I proposed a scenario of how the 1 MW system was operated and it seemed obvious that it would be quite simple to allow the water level within the ECAT to slowly drop throughout the test. This process would eliminate the demand for super accurate power output that is a sticking point for the skeptical among us. They insist that the output flow must always be exactly equal to the input flow, which is most likely in error. This also allows the ECAT water level to be below full which has several advantages. With this condition, there is a relatively large space above the water for vapor to exist which can then exit at 100 % quality. Also, the internal temperature of the individual ECATs depends upon the pressure at the output port.
If I were Rossi, this is the way I would have wanted to run the big test. And, if too much water was evaporating from the ECATs, the pump flow could be increased slightly. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle David Roberson wrote: So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. Oh right. Power level. I was talking about the T2 temperature remaining stable. I confused the issue. Naturally, the water level might have fluctuated. It must have, given the very low flow rate recorded by Lewan when the power was at at the lowest point during the self sustaining event. It could not have been overflowing at that time. - Jed
