[Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
Robert Leguillon wrote: /snip/ Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. /snip/ Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. THERE is where you are wrong. You go too far. No idea is an absurd overstatement. We have some idea. We know that the the vessel would have been empty if there had been no water flowing in. We can make a rough estimate of the lowest flow rate it might have been. A rough estimate is not the same as hand waving or guessing. I do not understand why modern people are so unwilling to make a rough estimate, or a reality check. To go from the assertion that the flow rate was not at its max (perhaps . . .) to saying we have no idea is a ridiculous leap. It violates common sense, and natural science observational techniques. You can always make a reasonable estimate based on observable and irrefutable facts. There was definitely water coming out. It was measured often enough and observed and filmed often enough that we know approximately what the outgoing flow rate was. There was definitely water left in the vessel after the test. That can only be explained by additional tap water flowing in, unless you think water spontaneously appears out of nowhere, or mass is not conserved. As I said in my parable, just because you do not know whether the airplane is at 600 feet or 1000 feet, that does not mean you have proved it is on the ground. Honestly, how do you think people managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years before numbers and instruments and modern science were developed?!? Do you think they had no clue what was going on in the world around them? No idea whether water was flowing in a stream, no clue at all whether an object was too hot to touch or stone cold? Visual observations of natural events and first principles are a valid way of doing science, even with no instruments at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
Maybe I'd overlooked this, when did they measure and film the outpouring water? I thought that it was twice during the entire demo - once while it was running, and once during quenching, no? Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Leguillon wrote: /snip/ Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. /snip/ Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. THERE is where you are wrong. You go too far. No idea is an absurd overstatement. We have some idea. We know that the the vessel would have been empty if there had been no water flowing in. We can make a rough estimate of the lowest flow rate it might have been. A rough estimate is not the same as hand waving or guessing. I do not understand why modern people are so unwilling to make a rough estimate, or a reality check. To go from the assertion that the flow rate was not at its max (perhaps . . .) to saying we have no idea is a ridiculous leap. It violates common sense, and natural science observational techniques. You can always make a reasonable estimate based on observable and irrefutable facts. There was definitely water coming out. It was measured often enough and observed and filmed often enough that we know approximately what the outgoing flow rate was. There was definitely water left in the vessel after the test. That can only be explained by additional tap water flowing in, unless you think water spontaneously appears out of nowhere, or mass is not conserved. As I said in my parable, just because you do not know whether the airplane is at 600 feet or 1000 feet, that does not mean you have proved it is on the ground. Honestly, how do you think people managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years before numbers and instruments and modern science were developed?!? Do you think they had no clue what was going on in the world around them? No idea whether water was flowing in a stream, no clue at all whether an object was too hot to touch or stone cold? Visual observations of natural events and first principles are a valid way of doing science, even with no instruments at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Maybe I'd overlooked this, when did they measure and film the outpouring water? Yes, many people saw the water and bubbles moving through the hose. FURTHERMORE, we know with certainty that there was steam or hot water coming out of the reactor into the heat exchanger, because if there had not been, the temperature sensors would have fallen to tap water temperature. We saw that during the first two hours of the test. Nothing came out of the reactor, and both cooling loop thermocouples registered tap water temperature. Something had to be coming out of the reactor the entire time. It had to be coming out at a flow rate large enough to deliver lots of heat to those thermocouples. Some people say the thermocouples were poorly placed. I do not think this made any significant difference but suppose it did. We still know that those thermocouples were registering a real temperature rise, and -- to reiterate -- we saw in the first two hours they would have registered nothing only tap water temperatures if flow rate had dropped to zero. I believe I mentioned this a couple of times. This is the kind of observation people should bear in mind. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
I wrote: Something had to be coming out of the reactor the entire time. It had to be coming out at a flow rate large enough to deliver lots of heat to those thermocouples. We also know from Lewan's log that he measured the flow rate at the time when the flow rate was lowest. He measured 0.9 ml/s. It had to be higher for the entire rest of the run. We know this because it was delivering the lowest amount of heat to the thermocouples at that time. He just happened to measure it when the power was down to around 3 kW nominally, which was the lowest it got during the self-sustaining event. However badly placed the thermocouples were, they reflected the actual temperature in a linear fashion. They had to; the temperature of the fluid coming into the heat exchanger hardly varied. It was ~103°C, plus or minus a tad. A fixed bias will not produce random variations. When the outlet thermocouple temperature rose, that definitely meant the temperature rose; the only thing disputed is how much it actually rose. There is no doubt it was a the lowest point right when Lewan measured 0.9 ml/s. Since the temperature was stable at ~103°C, that means pressure did not vary much. Steam from boiling water does not get any hotter at one pressure setting. As the power goes up you get more coming out of the reactor. The flow rate increases. That's the only way the cooling loop output thermocouple could get hotter. So the flow was greater than 0.9 ml/s the whole time. I suppose it was ~8 ml/s on average, as Rossi claimed. - Jed
