How many 1 MW E-cat groups? The solar plant has 110 MW. For the time given we have no idea how many times can you stop and restart the E-cats with no negative effects on the performance. For example if you get thermal peaks anytime you start up the devices- there are chances that some active sites (or an amount of the mystery catalyst) will be destroyed, desactivated...only practical long time will show...If Rossi had a patent, now a great experimental program would be going fast on a great scale- they are so many parameters! Development....I hope this is done... Just one- batch to batch reproducibility of active Ni/catalyst, how many sources of core material??
Peter On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant > > > > > http://blogs.forbes.com/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/ > > > > A group of 1 megawatt thermal E-Cats could reduce the cost of this plant by > producing heat at night when the sun is down. > > > > The size of the molten salt buffer tanks could be reduced and the service > life of the E-Cats could be extended by the use of solar heat during the > day. When the sun is out, the E-Cats could be shut down to conserve nickel. > > > > If I were Rossi, I would go after this type job. > > > > > > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> not a bad idea if the salts are sufficiently stable,some problems of >> safety both with nitrates and (!) cyanides/ >> Perhaps on internal circuit. well closed a amd an outer with water. >> The problem of contacting a very hot surface remains for molten salts too. >> Peter >> >> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> As in a solar thermal system, use molten salts such as sodium and >>> potassium nitrate or a combination of the two. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is cheaper to have 1000 thin molten salts pipes and a high pressure >>> heat exchange, then 1000 high pressure steam pipes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Based on my experience with many thermal transfer agents for higher >>>> temperatures I think water remains the unique choice . Mercury as used in a >>>> process of converting cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone) is prohibitely >>>> expensive and very toxic- while organic agents as Diphyl (diphenil oxide >>>> plus diphenyl) will rapidly degarde in contact with a very hot surface and >>>> this will lead to fouling. What other possibilities are in your opinion? >>>> Peter. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> At 01:24 PM 5/25/2011, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *HARD CURRENCY ENERGY*- how the thermal energy of the active core can >>>>> be converted in electric energy in an economical way? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that's going to (or needs to) happen any time soon --- it >>>>> only delivers 500C (limited by the nickel powder degrading?) at 50 bar. >>>>> Electrical conversion efficiency at that level is less than 20% (??) -- >>>>> times the 6x factor is barely over unity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm probably too conservative there. 40% ? 60% ? >>>>> (Way out of my expertise, anyway.) >>>>> >>>>> But the working fluid doesn't have to be water. >>>>> I'm not sure that a >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine would get approval >>>>> for domestic use, though !!!! >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>> Cluj, Romania >>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
