Jones, I this has already been mentioned and briefly discussed, in an exchange with Robin.
Feedback from the output temp to control the reactor is the *only* mechanism which has been proposed which accounts for this, and it was proposed long before you wrote your message. If that is what was done, great, it explains all, but all I see here is speculation from you to the effect that it might be what was done. On 02/09/2011 12:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Jed is (mostly but not entirely) correct. > Jed is arguing something quite different from what you said, and he's not even in the ballpark. > The logical error in your LOX comparison is clear. > I guess you haven't really read what I've written, either. > Oxygen cannot get hotter than its boiling point -- so long as a > significant mass of liquid oxygen remains nearby to effectively shield > recently boiled-off gas from additional gain. > So? That's certainly true, but it's not a logical fallacy in what I said. With a FIXED rate of power generation and a FIXED water flow rate, if the power generation rate is higher than the rate needed to exactly vaporize the input water, in short order the steam will not be in close contact with liquid water any more -- and it'll still be getting heat from the reaction. I guess you missed the point here, which is that Jed and Peter have been arguing that you CAN'T heat steam above 100C unless you raise the pressure. > > > PV = nRT is NOT involved at this stage. > You can't dismiss natural laws that way. > You have completely overlooked the obvious function of the five heater > controllers. > I simply haven't speculated about their function. Maybe they're controlling the reaction, very precisely, to keep the output temp at 101.6C. It would be nice if somebody who actually knew said so; neither Jed nor Levi has made such an assertion, AFAIK. If they have, please provide a reference. > >
