Axil, I think that there is not enough information as a basis for the discussion of potential issues like that.
Once we know that the device does actually do what we are told it does and once we know the details about how it does that, we can think about the potential problems with that. Until then, I may just as well believe it to be completely save, because it might not do anything at all...
10KW LENR Demonstrator?
Icarus,icarus wrote:Does anyone know what type of energy is being converted into heat here?
The energy has to come from somewhere ... doesn't it? Or are we truly in a new era of science?
The nuclear reactions occurring are not fully known. Some experimenters have confirmed Tritium production, and bubble traces corresponding to 3Mev at lower temperature and pressure. What is happening at higher temperature is probably something else. “Transmutation” of Nickel to Copper involving absorption of a proton-electron pair has been suggested among other things, resulting in a chain of re-action producing energy release in the order of 10MeV. As in any nuclear reaction, mass is converted in energy.
jb
The concept that I cannot yet get my head around is how Rossi can get a long utilization lifetime out of his nickel nano-powder formulation.
The design of his nano-powder is walking a sharp knife edge between being too hot and too cool. This fine control is a hard thing to accomplish and I don’t understand what that control mechanism could be. From what Rossi has revealed so far, after reactor startup he just sits back and hopes for the best.
If his nano-powder is a complex design like the “core and shell” where the core is one element and the shell is another element (nickel) covering the core, then how can such a delicate structure survive the high heat of the LENR heat production process?
Wouldn’t this delicate core and shell nano-particle structure meltdown if the heat produced is not efficiently removed to the water coolant?
The way this is done in the light water reactor is that the fuel is kept in small pellets in thin rods where the heat does not need to travel a long distance to get to the water heat sink. Uranium oxide is used in preference to metallic fuels because it has a very high melting temperature. Because zirconium cladding has both a high melting point and high heat conductivity its use is preferred to remove the heat to the surrounding water coolant.
My guess is that Rossi uses many thin straws of zirconium tubes bundled together in a copy of the fuel rod assembly done in a light water reactor to remove heat to the coolant water flow.
The design risk that the Rossi design faces is that his nano-powder formulation at the center of the fuel rod will rapidly deteriorate; it won’t have a long lifetime as the nickel surface of the powder overheats and is burnt away in a rapid fashion.
I want to see how long that the Rossi reactor can run before it loses power. Before a savvy investor commits to the Rossi design, a test that he would demand to see run is a power production profile against an extended timeline.
The design of his nano-powder is walking a sharp knife edge between being too hot and too cool. This fine control is a hard thing to accomplish and I don’t understand what that control mechanism could be. From what Rossi has revealed so far, after reactor startup he just sits back and hopes for the best.
If his nano-powder is a complex design like the “core and shell” where the core is one element and the shell is another element (nickel) covering the core, then how can such a delicate structure survive the high heat of the LENR heat production process?
Wouldn’t this delicate core and shell nano-particle structure meltdown if the heat produced is not efficiently removed to the water coolant?
The way this is done in the light water reactor is that the fuel is kept in small pellets in thin rods where the heat does not need to travel a long distance to get to the water heat sink. Uranium oxide is used in preference to metallic fuels because it has a very high melting temperature. Because zirconium cladding has both a high melting point and high heat conductivity its use is preferred to remove the heat to the surrounding water coolant.
My guess is that Rossi uses many thin straws of zirconium tubes bundled together in a copy of the fuel rod assembly done in a light water reactor to remove heat to the coolant water flow.
The design risk that the Rossi design faces is that his nano-powder formulation at the center of the fuel rod will rapidly deteriorate; it won’t have a long lifetime as the nickel surface of the powder overheats and is burnt away in a rapid fashion.
I want to see how long that the Rossi reactor can run before it loses power. Before a savvy investor commits to the Rossi design, a test that he would demand to see run is a power production profile against an extended timeline.
I never envisioned his nickel as being immersed in water. I am thinking the reactor vessel contains the resistive heating element, hydrogen and his nickel formulation. The reactor vessel would channel the heat outward to the water, be it immersed or via cooling tubes.
The nickel would have to be in contact with the cooling structure, perhaps internal plates, to quickly pass the heat to the outside of the vessel.
Picture an array of internal cooling fins powder-coated with the nickel formulation to maximize the surface area inside the chamber. A refueling operation would be to replace the cooling fin assembly.
At least that is how I picture it. Probably dead wrong, but fun to think about.
I am wondering if H2 is working for the reaction, or if he has something internal that incrementally converts small amounts of H2 to H1. What techniques would do that? An electrical arc? H2 coming into direct contact with the heating elements? (No, I have no idea how to get H1 from H2)
The nickel would have to be in contact with the cooling structure, perhaps internal plates, to quickly pass the heat to the outside of the vessel.
Picture an array of internal cooling fins powder-coated with the nickel formulation to maximize the surface area inside the chamber. A refueling operation would be to replace the cooling fin assembly.
At least that is how I picture it. Probably dead wrong, but fun to think about.
