Well I can argue that there is no excess heat - The thermography is proven to be wrong (inconel resistance wires melt at 1300-1350°C << 1412°C surface reactor temp claimed, and wires would have to be much hotter than reactor surface). If there is little to no conductive contact between non-melting wires and outer shell then the outer shell is only around 1000°C and there is no excess heat - a sensible physical model given what we can see in photos, with cameras perhaps 'seeing' or being badly skewed by the radiative output+ different emissivity of the wires rather than the translucent alumina of unknown thickness, porosity and transmissivity in the wavelengths of interest.
So with the thermography proven to be massively in error how do you know there was any excess heat? (There is also problems with the convective heat transfer, due to sitting above a hot surface though they are smaller in impact, just as radiative heat transfer might be slightly impacted by hot frame underneath but probably also minor). On 16 October 2014 13:02, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > You could explain the glow pattern with those assumptions but you would > still need to explain away the excess heat. > > Harry > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Robert Lynn < > robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Not if it is touching the walls of inner or outer alumina tube in places, >> intermittent contact due to vagaries of original wire winding around inner >> tube and subsequent large differential thermal expansion so that the wire >> is quenched in some places but not in others. Would explain the variation >> in glow that we see (along with slight translucence of alumina tube), and >> would change as the wire gets hotter and relaxes pre-existing springiness >> that might otherwise hold the wire in contact with the inner tube - would >> lead to wire temperature increasing faster than power input would suggest - >> ie what we see with supposedly increasing COP. >> >> Most likely means of construction is winding wires around an inner tube, >> or winding them around a different mandrel and then slipping them over the >> tube. Bonding them to the inner tube is an extra step that (based on >> inconsistency/variability of surface glow) has likely not been done and for >> which their would be little initial motive anyway. And massive relative >> thermal expansion of the wire (~1%) would likely have cracked any ceramic >> bonding or attempts to rigidly encase the wires or bond them to the inner >> tube anyway. >> >> Differential thermal expansion means that the internal tube/vessel is >> likely only bonded to the thermocouple end cap, otherwise the external tube >> would be broken by axial stress due to differential thermal expansion of >> higher temperature of inner tube compared to external tube. >> >> On 16 October 2014 10:58, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> If the wire inside the reactor was hot enough to glow it should produce >>> a more uniform spiral glow along the entire length of the tube. >>> >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Robert Lynn < >>> robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Additionally, look at the darkened photo, the wire exterior to the >>>> reactor sourrounded by cooler materials to radiate to are brighter than the >>>> bright wires in the reactor. Hard to believe it would be colder inside the >>>> reactor surrounded by relatively hotter materials that are harder to >>>> radiate to. I think that is pretty strong indication that it is the wires >>>> that are the bright areas. >>>> >>>> On 15 October 2014 20:14, Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am looking at high zoom at the same photos and finding it easy to >>>>> draw the opposite conclusion. Confirmation bias on both our parts :) >>>>> I think it is equivocal at best. >>>>> >>>>> On 15 October 2014 19:52, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If you zoom in very closely on the hot reactor photos you can see the >>>>>> the dark lines are of uniform width, continuity and shade. I am 95% >>>>>> confident that is the shadow of the coil. The light areas change in >>>>>> brightness, width, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Robert Lynn < >>>>>> robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> how do you know this? How do you know the the wire is not the >>>>>>> brightest area? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15 October 2014 15:06, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some people suspect that the resistor wire can't be Inconel because >>>>>>>> they are predicted to melt at the reactor's operating temperature. >>>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>> since we know the resistor wire casts a shadow in the alumina, the >>>>>>>> temperature of the wire remains below the operating temperature and >>>>>>>> therefore can't melt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
