Referenced product Dolphin 5
RE: Lui 2 review #002
3/6/2012
Reply 002 by Dale
1
Lui Commented and wrote :
•Please
explain this in more detail as there is obviously more information about the drawing that is not available from the drawing itself.
•What
is the “waveguide.”
•Please explain the hydrogen loading mechanics.
•Please explain the fuel chamber loading and unloading mechanics.
Reply from Dale :
There is little on the drawings that is intended to be clearly understood by anyone,
with the exception of myself and John R. Flanagan. Several on this team on both sides
are still not understanding the primary issues here, (Roy and Lui).
Dolphin 5 of which you are commenting on is the “article of manufacture” for our
team and is not a device intended for the purpose of adding a “waveguide” of which
term was coined in 2 conference calls earlier, “by” which I should highlight, the
prominent physicists on the team, 1 Roy & 2 Lui. There is intended a “solid fuel”.
3/6/2012
Reply 002 by Dale
2
There are no comments at this time available for the hydrogen loading or the
fuel chamber loading on this Dolphin 5 drawing series we are referring to within
this text. Those will be detailed in drawing file series Solid Fuel Chamber
(SF) /M.
The hydrogen fuel anticipated and compressed into the nickel lattice matrix is
the physicists responsibility to communicate exact parameters to the design
engineer of which that still remains an unanswered fact to design.
Until complete communication resolves the elements required and in what
way to initiate a heat translation from the process and before we can go
forward explaining this process it needs to be clearly understood by me.
The first and foremost is to file the provisional paperwork derived from facts
as we knew them to be when we initiated this team effort.
3/6/2012
Reply 002 by Dale
3
Here are the parameters I had to go by, it’s not complicated at all, just a vague
issue weather it actually is fact! That is all I had as a mechanical engineer to
reference for design. This is not complicated in a mechanical view.
3/6/2012
Reply 002 by Dale
4
Lui’s Comments continued:
•I’m
not sure I fully understand the way you envision the temperature gradients in all three phases of operation but if in the startup
phase you are going to use water to feedback and distribute the heat then it’s possible it might work depending on the air metal
boundary thermal dissipation rate. In that case I’d reduce the cooling manifold length from 17.25 inches to something like
6-10 inches if possible or shorter and try to have all “loading “ be done from the outside of the “pie” (which I’m still uncertain about).
Reply from Dale:
The distance is the minimum required to allow correct fitting of the components that
provide hydrogen manifold venting and filling provisions. It is possible however that if there
is less total heat generated than previous numbers indicate then it is possible to shorten the
inlet manifold distance to the face end of the HE Block. This would produce another set of
coolant tubing in the manufacturing process, limit available working distance, limit the
ability to assemble the kit device, and render one claim omitted in the patent application.
•The
shortening of the manifold would be necessary so that the circulation of the water at startup has a better chance of capturing
all the heat that will be distributed over 4pi steradians.
•I
presume that the water is going to circulate through the cores several times before being sent out for use.
There is a point at which your opinion regarding the length of coolant tubes and process of
regulation could be compared to facts of operation as we discover them, and yes it is obvious
that anything shorter could be a reduction in time to preheat.
3/6/2012
Reply 002 by Dale
5
•Just
for arguments sake how will we turn “off” the reaction in case of a meltdown of the nickel?
•Copper
has better thermal conductivity by about 10-20x over stainless steel so copper sheets would help guide the heat to
where you want it to go, i.e. the water and core and nowhere else. They would be like superhighways in the middle of and
“off-road” terrain. May not be needed and probably hard to implement if there are not two halves like I thought.
Reply from Dale:
I would greatly appreciate your view of how we can turn “off” a reaction that “we”
have not factually verified exists in a physical frame of reference i.e. a nickel meltdown
of which I have never seen any evidence of anywhere from anyone's claimed experiments.
Please explain in your own vision of the process as to “how” “they” (the hundreds of
experimenters) claimed that “they” prevented meltdown in their reactions.
There are quadrants that could be viewed and named halves in a twin pack configuration
and the copper plates are easily implemented and also seem to serve another purpose that
solved the engineering feat for cascading the design into a small single or twin or quad array
configuration. This proved valuable in the design for the LEarNeR© kit’s.
3/6/2012
Reply 002 by Dale
6