Your first point supports the idea that the control would need to exist within
each of the sources at an elevated temperature. I assume 130 C. Water leaving
all of the units at such a controlled temperature would deliver a constant
power if the water flow rate were constant. This is not to say a power
delivery rate is 1 MW is required.
I don't understand what you refer to as no feedback control by terms. It would
not be required by my scenario, but why not allowed?
I also assume that the liquid level within each unit is not actively regulated.
The coolant just needs to have a sufficient flow rate to fill up the ECATs at
a modest pressure.
It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the un
boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the
individual heating drive elements. This is not required in my scenario but not
disallowed.
My scenario is that the steam supplied to the customer is very wet indeed. If
dry, then much more power would be delivered to the customer than many believe.
Your last statement is pretty much what I have been attempting to simulate in
support of the idea that 1 MW is not being supplied. You should read over my
previous posts and I suspect you will find much in common with my thoughts.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
And BTW if the beast put out a continuous 1 MW, then it was impossible
to control the power level via feedback from the output temperature. Any
such feedback control would have caused the power output to vary down from
the nominal 1 MW.
So, there was no feedback control of the power level, by definition
of the terms of the test.
And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, by testimony
of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate.
In short, there was no possible active matching of power level to flow
rate.
The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient to exactly
vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore, coincidence. (Either that,
or the steam was not dry.)
Am I missing something? When stated this way, this sounds like a
no-brainer, even without reference to any of the details of the setup. If
this thing was supposed to produce dry steam, and its output temp was always
within a few degrees of boiling, then it had to be a fake.
