On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without >>> feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow. >>> All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the >>> liquid flow at the boiling point (for that pressure) and transport away all >>> the power within the heat of latent heat provided by the nearly >>> discontinuous rise in effective specific heat of water at the boiling point. >>> >> >> Again, I don't follow. That sounds like a mixture of phases. The specific >> heat of water decreases at the boiling point. The specific heat of steam is >> about half that of liquid water, but it's more the heat transfer >> coefficient that is relevant there. If you're talking about the specific >> heat of liquid, it does not change discontinuously anywhere. >> > > My use of the qualifier "effective specific heat" could be replaced by > "effective mass flow rate" -- > But the effective mass flow rate does not change discontinuously at the boiling point. It changes continuously as the degree of vaporization changes continuously. > the point is to project the effect of latent heat of vaporization into > another dimension to illustrate its temperature control effect. > So, the temperature is being regulated by a mixture of phases, then. The water pump pressure feeding the E-Cat could be very high relative to >>> atmospheric pressure, and the pressure drop at the exit from the E-Cat >>> could be quite substantial prior to the thermocouple, resulting in a dry -- >>> even superheated -- steam. >>> >> >> No, it would not convert from liquid to dry steam unless the temperature >> of the liquid water was over 600C, and that would require implausible >> pressures. >> > > That's true if there is no latent heat of vaporization represented in the > liquid water. > I have no idea what this means, but it sounds like water memory. The thermal energy in water is determined by the phase, the pressure, and the temperature. It will not vaporize completely at 1 atm, unless it starts out at about 600C. > With careful setting of the water flow rate, one can approach vaporization > within the reactor vessel without any actual vaporization. > Sure, but then the temperature is still strongly dependent on the power transfer. You don't get temperature regulation if the water is all liquid. THAT is the critical parameter here. Indeed, for effective heat transfer, > you don't want ANY vaporization as the heat transfer drops off > precipitously as soon as you start forming surface bubbles. > That's true. And then what happens is the heating element gets hotter, increasing the heat transfer rate. > For Rossi to allow bubbles to form on the heat transfer surface would be > dangerous if the reaction rate was indeed proportional to temperature as he > says. Did Rossi carefully tweak his resistive heating sustained system so > that he achieved, say, 200C inside the reaction vessel with a liquid water > flow very close to, but not achieving vaporization? At this point, until > convinced otherwise, I'm not willing to dispense with any further > investigations on the speculation that he could not have done so. > The original objection still stands. If he is not producing vapor, the stable temperature indicates stable power. Only a mixture of phases provides regulation. > You'll have to explain it again for those of us with shit for brains, >> because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how you've countered the >> very simple claim that the well regulated temperature corresponds to a 1% >> regulation in power, unless there is a mixture of phases. >> > > Where did I call you "shit for brains"? > In nextbigfuture in the discussion on the spawar rumor. The moderator took the salutation (Dear shit for brains) out the same day, but it's still in the summation. Maybe it was a different James Bowery. Sorry, I regret bringing it up.
