed so that the COP would be <2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the existence of such a huge error of unknown source the >>>>>>>> claims of power output cannot not be trusted at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the upside, it does however mean that the nickel was not >>>>>>>> melted, and lithium vapour pressure was a lot lower. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
