I followed the calculation below with an additional one to further my research.
For the second calculation I used the flow rate information supplied by
Engineer48 for the 24 pumps that were manually set from the front panel. With
this data I determined that the power delivered to the customer would be 30.1
kW under the following assumptions:
Twenty two of the pumps were delivering full flow of 18 kg per hour while two
were operating at 1/2 full rate of 9 kg per hour. The total was therefore 414
kg per hour which translates to .115 kg/second.
The temperature of the water inside all of the ECAT sections was controlled at
130 C, which is in line with what was seen during several of Rossi's single
unit demonstrations.
All of this water then escaped through a restrictive, pressure dropping orifice
such that some of the liquid flashed into steam according to the below analysis.
The resulting water filled vapor flow was sent to the customer with a pressure
reading of approximately atmospheric and a temperature of 102 C as below. In
this case the gauges would read correctly.
Water finally returned from the customer at 68 C, in liquid form, back to the
Rossi system.
A further calculation of the power delivered to the customer if it is assumed
that all of the water is in the form of vapor with zero water at 102 C and
atmospheric pressure would be 275 kW. Within this scenario the water returns
at 68 C as before.
The purpose of these calculations is to seek a possible hypothesis as to how
the power being sent to the customer could be dramatically less than one might
calculate if he depended upon the gauge readings and did not have a method to
verify that the mass supplied to the customer was dry steam. If it can be
shown that a steam quality measuring device was located between the Rossi
system and the customer that indicated dry steam then the power delivered would
be much closer to the 275 kW level. If not, then 30.1 kW could well be
possible.
Detailed calculation are available upon request.
Dave
On 8/20/2016 1:51 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Today I made an interesting calculation that
some may find relevant to the ongoing
discussions.
According to steam tables, the following
could be possible, assuming that I did
not make a mistake in my calculations.
Assume you have 1kg of water inside a
solid container at 130 C and 39.2 psi
absolute. Then you place a restriction
device that allows all of the liquid to
eventually escape. Some of the liquid will
immediatly flash into vapor while most of the 1
kg remains in the liquid form as it exits the
restriction. If you assume that the resulting
mixture ends up at 102 C and 15.75 psi absolute
then it is possible to calculate the
amount of vapor and liquid that is
present at that location.
The internal energy of the initial
liquid at 130 C is 546.388 kj/kg which
in this case yields 546.388 thousand
joules. I am assuming that this same amount of
energy remains within the liquid and vapor
combintation of the lower temperature and
pressure stream.
When I solved the equation relating the
quality of the mixture to the various
heat contents I determined that there
would be .053 kg or vapor and .947 kg of liquid
water at the output. On first glance, this
result suggests that it should be easy to
separate the water from the steam, but actually
calculating the two volumes makes that not so
evident.
The volume of the vapor would be .053 kg
* 1.565 cubic meters per kg = .0826
cubic meters. The volume of the liquid
water would be .947 kg* .001045 cubic meters
per kg = .000989 cubic meters.
Using the above numbers it appears that
you would have 83.488 times as much
vapor by volume as liquid. This is
quite a large ratio which suggests that it might
well be possible to mistake a stream of mass
with this consistency as consisting of only
vapor. Especially if a visual technique were
used.
I am not saying that this calculation
reveals the source of the Rossi test
confusion, but that perhaps it might
open discussions that have not been considered
so far. I do recall that on earlier
demonstrations that the temperature within the
ECATs was reported to be in the range of 130 C.
Perhaps some of our mathematically
inclined vortex residents can take a few
moments to verify that my assumptions
and calculations make sense.
Dave
