2011/9/15 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>: > This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate the > barrel. Also, better to run the output through a heat exchanger first and > do flow calorimetry on the cooling water, and isoperibolic calorimetry on > the cooling water source and water out.
This is too complex. It is enough that take a cup of ice tea and sparge steam into that. It will absorb all steam. If you do not believe try it. I already did when I sparged high pressure steam into 200 ml 17°C water. And not even single drop of water escaped. (ok, to refine accuracy, perhaps bucket is more suitable.) You are thinking too complex methods, because you try to apply some complex expert knowledge into trivial problem. The best accuracy is however obtained, when things are done by the most simple and uniquely tailored methods. >> By the way, flow rate was almost exactly 3 g per second. > > This is not known. It is only known for the period of time for which flow > measurements were actually made. The new E-cat obviously has some means to > restrict output flow rate (and thus input flow rate) and to drive pressure > way up. The pump likely does not pump at the same volume against all > pressure heads. It would be interesting to know how such a pump reacts to a > complete output flow blockage at the E-cat end of the input hose. It > appears that such a flow blockage occurred prior to the venting of the water > plus steam at the bottom of the device at the end of the test. > The peristaltic pump pumps 15.8 kg/h without backpressure as it was calibrated. It pumped ca.13 kg/h when water was sub-boiling. After pressure build up started, it pumped from ca. 11 kg/h, but here we do not know yet, against what pressure this was. From manual we can see, that pump is certified to pump 12 kg/h water against 150 kPa pressure. This would imply, that pressure was more than 250 kPa when the water pumping rate was measured. –Jouni
