I reviewed the DGT demonstration and had a chance to give it a bit of serious 
thought.  One observation that I focused upon was the reading of the output 
temperature during the hydrogen cycle.  It is obvious that this reading 
remained stuck at 100 C during a lot of time as the power output was being 
ramped up.  I expected this to occur.


This measurement convinced me that the copper cooling pipe was truly open to 
the air at the drain end and not under additional pressure.  This coupled with 
the measured flow rate of the coolant and Mats viewing of the output as being 
vapor only was important.  I also noted that the temperature sensor was far 
removed from the device and not subject to any copper pipe heat coupling.


With the above considerations, I could believe that the water flowing into the 
device was in fact being boiled into vapor and then super heated by the 
extremely hot core of their device.  I noted that the water input was directed 
to the outer ring of piping while the final output came from the contact region 
that closely touches the center reactor.


My observations are that the final elevated temperature reading of the output 
at 150 C or so was valid under the demonstration conditions.  This belief 
suggests that many thousands of watts of heat are being generated within their 
device and exiting as heated water vapor.  How would it be possible for the 
temperature reading to be at that level at the test point if water at 100 C or 
less were traveling through the pipe?  And, the large pipes reaching toward the 
ceiling should catch any water that was attempting to escape and hold it 
captive near the gauge.


Can anyone come up with a way to prove that the water is not being totally 
vaporized under the conditions that were demonstrated?  So far I come up empty. 
 My best estimate is that the true power output is over 20 kilowatts of heat 
which is significant. My only concern is the speed of vapor leaving the 
apparatus and whether or not the steam is actually as dry as it appears.  Does 
anyone else agree with this assessment?


Dave

Reply via email to