On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
>
>> 130 kWs of heat coming from something the size of a small door knob is
>> really scary. No chemical source that I know of could have done that.
>>
>
> Or perhaps the flow measurement was in error -- a liter per second is a
> lot of wate
A water contact heat sink should have a VERY low thermal resistance. The
reactor core temp would probably go up slowly as the heat sink failed to
get rid of the excess heat. What was scary to me was what would have
happened if the core had melted as the lead shielding would probably
have melted
me, this is scary
My concern was the apparent lack of an automatic control system during
hat test and what happens when a reactor melt down does occur,
specially any resultant radiation products that may escape a melted
ead radiation shield.
AG
n 11/21/2011 6:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am
You are assuming the reactor heat exchanger surface temperature went up
immediately. I doubt that happened as there is thermal mass involved, a
water cooled heat sink with a very low thermal resistance and if it
happened like that, the core would probably have melted as it could not
get rid of
My concern was the apparent lack of an automatic control system during
that test and what happens when a reactor melt down does occur,
especially any resultant radiation products that may escape a melted
lead radiation shield.
AG
On 11/21/2011 6:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 20.11.2011 17:
How about the heat transfer being done in WATER ?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Basic_Physics_of_Nuclear_Medicine/Attenuation_of_Gamma-Rays
500 kEV Gamma Ray Attenuation (per cm)
Water 0.097
Iron 0.65
Copper 0.73
Lead 1.64
( Lead : water = 16:1 )
Rossi has only said that the transfer is "partl
Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
130 kWs of heat coming from something the size of a small door knob is
> really scary.
How about burning gasoline? Not sure what the power density is.
Anyway, I doubt it was actually 130 kW. It was very high, no doubt. It was
scary. But I believe there may have been som
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
>
> I think the actual energy was lower.
> It is not possible to transfer an energy of 120 kW via a small surface
> into the water without producing steam bubbles.
> It is for example possible to hold a glowing peace of iron under water and
>
Am 20.11.2011 17:24, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat:
To me this statement made by Professor Levi about the 18 hour test he
and Rossi did is scary:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
“/*Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and that’s a conservative value. I
calculated it
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:
>
> /*Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees
> Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A
> flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130
> kilowatts. The p
To me this statement made by Professor Levi about the 18 hour test he
and Rossi did is scary:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
“/*Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and that’s a conservative value. I
calculated it several times. At night we did a measurement and
11 matches
Mail list logo
