AA--
The moisture carry-over depends upon the mixing of the liquid phase (small droplets) with the super heated steam phase. The mixing depends upon the friction of the conduit down stream of the point in the reactor where the steam is heated, baffles or other devices that catch and remove the liquid phase the velocity of the mixture and the pressure drop along the steam pipe to the customer's facility. The condenser at the end of the steam line creates a negative pressure to drive the flow of steam. Common dynamics and control (D programs are used to design the feedback to provide inherient stability in the system. If as I suspect, reactor control depends upon magnetic resonances within the reactor, I may take only one reactor to maintain power within a small band of total reactors output. The reactors may even exhibit a negative temperature coeff. and thereby establish a steady power output inherient to the reactor design, given a steam demand fixed by condenser pressure/temperature. Bob Cook ________________________________ From: a.ashfield <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation No. At 102.8C and atmospheric pressure the stem would be dry without a water separator. On 8/23/2016 11:48 PM, David Roberson wrote: Bob, I would agree with your assessment that the steam is dry if we can be ensured that there is a moisture separator in the proper location. Have you seen any evidence that this is true? If the steam is totally dry then Rossi's system is probably working much as he states. My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific evidence to support Jed's claims. If the steam being supplied by the ECAT system is dry, then plenty of power is being delivered. It is not clear that the fluid flow rate is low enough to null that opinion without further proof. I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the quality of steam. Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct conflict to what I.H. states with respect to the temperature and pressure values. I am hoping there is a method which connects their different beliefs in a scientific and reasonable manner. Let's hope that neither is directly falsifying the data. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Cook <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 ________________________________