I am wondering if H2 is working for the reaction, or if he has something internal that incrementally converts small amounts of H2 to H1. What techniques would do that? An electrical arc? H2 coming into direct contact with the heating elements? (No, I have no idea how to get H1 from H2)
the rest of the article along with an interview is here nextbigfutureRecently a technical test of Andrea Rossi's Ni-H reactor (energy catalyzer) was conducted in which a minimum of 15 kW of heat was produced continuously for 18 hours, observed by Dr. Joseph Levi and others
This is getting pretty interesting
I am more pleased with the more recent demo of the Rossi reactor in that the new test uses liquid flow calorimetry rather than phase-change calorimetry over a very long timeframe (18 hours). This shows that the energy produced is not stored and that rapid surface degradation of the nickel catalyst is not happening.
In an ideal world, it was the wast amount of critizism of the first demonstration that made him change his mind.I wonder what made them change their plans....
In the real world (my world anyway), they probably realized that they cant do a 1MW "reactor", at least not in the timeframes projected. If they are indeed scammers, then maybe their scam is not working as they hoped for these energies. If they are for real, but just misguided, maybe they noticed that it does not work as expected for 1MW, because their theories are not quite correct.
Either way, my theory is that their 1 MW thingy simply does not work (for one reason or another) and they therefore decided to convince investors with another (alleged) 10 KW+ demo.
Be careful here Shipjack, you may be at risk of catching the "foot in the mouth" diseaseSkipjack wrote:...In the real world (my world anyway), ... If they are for real, but just misguided, maybe they noticed that it does not work as expected for 1MW, because their theories are not quite correct.I wonder what made them change their plans....
In my world, it sounds more to me that they needed to demonstrate to the authorities controlled operation of the device in a independent setting, and take advantage of the university instrumentation to do some operation data gathering.
Cheers,
jb
I really do want it to work. Heck, it would change the world as we know. At 1cent/KWh even I would buy myself an electric car. It would finally become economical then (have not done the math, but seems save to assume, despite the high cost of batteries and the fact that they deterriorate and might have to be replaced multiple times during the lifespan of the car).
Heck even for just heating it would already save a ton of money, at least here in Europe where people spend a lot of money on heating.
However, the thing is still essentially a black box and I dont like that. It makes me suspicious. Plus there is no real theory presented and many details about its functionality are left in the dark.
So I hope that this combined with the fact that it looks too good to be true, raises doubts in me.
Heck even for just heating it would already save a ton of money, at least here in Europe where people spend a lot of money on heating.
However, the thing is still essentially a black box and I dont like that. It makes me suspicious. Plus there is no real theory presented and many details about its functionality are left in the dark.
So I hope that this combined with the fact that it looks too good to be true, raises doubts in me.
Yes, Rossi mentioned that they should be able to turn roughly 30% of the energy released as heat into electrical power.Has there been any indication that this is able to generate electrical power? I thought it was "process heat" type power. You know, relatively low temperature.
All you need is a heat differencial and you can generate electrical power. If they can make 100% hot water, then you can make hoter water as well. If for some reason they would not be able to create hoter water, then they could always add the few remaining degrees via a more traditional method, no?
Further down the piece is this:
"Yes, that escaped, the United States there is already a factory. The reactors that have been produced now and the first units of the 1MW plant are being built in the plant we have in the United States.
22PASSI - So the unit of 1MW that will be presented in October will be built in the US and brought to Greece?"
Will having a working commercial unit quiet the doubters even if there is no accepted theory?
"Yes, that escaped, the United States there is already a factory. The reactors that have been produced now and the first units of the 1MW plant are being built in the plant we have in the United States.
22PASSI - So the unit of 1MW that will be presented in October will be built in the US and brought to Greece?"
Will having a working commercial unit quiet the doubters even if there is no accepted theory?
That probably depends on the doubter. Continued, better demonstrations of the device, independent replication of the device (not likely any time soon given Rossi's current attitude), and commercial production and distribution of a working device will go a long way toward convincing the doubters (which, to some extent, probably ought to include all of us who are not Ing. Rossi). The doubters won't likely all be convinced in one dramatic demonstration, and some may never be, but after several customers have been running some of their operations on Rossi's devices for several weeks or months, I imagine the ranks of the doubters will thin fairly quickly. After which point a doubter will become an object of fun more than someone to be afraid of.
Until that happens, however, most of us will have at least some doubts about at least some aspects of Ing. Rossi's claims. I'd love to see my house (or neighborhood) powered by one of these ECats, but let's just say that I'm content to let others bear the risk of early adoption.
As for the theory behind Rossi's device, I'm sure most people on these forums recognize experimentation (with replication) as superior (as evidence) to theory.
Until that happens, however, most of us will have at least some doubts about at least some aspects of Ing. Rossi's claims. I'd love to see my house (or neighborhood) powered by one of these ECats, but let's just say that I'm content to let others bear the risk of early adoption.
As for the theory behind Rossi's device, I'm sure most people on these forums recognize experimentation (with replication) as superior (as evidence) to theory.