On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson wrote:
That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of heat generation and water input flow. For example, if 1% extra liquid water is continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will eventually overflow and begin to flow out of the port as a combination of vapor and liquid water leading to wet steam. This would take place at a constant temperature which would make thermal control difficult.

On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon entry.

No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry". Assuming the design is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set up with, you've got a reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlike the arrangement on an internal combustion engine. (Or it could be set up as an old fashioned steam locomotive boiler, with multiple pipes running _through_ the reactor chamber, but it's the same idea either way -- the water _flows_ through a heated aqueduct of some sort, from one end to the other, growing hotter as it travels; it does /not/ just sit in a "chamber" until it boils away.)

It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses the water jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (and some /particular location/ in the duct work) so that it initially becomes a mixture of steam and water droplets, and then continue to be heated, as steam, as it traverses the remainder of the jacket. The parts of the chamber being cooled by steam may be hotter than the parts where there's liquid water in the jacket but since the reactor chamber itself is above boiling anyway, the difference may not be all that significant.

*In fact, this is **/exactly/**the scenario which must be taking place **/if the effluent is dry steam, as claimed./* After the water hits boiling, in order to be totally dry, the steam must be superheated to some extent as it continues to traverse the _heated_ conduit.

There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, so the effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just rise arbitrarily. It just shouldn't be /exactly at boiling/, which implies an exact match between power provided and power consumed by vaporizing the water, despite the lack of either active power level control or flow rate control.

It might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise in temperature without adequate coolant. Here, the temperature feedback would be asked to take over control of the process.

Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the system. Do you now believe that level control is not being used in the system? I am not totally convinced that feedback water level control is not part of the main plan once everything settles down in production. That control technique would go a long way toward ensuring dry steam is always generated.

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You don't need "active feedback." The steam escapes the reactor shortly after being formed


On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



    On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:

        As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of
        power is being supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is
        mistaken that the steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

        If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
        atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


    Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the
    temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to
    believe the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is
    so small compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would
    expect the temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be
    driven well above boiling -- not just barely over it.

    This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the
    beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature
    barely above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees
    above.  Either there's feedback nailing the power output to the
    level needed to /just exactly/ vaporize the water (with
    essentially no heat left over to superheat the steam), or there is
    feedback nailing the water flow rate to the be just fast enough to
    consume all the heat from the system in vaporizing the water, or
    there is a miraculous coincidence between the heat produced and
    the water flow rate.

    We /know/ there's no feedback controlling the flow rate, because
    that was rock steady.

    No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the
    reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing
    about something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to
    believe such a thing exists. In fact we don't even know that the
    reaction (if there is a reaction) can be controlled with the
    precision needed to keep the output temperature so close to
    boiling -- and we also have no reason to believe anyone would even
    /want/ to do that.

    So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that
    the "feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling
    is provided by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently
    the steam must be very wet.



        But that is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree
        that this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also,
        there is no law of nature that ensures that what the ERV
        states is true.  He may be confused by the location of gauges,
        etc.

        AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and
        not under automatic control according to his picture.  If
        true, that would eliminate the feedback level control that was
        discussed earlier.  It is my opinion that some form of
        automatic level control is required in order to produce a
        stable system that prevents liquid filling or dying out of the
        CATS. This is an important factor that both of the parties
        should address.

        Dave

        -----Original Message-----
        From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
        To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
        Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm
        Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure. That is dry steam.
        That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

        On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


            Dave--

            The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium
between the liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water. If the conditions are 1 bar at a temperature above the
            99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the
            steam (gas) phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and
            is said to be super heated.

            The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase
            carry-over in a dynamic flowing system.  Normally there
            would be a moisture separator in the system to assure no
            carry-over.

            Bob
            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
            *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
            *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
            *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
            Dave--

            Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I
            thought the pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1
            atmos.--not 15.75 abs.

            I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never
            measured.

            Bob Cook

            Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at
            http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html
            to obtain my data points.

            According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a
            temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
            At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi
            absolute.
            Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must
            have accidentally written the last digit in error for some
            reason.

            Does this answer your first question?

            You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1
            atmosphere not being measured directly.  I admit that I
            rounded off the readings a bit, but the amount of error
            resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact
            the answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's
            earlier experiments the temperature within his ECAT was
            measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as the
            calculated power being measured at the output of his heat
            exchanger reached the maximum.  At the time I concluded
            that this must have occurred as a result of the filling of
            his device by liquid water.

            I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an
            estimate of the temperature within the ECAT modules.  The
            higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) was the value required
to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor. Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of
            his modules and that requires him to operate each at a few
            degrees above the output temperature(102 C?) as a
            minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at
            130 C as I assumed, but that temperature was consistent
            with having a ratio of vapor volume to liquid volume of
            nearly 100 to 1.

            Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get
            a larger ratio of flash vapor to liquid water at the
            output stream. Likewise, the ratio would drop if a lower
            temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to
            his earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you
            have a suggestion for a better temperature or pressure to
            assume?

            Dave

            
------------------------------------------------------------------------





Reply via email to