You would think after 30 days of sitting around, staring at the reactor , drinking coffee, eating lunch, sleeping and thinking about it, the team of scientists would have discussed all of this and verified. They would have plenty of time to triple check readings, even some type of portable thermocouple, etc.
We suffer from a lack of information, possibly on purpose. On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Robert Lynn <[email protected]> wrote: > But the wire cannot be tungsten outside of the reactor where it is exposed > to air! Only inconel will survive air exposure at such temperatures for a > month, and it maxes out at about 1300-1350°C (even that is pushing it). > > And that wire (Fig 12b) is visibly brighter than the wire lines in the > reactor (or brightest surface areas of reactor), hence hotter. So QED the > reactor surface is <<1400°C. The thermography is flat out wrong for > reasons unknown, and knowing that it is wrong you have to set aside all the > conclusions that are based on it! > > The wire in the reactor in an insulated environment is necessarily hotter > than the wire outside the reactor, and while everyone might want to believe > that they must therefore be using exotic refractory wires that cannot be > the case: There is no way to joining the inconel wire to a refractory > metal at a temperature above the melting point of inconel within the > insulated and even higher temperature of an oxygen-free sealed environment > within the reactor. > > The only conclusion that makes sense is that the wires in the reactor are > at or below the melting temperature of inconel, and in such circumstances > the only way that they do not melt and fail is if the reactor surface > temperature is at least 2-300°C lower as I have previously shown. > > As to growing belief in gain, I started out that way, but more I have > looked at the thermal physics in play and the inconsistencies it creates > the less believable it has become, the pictures and heat transfer physics > at play make it a strong possibility that there was no gain. > > On 15 October 2014 21:40, Jones Beene <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> *From:* Robert Lynn >> >> >> >> How can the Inconel wire in Fig 12b be hotter/brighter in the cooler >> external environment outside the end of the reactor than it is in the >> hotter internal environment inside the reactor? >> >> >> >> In FWIW department, here is the grade of Inconel often used for resistor >> wire >> >> Inconel 600. As you can see, it is rated to less than 540 C. >> >> >> >> >> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nickel-600-Inconel-Wire-041-1-04mm-x-10-3m-/320676194894?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item4aa9ca6a4e >> >> >> >> As Eric suggests, given the impossibility of Inconel - they must be using >> something else besides Inconel. I agree. Tungsten comes to mind. >> >> >> >> This goes along with a growing belief that there is gain here and it >> could be more than they claim or less … since they did not calibrate - but >> there is also intentional deception, meaning that this is not a scientific >> report, but one designed to look that way using cast of PhDs who were >> essentially asleep at the wheel. >> >> >> > >
