On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On the other hand, if boiling begins at 11:00, then the power > > increase should be Pdot = 2Q/t^2 = 31 W/s, giving a power of > > 31*144*60 = 270 kW at 13:22. > > Indeed, I got that wrong, 160 W/s doesn't make sense, but 45 W/s may > fit. I get 31 W/s to bring the water to a boil from 30C in 90 min. > > Since the ecats are not full, water will not flow out of them when > > the pumps are turned on and turning them on only adds a volume flow > > rate of 675L/h = .19 L/s, or 1.8 mL/s per module, which is a tiny > > fraction of a per cent of the total volume flow rate. In fact, since > > adding cool water will remove heat otherwise going into steam, the > > total volume flow rate of steam stays the same (at 490 kW). > > Therefore this increase in the temperature of the input reservoir > > cannot correlate with the pump turning on as you describe. > > Water did not necessarily flow out directly. I'd like to invoke the > "water clog" theory (see my other post). Sorry, this makes no sense to me. If the output power is 470 kW, the steam flow rate does not change when the pumps are turned on. That would mean the steam production rate would exactly match the input flow rate, and the level would remain constant. And your clog theory doesn't hold water. After the heat exchanger, there is only liquid, all the time. It is forced into the reservoir by the continuous pressure behind it (that produces a bp of 105C). What do you think it is blown out with? Steam doesn't get through the exchanger, and if it did, and there were no clog, the temperature would increase much faster. > > Finally, Rossi and his engineer claim a constant input flow rate for > > the full 5.5 hours, and this is not an assumption about which they > > could be reasonably be mistaken (like the output flow rate, or the > > effectiveness of their trap). > > They don't explicitly claim that. > > They manifestly computed the flow rate of 675.6 l/h by dividing 3716 l > by 5.5 h, because they state that the regulated flow rate is 700 l (2 > x 350 l/h). > They don't measure the total volume (how could they, if they are mixing the input and output, and adding water from the mains, and the total volume exceeds the size of the reservoirs), so the total volume is calculated from the measured flow rate. The report says that the "water *flow rate* has been measured by a scaled reservoir and a chronograph all the times that the Customer's consultant has deemed appropriate." It's not obvious what that means, whether they periodically measure the change in an input reservoir weight for a known time (with inputs off), or whether they briefly divert the output of the pump to a scaled reservoir periodically, but it is clear they periodically measure the flow rate. Rossi said somewhere (although not in the report, probably on his site) that the engineer brought his own flow rate meters and measured the flow with those. The 700 L/h is likely the nominal setting, and the 675 is the measured flow. > > So far I haven't found anything significantly wrong with the 1 MW > demo. Well, you have to construct an elaborate, implausible scenario that contradicts Rossi's report to make it fit the energy claim, which, even if it made sense, doesn't exclude far simpler scenarios that fit the measurements, but not the energy claims. That's what's wrong with it.
