At 11:24 AM 9/16/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Thanks for your comments .... I'm still looking at the whole picture.
This is also the reason, why I do not believe that two chambered inner
structure. We do not have any evidence that would support the idea of
superheated steam and also I do not see how it would make any sense in
this case on engineering and power production perspective.
I found this google book on boiler design very useful:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ck2Z3eRGLK8C&lpg=PA504&ots=KRYNGuK_41&dq=steam%20bubble%20surface%20tension&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=steam%20bubble%20surface%20tension&f=true
(It's written in India, and probably follows British more than US
practices/nomenclature).
It idealizes a boiler as three zones:
a) Economiser -- heats the incoming water to near boiling point
b) Transition zone -- (For a tube boiler, quality progresses from 0
to 1, with the transition from water to slugs to annular)
c) Superheater
(In a kettle boiler the Economiser and Transition zone are usually combined).
Lewan told me that Rossi insists that there are no internal
obstructions to the outlet which would cause the internal pressure to
be significantly above 1 atmosphere. If that is true, then
superheating is the only alternative.
Also superheated steam and liquid water cannot coexist in the same space as
heat transfer is almost instant. But this you probably considered.
But the water normally requires nuclei to boil, and the steam
requires nuclei to condense -- so they will be out of "steam/water"
equilibrium.
I'm still researching the conditions for "flash steam" -- eg
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flash-steam-generation-d_425.html
We also need to note that this eCat was running well below capacity
(limited by the speed at which the peristaltic pump can deliver
water), with a COP of about 3 -- where Rossi guarantees 6.
