Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
Oops typo: should have been over 100 hours - Original Message - From: Andrew andrew...@att.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:14 AM Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations My very first post here, so be gentle. By way of introduction, I was on Usenet back in the PF days and made some money off palladium futures - I mention this to indicate that I've been in this space before. It seems so very long ago. I used to post with the moniker LordSnooty back then. I certainly remember Jed Rothwell's excellent posts from those days. So, some general comments: 1. I don't see how either the energy and power density can be hoaxed, especially with continuous run times of over 100 days. 2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a pure third party verification. 3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously swapped. 4. The technology is green, but not rechargeable (except by inserting a new cell). This makes it a razor and razor blades type economic proposition. Nickel and hydrogen are dirt cheap and plentiful resources. 5. VASIMR together with this seems to make a decent combination for a future intrasolar space drive. 6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity. Andrew Palfreyman
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:14:14 AM My very first post here, so be gentle. Yeah ... sre ... 3. You'll notice that the plot for Plutonium has the axes erroneously swapped. It's been fixed in the article. Also the Power density for Plutonium (originally 50) was probably for the electric output and not raw heat. Upgraded to 500. http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png 6. The missing test piece is electrical output. Same engineering issue as with any nuclear reactor; to turn heat into electricity. That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
From pictures in the Levi's report, the wires are not galvanic shielded between the eCat and the controller. Thus frequency of the waveform (if any) is low. And the waveform should be easily determined by a simple oscilloscope. 2. I don't have a problem with this verification being done at Rossi's facility, because he doesn't want people carting off the device and reverse-engineering the catalyst (I'm guessing palladium :) and the drive waveform. Nevertheless, this wasn't a pure third party verification.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with. The pressurized water in a conventional fission reactor is about 320°C I believe. The reactors could be designed to run at higher temperatures but they deliberately made them low with poor Carnot efficiency because this reduces wear and tear on the turbines, pipes and so on. In a system where the heat costs you little or nothing, it makes sense to trade off Carnot efficiency for lower equipment costs. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
The temperature limitation of fission nuclear plant is due to temperature of vaporization of water. The reactor must always be filled with liquid water. At the pressure inside a fission reactor, the limiting temperature is just a little above 300°C. The water is slowing the neutron. Without water, a reactor has a meltdown. _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: mardi 21 mai 2013 21:15 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with. The pressurized water in a conventional fission reactor is about 320°C I believe. The reactors could be designed to run at higher temperatures but they deliberately made them low with poor Carnot efficiency because this reduces wear and tear on the turbines, pipes and so on. In a system where the heat costs you little or nothing, it makes sense to trade off Carnot efficiency for lower equipment costs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations
Just the opposite. Water is a moderator/ Only slow neutrons (thermalized) produce the fission reaction. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: ** The temperature limitation of fission nuclear plant is due to temperature of vaporization of water. The reactor must always be filled with *liquid*water. At the pressure inside a fission reactor, the limiting temperature is just a little above 300°C. The water is slowing the neutron. Without water, a reactor has a meltdown. ** ** -- *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* mardi 21 mai 2013 21:15 *To:* **vortex-l@eskimo.com** *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:E-Cat general observations ** ** Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That was the motivation behind the hot-cat : the current operating temperature of around 300C is likely a good fit with the Siemens turbine they are purportedly experimenting with. ** ** The pressurized water in a conventional fission reactor is about 320°C I believe. The reactors could be designed to run at higher temperatures but they deliberately made them low with poor Carnot efficiency because this reduces wear and tear on the turbines, pipes and so on. In a system where the heat costs you little or nothing, it makes sense to trade off Carnot efficiency for lower equipment costs. ** ** - Jed ** **
