Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An independent Cat-E exciter is required exclusive of heat. > > One of the assertions coming from Rossi is that the heat-output reaction can be started/stopped at the flick of a switch. If so, then there needs to be separate "exciter" (so to speak) exclusive of heat. > > An alterative exciter that controls the Rossi reaction which is not heat must be electrostatic and/or magnetic excitation of the walls of the stainless steel reaction chamber generated by the inductive heater. That's grand, but what if heat is the only thing that works? What if electrostatic excitation has no effect on the reaction? I think it would make more sense to title this thread, "It would be nice to have an Cat-E exciter exclusive of heat." An exciter is desirable, not "required." We would not want to abandon this technology if it turns out heat is the only control. The only way to stop a fission reaction is to insert the control rods and then wait for the residual reaction heat to go away. That takes weeks. The people at Fukushima wish there was an alternative method, but there isn't. It seems likely to me that gas pressure is a control parameter. I suggested you might be able to scram a Rossi reactor by degassing it. I had in mind using a vacuum pump for this purpose. Not just letting the gas out, but rapidly pumping it. I assume that all E-Cats will be equipped with gas pumps to pressurize them or depressurize them, and hydrogen tanks. It would not be a good idea to ship a cell with the gas already in it, so you need to pressurize it on site. If you want quench the reaction and turn off the machine in a normal shut down, it would not be a good idea to simply vent the gas. I assume it may contain some radioactive waste such as tritium. In an emergency shut-down (a reactor scram) you would vent the gas outside the building and ignite it, as I said before. I assume this can be done more quickly than pumping the system down. Also it would be done when the system is hot, whereas a normal pump-down operation would be done when the reaction is already quenched and cooling. In an emergency you might also inject deuterium gas, or nitrogen, if it turns out that works. I do not think you would want to do that during a normal shut-down. It would contaminate the catalyst. Focardi suggested they might use electrolysis to produce hydrogen on site, on demand. That seems like a bad idea to me. Electrolysis is not the safest process. It is complicated and would add to the expense. A small tank of hydrogen is better I think. As I said, the pump would put the gas from the cell back into the tank when you want to turn off the machine completely. Perhaps another, low pressure tank would be used instead. Most of the time, reactors will be left running constantly. There is no need to turn one off to save fuel. I hope it can be controlled to run at a low-power standby mode, to reduce waste heat and the noise from fans and pumps. The machine would have to be fully turned off to perform maintenance, to replace the catalyst, or before removing and scrapping it. - Jed
