Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Low pressure steam is not good for its main potential use- to generate > electricity. > As I said, low temperature process steam is very useful for many applications. But I think the point that Rossi is trying make is this: 'Here is steam at 100°C. If I can make steam at this temperature, there is no reason to think I cannot make it at higher temperatures using pressurized equipment.' I don't see how anyone can argue with that. There is no reason to think the machine can reach 100°C but not 200°C or 400°C (the normal temperature range for fission steam generators). Regarding steam powered aircraft, there are some references to fission powered jet engines in my book. See chapter 18, footnote 173. Look up HTRE (heat transfer reactor experiment). See, for example: http://www.atomictourist.com/ebr.htm http://www.megazone.org/ANP/ These engines were actually tested. Not in an aircraft but on the ground. The working fluid (the fluid that expands to transfer energy) in this case is air. I think the primary loop heat exchange fluid was pressurized water. Air is a good choice for an airplane. http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml With a ship, you have any amount of cooling fluid (ocean water) so it makes more sense to generate steam and then condense it. Modern cruise ships have Diesel electric engines. They are cooled with ocean water and the waste heat is also used for desalination to produce potable water. That's why those ships have swimming pools and you can shower as much as you like. - Jed
