10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[JoeP]

I am familiar with an advanced glass melting furnace where the powdered raw materials were injected onto a refractory cone for inertial separation from the gas, at a temperature of 1500C. The nozzle was made of copper. You obviously don't understand what happens at the boundary layer of a cooled metal wall.

Revisiting this thread after ~ a week, it is still largely rubbish. I can safely leave it again.

So, Rossi uses non-metal insulator material?
In hydrogen atmosphere?

I think the key phrase is "cooled metal wall."

[Joseph Chikva]

I think the key phrase is "cooled metal wall."

With 2 g/s flow?
For example turbine shovels are cooled with sweating and have much lower temperature than working gas. Not interesting the flow of coolant there?
I am sure that in mentioned above example high conductivity copper nozzles intensively cooled via mass transfer with coolant. But also sure that they are not in 1500 C media. But in much less. Etc.
And what cooling scheme Rossi uses? Simple jacket.
That's funny Mr. Joep.

[parallel]

Chikva wrote:

So, Rossi uses non-metal insulator material?
In hydrogen atmosphere?

But also sure that they are not in 1500 C media. But in much less. Etc.
And what cooling scheme Rossi uses? Simple jacket.
That's funny Mr. Joep.

Your first response show lack of comprehension, your second that you are sure of something that is wrong.

The nozzle contained an oxygen/gas flame much hotter than 1500C
That's not funny, that's tragic.

[Joseph Chikva]

Your first response show lack of comprehension, your second that you are sure of something that is wrong.

The nozzle contained an oxygen/gas flame much hotter than 1500C
That's not funny, that's tragic.

Ok, Mr. Parallel.
You wrote:

...injected onto a refractory cone for inertial separation from the gas...

So, there in glass melting furnace you have an air whirl. With the help of which easy to create a gradient of temperature.
For your not plasma cutters also have air whirl in which outer layers of plasma much colder then in center.
Now about nozzle.
Nozzle as I understand should be mounted in outer layer.
Also, are you sure that gas burner made of any metal is as hot as produced flame? No. Even in flame the temperature is not the uniform.
Cooling of nozzle is required because outer layer of air whirl is too hot for copper. But surely not 1500 C. May be 200-300. Not more.

[DancingFool]

Your first response show lack of comprehension, your second that you are sure of something that is wrong.

Oh yaaas. Rossi has, on separate occasions, made the following statements on his web site, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473 :

Andrea Rossi
May 19th, 2011 at 1:30 PM
Dear Mr Markku Poysti:
If Ni melts the E-Cat stops. It works only with powders. This makes it intrinsecally safe. And do not forget that we do not leave radioactive material, we do not use radioactive material .
Warm regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
May 4th, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Dear Mr Ivan Mellen:
Thank you for your glance in the future possible applications: for now I am earthly attached to the present necessity to arrive with a good 1 MW plant in October, to make heat.
Maybe your previsions are right.
About your questions:
a- the temp inside the reactor reached the 1,600 °C
b- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Since the nickel powder is contained within the reactor, it must have reached 1600 C. Apparently the nickel didn't melt. I know! I know! It's MAGIC nickel! Boy, that Rossi is a genius.

Chikva is not the only who is sure that something is wrong.

[KitemanSA]

Since the nickel powder is contained within the reactor, it must have reached 1600 C. Apparently the nickel didn't melt. I know! I know! It's MAGIC nickel! Boy, that Rossi is a genius.

This doesn't compute.
AR has stated that at times the reaction has run away and when it does the nickel melts. If the reaction (exists and) is going strong, then runs away it seems very plausible that energy is dumped into the nickel in sufficient quantities to not only melt thepowder but take the molten metal to higher temperatures.
Nowhere have I seen him say that the reactor OPERATES at 1600C, just that it has REACHED 1600C. Perhaps every time it runs away and melts the powder?
Also, given that he is NOT a scientist, might he be confusing C and K?

[Joseph Chikva]

Also, given that he is NOT a scientist,...

Really?

...might he be confusing C and K

might he be confusing 5kW with 750W?

[Giorgio]

But for fabrication of big size structures it would be more important machinability and weldability with admissible set of properties.
And fission experience would be very helpful. Do you think that neutrons in fission reactors have low energy? Or low flux?
Can anybody say that we know how to make so big sized structures from tungsten, graphite or somewhat else except steel? We do not. This is reality.
Recall that first wall structure in ITER weighs much more than 1000 t.

I am talking about fusion related issue and you reply with mechanical based issues. Is not really a discussion that can get us anywhere.

[Joseph Chikva]

I am talking about fusion related issue and you reply with mechanical based issues. Is not really a discussion that can get us anywhere.

