Way don't you use a tungsten pipe. It holds hydrogen about a thousand time better than stainless steel and it would explode if it is thick enough.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, this is an advantage, and it is one that MFMP has already > demonstrated. I guess I should have said that it has no clear advantage > over MFMP. > > My experiments going forward should allow the pressure to be measured in > the small Parkhomov-size volume, do the experiment in a non-boiling > calorimeter, capture radiations during the experiment, capture the gas > after the experiment, and be able to analyze the solid ash after the > experiment. All of this will be done at Parkhomov-like pressures (up to > 5000 PSI) and temperatures to over 1100C. Most of Parkhomov's reactor > fabrication hours are spent sealing the tubes. > > LockTherm is only using fused quartz tubes. This won't allow them to work > at the Parkhomov pressures. And, we have no reports of excess heat from > them. > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> *From:* Bob Higgins >> >> Ø >> >> Ø The LockTherm testing is certainly interesting, but it is not >> clear to me that it has any advantage over Parkhomov. >> >> Well, the one HUGE advantage is that they are able to seal the ceramic >> with a compression fitting and are therefore able to both relieve excess >> pressure or add hydrogen from a tank. >> >> This practical advance should reduce the “bone yard” of broken cells… >> Every broken cell in that pile represents 30-40 man-hours of lost time – >> not to mention the out-of-pocket expense. >> >> Jones >> > >
