ChemEng: Just looked at,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed and it certainly looks like a reasonable solution. Is the 'high heat transfer' property of fluidized beds larger than if you simply did film-deposition (as in semiconductor industry) directly onto a substrate? The applications that I saw on Wikipedia for FB reactors are for chemical processes/reactions. Realize that with LENR we are dealing with several orders of magnitude more intense energy release, so will FB heat xfer be fast enough to get the heat away from the reaction sites. Rossi's early 'reactor cores' were cylindrical, but then 'evolved' to more plate-like (low height rectangular), which DGT claims was their idea. this was most likely due to better heat xfer capability. -mark From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance That would be my guess. A lump of powder might quickly get hotspots and meltdown. If you can keep a fluidized bed going the heating would be uniform. Maybe that is why defkalion showed that test reactor with a window in it to see when the powder was fluidizing... On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: Jones: If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