So, are you saying that in case of tungsten wall fusion will go better? Better confinement, higher temperature, higher density?
Or what do you mean saying "fusion related issue"?

[Giorgio]

I am talking about fusion related issue and you reply with mechanical based issues. Is not really a discussion that can get us anywhere.

So, are you saying that in case of tungsten wall fusion will go better? Better confinement, higher temperature, higher density?
Or what do you mean saying "fusion related issue"?

I wrote it before:

Low thickness Stainless Steel has issues with erosion rate, while Tungsten erosion rate is 30 times lower than Stainless Steel.
Tungsten is not subject to sputtering erosion (a BIG issue for Stainless Steel).
Tungsten does not suffer from tritium retention.
Tungsten allows for a negligible plasma contamination.

These are some of the fusion related issues that are pushing Tungsten and multi-layered wall with tungsten as first wall instead of other materials.

Additionally, formation, coating and union of Tungsten pieces is not something new in chemical industry especially in heat exchangers.

[Joseph Chikva]

I wrote it before:

Low thickness Stainless Steel has issues with erosion rate, while Tungsten erosion rate is 30 times lower than Stainless Steel.
Tungsten is not subject to sputtering erosion (a BIG issue for Stainless Steel).
Tungsten does not suffer from tritium retention.
Tungsten allows for a negligible plasma contamination.

These are some of the fusion related issues that are pushing Tungsten and multi-layered wall with tungsten as first wall instead of other materials.

Additionally, formation, coating and union of Tungsten pieces is not something new in chemical industry especially in heat exchangers.

So, you talk about advantages.
Ok.
We can talk about disadvantages as well.
I guess that lower erosion in case if the same temperature. But tungsten is less transparent for neutrons. So, you will have higher temperature. And may be higher erosion.
In case of erosion atom number of tungsten is 74 vs. Fe number 26, Cr - 24 and Ni - 28. So, much higher Bremstahlung. And you are wrong saying "Tungsten allows for a negligible plasma contamination"

Here we talk like two project managers having each the different points. But I only would like to say that as I know tungsten's usage in ITER was Max Plank Institute’s proposal that was declined and more conventional steel was chosen. With combination of two other layers - copper alloy and beryllium. For note Beryllium has atom mass 4 and rather high melting point.

I know that it is so. But there is a little probability that do not know something.
But if I am right, not me but ITER's developers are answering you. No - tungsten is not useful as first wall material.

[Skipjack]

This is totally off topic and I am generally on the side of the sceptics, so this is only in regards to the use of Tungsten in a nuclear reactor:
I remember seeing a conference about next generation propulsion systems the lead from the NASA center for nuclear propulsion was there. They were talking about the use of Tungsten for the fuel rods in their new NERVA rocket engine design. The Tungsten would prevent erosion of the fuel rods in a high power very high temperature NERVA rocket engine design, while still allowing for a more conventional reactor design (no exotic light bulb needed).

[DancingFool]

Since the nickel powder is contained within the reactor, it must have reached 1600 C. Apparently the nickel didn't melt. I know! I know! It's MAGIC nickel! Boy, that Rossi is a genius.

This doesn't compute.
AR has stated that at times the reaction has run away and when it does the nickel melts. If the reaction (exists and) is going strong, then runs away it seems very plausible that energy is dumped into the nickel in sufficient quantities to not only melt thepowder but take the molten metal to higher temperatures.
Nowhere have I seen him say that the reactor OPERATES at 1600C, just that it has REACHED 1600C. Perhaps every time it runs away and melts the powder?
Also, given that he is NOT a scientist, might he be confusing C and K?

"This does not compute." Well, welcome to the club. Until he basically stopped answering technical questions on his blog, non-computing statements were a frequent occurence. He just couldn't be bothered to think through the implications of his stories, and seems to occasionally to have lost track of what he said.

As for the statement I quoted, I submit the questions he was answering.

Andrea Rossi
May 4th, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Dear Mr Ivan Mellen:
Thank you for your glance in the future possible applications: for now I am earthly attached to the present necessity to arrive with a good 1 MW plant in October, to make heat.
Maybe your previsions are right.
About your questions:
a- the temp inside the reactor reached the 1,600 °C
b- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Ivan Mellen
May 3rd, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Mr. Rossi,

I’m following your progress for few months and I wish you the best. I’m sure this is the most exciting part of your life

At this time, I see that the main focus is on the industrial and residential heat/electricity production. However,in longer term it might have huge impact on the space explorarion. A few thoughts:

1. Propulsion: replace rocket fuel + combustion with water + steam generation by your reactor
Reactor can work much closer to its critical power to achieve better power to weight ratio. It does not have to work safely for years only for few minutes. Safety is not that critical – reactor explosion will rip tank of water – negligible, when compared with liquid fuel rocket explosion. Also, water tank for steam rocket is order of magnitude simpler and safer than cryotanks for liquid hydrogen ond oxygen.

