David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: The first technique you suggested would spread out the test for too long of > a time(hour). >
You misunderstand. I would fix hose at a certain height, let it fill with water, then let it run through a precision flowmeter. I would record it constantly, so that we know the rate for each minute and for the whole run. This would overcome any problems with back pressure and it would record changes in the flow rate, which I sure occurred. It is still a nutty method, but it would be better than a 1-time manual check. It would be difficult to get a good snap shot of the instantaneous > performance. > A precision flowmeter should give a reasonable approximation of instantaneous performance. Not as good as the cooling water loop. > The technique used by Mats is the best that can be had under these > circumstances. > Yes, that is true. Without a flowmeter he cannot do much better. We can't ask him to repeat this dozens of times, making sure to hold the hose at exactly the same height every time. Move it up or down a little and you get a different result. > I do not feel that he had significant errors in his determination of the > flow. > I am pretty sure he must have had significant errors, based on my experience with pond pumps, and based on the complexity of this system. If you disagree I suggest you try messing around with pumps . . . and try modeling a system with a mixture of steam and water in it. That's a nightmare. > The input flow meter leaves doubt also. The leakage is unknown and level > of water is not ensured to be topped off. > That is true. The trick would be to stop the leak. > There is evidence that the vapor has an existence above the water that > varies. > I do not see what difference that would make. You measure the flow in the pipe leading into the reactor, just above the pump. - Jed
