Alan J. Fletcher wrote [quoting Colonel Fioravanti):
The only case when you have low steam quality or droplets or liquid
water in this steam is in long or poorly isolated tubes fro steam
transport. Steam then condenses and there will be a flow of water
together with the steam.
This is not the case with the Ecat he said, and he saw no doubt what
so ever on the steam quality at atmospheric pressure and 105 degrees.
On 11-10-31 08:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Smart man. He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he's turning an expert eye on the trees and
ignoring the forest.
Let's try to put some numbers on the thing which is apparently not a
problem save in the minds of a few silly worrywarts, shall we?
Specific heat of water is about 4 j/g; specific heat of steam is about 2
j/g (according to Wikipedia). Heat of vaporization of water is about
2000 j/g (according to Wikipedia). So, to take a gram of water from 30
degrees to 100 degrees takes about 280 joules; to vaporize it takes
another 2000 joules; to raise the temperature of the steam to 101, 102,
105, and 110 C takes, respectively, an additional 2, 4, 10, or 20 joules.
The totals, then for 100, 101, 102, 105, and 110 C steam output are
2280, 2282, 2284, 2290, and 2300 joules per gram of 30 degree input
water pumped through the system.
First, let's look at the test from last spring, where there was
presumably also "no problem" with the steam quality.
The steam output temperature was held between 100C and 102C during that
test. The water flow rate was set, a priori, with (supposedly) no
adjustments made to control variations in the output temperature;
indeed, that was a *requirement* for the calorimetry which was done.
Consequently, the power level was apparently matched, a posteriori, to
the water flow rate, to within some amount of variation which we shall
now calculate.
To achieve the demonstrated level of control over the output
temperature, which was held to a variation of less than +/- 1 degree
centered on 101C, the power generated must have been held to between
2280 and 2284 joules per gram of water pumped through the system. Since
the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant with
a precision of +/- 0.09 percent. (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.) This,
in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control. Can
you really say you don't see any problem with that claim?
Now, I haven't been through the reports on the 1 MW test (sorry, don't
have time, really, and I mean it, I sure would like to), but what I've
read on Vortex is that, once again, the claim is being made that during
the test, the generator made dry steam out of all the input water, with
a fixed pump rate. This time the output temp was 105C. Now, let's take
that at face value, and say it was 105C at 1 atm, and that, in fact, the
output temp may actually have varied from 100C to 110C (give the man a
little wiggle room!). In that case, given a fixed flow rate of cooling
water, the actual power generated must have been held to between 2280
and 2300 joules per gram of water. Since the flow rate was fixed, that
implies the power level was matched to the flow rate with a variation in
power of +/- 0.44 percent (that's less than 1/2 of a percent variation
in power level). That's with multiple E-cats working together, and with
a system which was flaky enough that the final power level measured was
just under half what it was supposed to be (that's a 50% variation from
what was predicted).
So, we've got a system whose output can't be predicted to better than
50%, yet its power output can be controlled with a precision of better
than +/- 1/2 of a percent.
Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange?
T
