Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's previous
devices. For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had his thermal
generation components contained within a large thinned mass. The incoming
water essentially fell into a big boxy outer structure and came into contact
with the inner section at a multitude of locations where it extracted heat
through the fins.
You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling. I just wanted to express
the thought that only a small volume of water would remain in liquid form
within the unit. Since it is assumed that more heat is generated than needed
to boil all of the water entering, it becomes apparent that the temperature of
the ECAT must rise and not remain at the boiling point. This increase in
temperature can be detected and therefore a thermal loop can control it.
Also, the vapor can be super heated by the additional hot surface on its way to
the outside port. And, indeed this is exactly the scenario that could be used
to generate dry steam if properly employed.
So, in my attempt to understand how the gauges might be reading in error I must
assume that the liquid is not being boiled off within each of the 24 or ?
devices, but instead leaves in the liquid form which flashes into a liquid,
vapor combination. If the complete filling of the ECAT portions by water does
not take place then Jed's position is undermined pretty much as you are
describing.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
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
