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