How do we know that iti s resistive heating that is taking place? Bob Greenyer at MFMP sugested that it is an inductive heater this means that the wires get a bit cooler then the heated core.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Robert Lynn <[email protected] > wrote: > Fig 12b. page 26. Only just notice that they say they are "inconel" > resistance wires. But how can the resistor wire, external to the reactor, > glow more brightly than the reactor itself (implying it is hotter)? Also > if the reactor external surface is at 1250-1410°C, then on top of the > 30-50°C temperature drop through the walls the resistive wire would have to > be even hotter (up towards 1500°C) in order to be able to radiate the > 900W! And there are no "inconel" metal wires that can survive such > temperatures in air for a month. > http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html > > There is also a mistake in their discussion for these figures, the metal > resistors within the reactor would necessarily have to be hotter than the > reactor itself if they are to be able to output heat into the reactor. But > then again at >1450°C inconel resistance wires would have turned into > puddles anyway. > > The 2mm high fins on the outside, subjected to convective air cooling > would be 30-50°C colder than the base of the fins due to the longer > conduction path and hence greater temperature drop through the alumina. > And that should influence the thermography to under-read, but also means > the temperature within the reactor would have to be even higher to create > 1400°C average surface temperature. > > So this proves that the thermographic temperature readings are off by a > very long way - at least 150-200°C too high if inconel wires that max-out > at about 1300-1350°C were to have survived for a month. We now know there > is a huge error, we just don't know the source of the error, or how big the > error is. But eg 1210°C vs 1410°C would drop power output by 40% from that > claimed so that the COP would be <2. > > With the existence of such a huge error of unknown source the claims of > power output cannot not be trusted at all. > > On the upside, it does however mean that the nickel was not melted, and > lithium vapour pressure was a lot lower. >
