Project UFO/Project UFO (Disk 3 of 6).adf/FUSION.DES

Text File | 1980-01-09 | 3.9 KB | 88 lines

Article 4709 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
From: [e-mail] (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Fusion in Titanium
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Mar 89 16:50:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Campbell)
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland
Lines: 25
Posted: Fri Mar 31 11:50:43 1989

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Philip Stephens) writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Jon Webb):
>> Here's some wild speculation: the reason why the palladium rod melted
>> is that as its temperature increased, its absorption of deuterium
>> decreased, leading to an increased pressure on the deuterium to react,
>> leading to more heat, etc.  A runaway fusion reaction!  (Sort of).
>
>Not a bad guess.  Could be a *major* disadvantage to Pd, major reason

Or maybe a major advantage, imagine a powerplant that consists of a whole lot
of blocks of palladium that are cold-fused (oh no it got verbed already :-)
to the point that thay are too hot to run and then moved to the heat exchanger
to cool down, the next block of palladium moves into place etc etc

The big advantage is NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, the worst thing that can happen is a
puddle of palladium that stops fusing


    Paul

--
Paul Campbell, Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
"'Give me your tired, your poor - I'll piss on them' that`s what the
Statue of Bigotry sais. 'Let`s club them to death, get it over with
and just dump them on the Boulevard'" - Lou Reed, "New York"


Article 4717 of sci.physics:
Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!oliveb.OLIVETTI.COM
From: [e-mail] (Philip Stephens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: melted Pd as negative feedback, was Re: Fusion in Titanium
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Mar 89 22:55:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 32
Posted: Fri Mar 31 17:55:55 1989

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Paul Campbell):
> Or maybe a major advantage, imagine a powerplant that consists of a whole lot
> of blocks of palladium that are cold-fused (oh no it got verbed already :-)
> to the point that thay are too hot to run and then moved to the heat exchanger
> to cool down, the next block of palladium moves into place etc etc
>
> The big advantage is NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, the worst thing that can happen is a
> puddle of palladium that stops fusing

I think, if this is valid, I'd rather have a ring of them, each immobile in
its own heat-resitant crucible, but sharing the common D2O solution (and common
other electrode).  Or the ring could be slowly rotating, to more closely
approximate your suggestion.  In either case, cyclic synchronization could be
encouraged by commutating the Pd side of circuit... say, low voltage most of
cycle, higher voltage as approach heat exchange area??

Or simply have a "waffle" pattern of heat resistant material in bottom of
chamber, with a metal contact (higher melting point than Pd, of course) and
a small amount of Pd in bottom of each depression.  Ignore tendancy of each
cell to affect its neighbors, and let the heat sink at bottom average-out
the variations.  (Also, build chamber to withstand pressure, and install a
pressure relief valve set conservatively below that limit; pre-presurizing
optional.  But that's another topic!)

(And don't forget your shielding!  Would an inch of iron do with 2.5 Mev
neutrons, or do you need a foot or two of concrete?  Etc??)


Frankly, this design may be far-fetched, what with how little I know; but a
nice mental exercise.

'Take what you can use, leave the rest'.    ---Phil        (prs@oliven)