On 02/08/2011 03:52 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Let me second and third some of the counter claims raised about the > steam temperature issue. > > >From Mr. Lawrence, > > ... > > >> If the water flow rate is fixed, and the power level is allowed >> to vary, then, if steam is coming out, its temperature will vary, >> and will be determined at any moment by how much larger the power >> is than the absolute minimum necessary to exactly boil away all >> the water. >> > Wait a minute. No, the temperature will not necessarily vary. It seems > to me the above logic does not take a crucial factor into > consideration: Pressure. >
The hose is open on the end, so the pressure in the hose is fixed at 1 atm. > I confess that I am a little puzzled over the proposed facts > pertaining to this latest skeptical claim. From my POV, an output > temperature measurement of 101 C seems to me to be what one would > expect - IF one presumes external water is constantly replenishing the > reactor's reservoir AND that the (boiling) water and steam are not > held under undue pressure. > NO NO NO NO NO. You are making an unconscious assumption here, which is that water is being added just exactly fast enough to replenish the water which is boiled away. That's not what's happening! The water is being added at a constant rate, with no feedback from the reactor! And that is exactly the point. Turn on your stove, at a nice high heat. Put a pot on the stove. Start pouring water into the pot. Pour in the water exactly fast enough so that the water *just* boils away, and the surface of the pot stays at boiling, and doesn't rise any higher. Easy, eh? Just watch the pot to see what's going on. That's a situation with feedback. Now, do it again, this time with your eyes closed, without checking to see how fast the water is boiling away. How hard is that? Not so easy, eh? You'd expect to either get a red hot pot bottom, or water running over onto the floor. That's what's going on here -- the constant displacement pump has its eyes closed. Note well: If the pot were a tube, in the case where you don't pour fast enough and it's heated red hot, the steam coming out the other end would be 'way above 100C. > Let me put it this way. I recall a 9th grade high school chemistry lab > session. Our assignment was to boil a prepared liquid solution which > had been placed in a flask containing several unknown liquids > previously prepared by our chemistry teacher. Our assignment was to > heat the liquid in the flask to the boiling point while constantly > monitoring and recording the temperatures. We turned our Bunsen > burners on. The liquid in our flasks began to rise. When the solution > began to boil the rising temperature suddenly plateaued (remained > steady) for several minutes. The temp remained steady until all the > molecules associated with that particular solution boiled away. This is irrelevant, because you're confusing, essentially, voltage and current. Your experiment involved fixed power input and variable steam flow rate. Here we've got variable power input and fixed steam flow rate -- very different. See above. > The point I'm trying to make here is that water boils at 100 C. You > can't increase the temperature of a volume of actively "boiling" water > above 100 C - unless the contents are contained under pressure, such > as what happens inside of a typical pressure cooker. You, too, have missed the point that the steam must have traveled inside the tube which is inside the reactor *after* it turned into steam. That is where it would pick up "extra heat" -- where it wasn't in close contact with liquid water. This is not an open boiler, and the heating element is not submerged.
