you don't compare the same level of understanding DGT reactor, like Rossi, and Brillouin are intrinsically safe for the same reason, melting
DGT internet supervision is a maintenance problem, unrelated to stability/safety, except on long term knowledge and failure anticipation DGT have a phenomenological model of the reaction, useful to stabilize it. (Rossi normally also, it is an engineering need) DGT use a pulse width/frequency modulation to control the reaction. They don't talk of their controller, but there are not many solution (it should be predictive model based) Rossi don't tell about the method of control (probably not pulse but, according to the delay, the average power input) but say he use the classic predictive model method... Having the good theory might be useful, but not so sure, since the most important is to know the behavior of the reaction according to transient event (temperature/pressure/vibration/(un)loading)... good phenomenological model can be more useful for everyday stability. however theory can help about intrinsic safety, and off-limit knowledge. for be the breakthrough of Brillouin is their proposed theory, which first is a revolution because it says that nickel is not the fuel, but the catalyst, but also the H/D/T/H4/He4 process (look like Takahashi TSC, but step by step). The 511keV gamma is a good point for them (beta+ consequence of H4 decay to He4, leading to e+/e- disintegration), but like He4 it is not an unequivocal signature. 2012/4/21 Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> > > compare this to > DGT: internet supervision of reactors > Rossi: intrinsically safe: self-stopping in case of overheating > >
