The ERV is well enough qualified that he is less likely to be confused
than say Murray.
He is the only independent judge there. That is the whole purpose of
having an ERV.
On 8/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As Ihave stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is
being supplied to the customer. If the ERV is mistaken that the steam
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.
If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric
while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry. But that is the root
of the problem; both parties do not agree that this is true. Only one
can be right in this case. Also, there is no law of nature that
ensures that what the ERV states is true. He may be confused by the
location of gauges, etc.
AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not
under automatic control according to his picture. If true, that would
eliminate the feedback level control that was discussed earlier. It
is my opinion that some form of automatic level control is required in
order to produce a stable system that prevents liquid filling or dying
out of the CATS. This is an important factor that both of the parties
should address.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: a.ashfield <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure. That is
dry steam.
That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.
On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
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 <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
