On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 06:56 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto: >> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a**b...@lomaxdesign.com <a...@lomaxdesign.com>> wrote: >> >> It would be possible, just from the experiments performed, to determine if >> the RH probe were of any use. If the RH readings were *monitored* on a >> continuos basis, like the temperature, and *reported*, we could see if the >> reading ever actually changes. Presumably the steam must begin wet and then >> become drier as the power transfer increases. >> >> >> Not necessarily. Indeed, the steam may be wetter with higher power, >> because of higher turbulence inside the device. >> >> >> If the steam were wetter, then it would remove less power from the >> reactor, and if the reactor is producing more power, where does the energy >> go? >> > > More steam, of course. I.e., if there is constant power, and the steam is > wetter, and the steam is the only cooling mode, there must be more of it. But more steam and wetter steam requires more water. Where does the extra water come from. The pump gives a constant flow rate. > > > The reactor would have to get hotter, and then of course it would heat the >> water faster, boil it more quickly, and produce more steam, and it would be >> drier. >> > > No. That does not follow. Steam from water boiling more turbulently is > wetter, silly. Of course it follows. If the reactor is hotter, the water boils earlier as it passes the reactor. It will be turbulent of course, but the mist still has to pass by the rest of the reactor, and that will convert the mist to steam. > > Higher power transfer means drier steam, if energy is to be conserved. >> > > If the water flow rate is truly constant, over time, sure. There are some > problems with the water flow rate. > > With that pump, the constant flow rate is probably the most certain thing about the demo (barring surreptitious changes to it of course). Anyway, we agree then, that if the flow rate is constant, it follows that the steam will be drier at lower flow rate or higher power transfer. It's not silly. > There are two very simple ways to prove the steam is dry: (1) Measure the >> output flow rate (velocity); if it is steam, it should be 1700 times higher >> than the input flow rate; >> >> >> Yeah, but it's not so simple to determine that rate. Could be done, >> though. >> >> >> It's not hard to measure the flow rate of dry steam to 1 or 2% accuracy. >> There are commercial devices that advertise exactly that. If the steam were >> dry, it would be easy to prove it this way. >> > > Those devices were not available and nobody wants to buy them. There are > simpler ways to address the issue, as I assume you would recognize. Not producing steam is simpler. But buying a flow meter is not exactly difficult. > >> (2) Reduce the input flow rate so the steam temperature exceeds boiling >> by more than a few degrees -- say 120C or so. That these two methods are not >> used suggests the steam is not dry. >> >> >> Not really. It suggests that measures have not been taken to prove that >> it's dry. >> >> Reducing the input flow rate could be dangerous with this device, >> possibly. >> >> >> The same device has been operated with several different flow rates, and >> always the temperature at the output is 100C. If the steam were dry, a >> modest decrease in the flow rate would give a significant increase in the >> steam temperature. It would have to in order to remove the same amount of >> heat from the reactor. >> > > Or the reactor runs out of water. > I don't know what you mean by this. Once the reactor has converted all the water into steam, any additional power would go into heating the steam. Where else can the energy go?
