The issue is why Rossi prefers steam, when for demonstrating the potential of the E-cat- simply heating water is straigtforward. Peter
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