2. Electrical power:generate electrical power for space mision beyond Mars orbit
At these distance, sun power is not sufficient, nuclear power with all its disadvantages is the only current option. Abundant power generated by the LENR reactor can allow more power demanding scientific payload and stronger transmitter.

3. Heat: generate heat to keep systems working
It is not very well known that space probes has to be heated to keep electronics functional. No more need for plutionium heaters.

4. Deep space propulsion (for example ion thrusters that are power limited)
Active propulsion significantly shortens time to reach the destination. Now we have to wait for few years to reach remote edges of the solar system.

Nickel and water ice are frequently found in the solar systems (Ni-Fe asteroids, comets, moons) so this form of propulsion has bright future.

I have two questions:
a) How close to the nickel melting point (1455 C) can reactor temperature be? (This is important for rocket engine efficiency.)
b) If output power is significantly reduced, is refueling period extended proportionally? (This has impact on the long term system heating.)

Regards,

In context, it is clear that Rossi is claiming reactor OPERATION at 1600 C.

And as for confusing Celsius and Fahrenheit, well, you don't need to be a scientist to know the difference - just an engineer.

[DancingFool]

It has been reported that gamma ray bursts occur at startup and shutdown of high COP Rossi reactor designs.

Ah yes, the "It has been reported..." gambit. Combining the passive voice with unattributed yet authoritative sources.

In the scientific literature, this construction is followed either by immediate attribution or a footnote.

The Rossi process is radiation safe at high temperatures, but will produce gamma rays at low hydrogen envelope temperatures.

Says who? When? Where?

Certainly not Rossi, at least not when he explained the failure to detect gamma radiation.

To avoid this issue, Rossi has downsized his reactor module to avoid this low temperature window of gamma production venerability.

No, that's not it either. At least, that's not what Rossi says. I can't find the link, but I remember a statement from him that the change in reactor size was made to improve controllability.

I personally don’t like the reduction of COP as a way to control gamma radiation.

Neither does Rossi.

Andrea Rossi
April 21st, 2011 at 5:11 AM
Dear Mr Alessandro Casali:
1- the design is important
2- the secret is just an industrial secret ans as such can’t be disclosed
3- we need a drive foer safety reasons.
Warm regards,
A.R.


Alessandro Casali
April 21st, 2011 at 4:36 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

i would like to express my full appreciation for your discovery and for your kindness.
I’m skeptical by nature but i’m also kind of a dreamer, very interested in good science and progress for humankind therefore i’m really excited about your E-cat and hope it will deliver all that it promises.

I have some curiosity about the E-cat and hope you can answert my questions:

is the reactor design important/functional to the reaction or the real secret is in the powder mix, hydrogen pressure and reactor temperature?

if I remember well, input energy is needed to start the reaction by heating the reactor chamber, why then E-cat needs input energy after the reaction has started? shouldn’t the heat produced by the reaction itself be enough to keep the reaction going, considering the output energy is much bigger the the input?

Warm regards,
A.C.

Note Rossi's response #3. Since he provides lead shielding for safety, this cannot be what he is referring to.

That Rossi has not undergone such review is strong evidence that he is a fraud.

Unbeknownst to you, such a review would have already been done at the DOE in preparation for possible field use by the DOD in the USA.

Are you saying that such a review _has_ been done, or are you saying that it _would have been done? If the former, please document.

[Joseph Chikva]

This is totally off topic and I am generally on the side of the sceptics, so this is only in regards to the use of Tungsten in a nuclear reactor:
I remember seeing a conference about next generation propulsion systems the lead from the NASA center for nuclear propulsion was there. They were talking about the use of Tungsten for the fuel rods in their new NERVA rocket engine design. The Tungsten would prevent erosion of the fuel rods in a high power very high temperature NERVA rocket engine design, while still allowing for a more conventional reactor design (no exotic light bulb needed).

In theory they can consider even anaptanium from Avatar. Yes, tungsten has highest melting point from other metals.
The real questions will arise in case of real engineering.

Why not use for example beryllium oxide whose some properties are:
• density - 3g/cm3 vs. 19.2 for tungsten (more than 6 times higher)
• melting point - 2507 C vs. 3422 C (here tungsten wins but in engineering not melting point but phase transition point has a matter e.g. recrystallization point. Pure metals have not a set of required properties and I do not know any tungsten alloy)
• thermal conductivity - 330 W/(m•deg) vs. 173(about two times lower)