Bob that sounds great, sorry that I haven’t viewed your links yet- must be done from home due to company filters re Google drives. I see you point wrt melting temp of any observation port and my suggestion of water in direct contact with a sustained reactor tube was naive - it would only create steam – I will look at your links tonight. I do see the need for cooling fans to keep your reservoir at a working temperature but I am hoping you have a mechanism for quickly slewing the heat sinking factor of your copper container, hence the suggestion of varying the waterline which you might be able to adapt to the heat sink instead of my initial suggestion to the reactor. In any case it really sounds like you are doing everything right for positive results. Good Luck Fran
From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Questions Raised by Parkhomov Experiment Failure If you looked at the links for my calorimeter (in my previous post), you would see that it is a 20 gallon metal fish tank (a garbage can). Instead of glass that would be cool for a movie for seeing through, the metal can makes it less breakable, and the copper container for the reactor conducts the heat out easily into the water. The added convection fan provides a means to adjust the thermal resistance to the water. A third port is provided specifically for radiation detection. It may be possible to make the reactor viewable through this port if a high temperature window is used (probably multiple) to keep the heat loss down. Mica might be an acceptable window, which doesn't melt until >1200C. It is also low mass to pass the radiations. Bob On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: Alan, Thank You for voicing these concerns – I wanted to suggest the same focus on fine control of the drive because of the inherent latency in sensing thermal data. The suggestion of induction heat is excellent and I would even go so far as to recommend a PWM induction heater where different control algorithms could be tested over time – I think you need a control scheme just to approach the window so slowly that the latency can be tolerated without cell destruction.. Again I think robust heat sinking is required to establish this sort of tolerant environment where a sensor [pressure/ temp or both] near the source can capture thermal excursions as the heat is sucked past on it’s way out of the system. I also wonder if the fan cooling Bob is planning will be enough to avoid run away. I wonder if the sci fi examples of reactions in a big fish tank are actually a better suggestion for safety and cooling control? I could see an upside down clear trough submerged in the tank with the reactor fixed inside just above the waterline. Cooling the tube would be quickly controlled by air pressure to vary the waterline inside the trough and submerge the reactor to different levels as part of the control loop. The other advantage being safety since you now have a reactor that is surrounded on all sides by water. Fran
