Right, if the reaction/core is producing the heat and not the wires.

On Sunday, October 12, 2014, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

> The wires must be at a lower temperature than the interior of the
> reactor.  Heat flows from a hot body towards a colder one and for heat to
> escape from the central portion of the power cylinder requires it to be at
> a higher temperature.  The heat then flows past the wires to the outer
> surface of the alumina.
>
> I suppose it might be possible for the wires themselves to be hotter than
> the center provided a path through cooler material is available directly
> adjacent to the wires.  Perhaps the pictures can be carefully observed to
> determine whether or not this is the case.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Lynn <[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
> To: vortex-l <[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 12, 2014 12:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Engineering and materials issues with high temperature
> hot-cat Lugano demo
>
>  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.
>

Reply via email to