Bob,

I would agree with your assessment that the steam is dry if we can be ensured 
that there is a moisture separator in the proper location.  Have you seen any 
evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally dry then Rossi's system is 
probably working much as he states.

My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific evidence 
to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the ECAT system is 
dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is not clear that the fluid 
flow rate is low enough to null that opinion without further proof.

I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the quality of 
steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct conflict to what I.H. 
states with respect to the temperature and pressure values.  I am hoping there 
is a method which connects their different beliefs in a scientific and 
reasonable manner.  Let's hope that neither is directly falsifying the data.

Dave

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation






Dave--


The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the liquid phase 
and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions are  1 bar at a temperature 
above the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.   



The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.  



Bob


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
 

Dave--




Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave









Reply via email to