As Steven J., points out it could simply be the water delivery system is designed to maintain the same amount of water in the reactor at all times. I don't think that would be an extra-ordinary feat of engineering.
harry ----- Original Message ---- > From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 6:03:23 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not >hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08 > > From Mr. Lawrence: > > ... > > > 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. > > Yes, I do see your point. I DON'T know what kinds of "checks and > balances" are presumed to have been built into Rossi's device to make > sure an adequate supply of water would always be maintained within the > reactor core. I admit, I'm no expert on thermodynamic matters. > Nevertheless, I would assume (perhaps naively) that Rossi, an engineer > mind you, would have been intimately aware of the thermodynamic issues > for which you have brought up here in a sincere manner. I freely admit > the fact that I'm making a presumption here, an assumption that Rossi > probably designed his prototype through a painful series of trials and > errors... plus a few sobering lab fires. I'm presuming Rossi learned > what fixed "flow rate" probably works best to "regulate" the core's > innards. How??? Well... how many years has he been at it??? OTOH, I > ain't the engineer here! I'm just gessin... My best guestimate would > be that over the years Rossi naturally accumulated an extensive > knowledge base as to the typical thermal characteristics of the > reactor. It seems reasonable for me to assume that Rossi would thereby > know, generally speaking, how much water to feed into the system - for > a period of time, oh let's say... for 30 minutes. As such, I could see > the 30 minute limit as prudent reason (on Rossi's part) as to why he > didn't want to push the demonstration any longer - for fear that his > ball park "fixed flow rates" estimates might no longer apply anymore. > He might have been concerned that the internal core would have "dried > up", which in turn would have caused a run-away temperature situation, > and ultimately ending up with a permanently damaged prototype. > > Again, my perception on the presumed internal regulation matter could > be way off base. It might be naïve. > > To clarify, the original point I was trying to make (quite consciously > I might add) is that IF we presume Rossi's reservoir always contains > sufficient amounts of water within the reactor core the temperature of > the vented steam will not increase all that much above 100 C no matter > how hot the surface of the internal reactor might get, the internal > surface that is in direct contact with the reservoir of water. Again, > I'm making a presumption here that the entire contents are NOT under > pressure. I'm assuming the generated steam is allowed to escape > immediately from within the presumed hellish conditions within the > reactor core. > > Can anyone clarify and/or append technical data that helps clarify > exactly how the external input water is fed into Rossi's reactor? How > flexible/inflexible is the system? Can anyone make a reasonable > assessment as to how much flexibility could possibly be built into > Rossi's device? > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > >
