Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
> On 02/08/2011 08:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> The water delivery system was specified to deliver a fixed rate of
> water, independent of anything going on in the reactor.
>
> Levi said it, Jed said it, and I see no reason to disbelieve it. That's
> the whole point in the emphasis on use of a "positive displacement pump".
>
> And that absolutely rules out any possibility that the water delivery
> system was set up to maintain a fixed water level in the reactor.
>
Suppose the fixed rate of water consists of new water and recycled hot water,
i.e any water that does not turn to steam.
The rate of new water entering the reactor would increase over time, but the
total rate of water entering the reactor would
be fixed. However, Rossi would need to ensure that the fixed rate was high
enough so that it would never be entirely boiled
off by the reactor.
Harry
