That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of heat
generation and water input flow. For example, if 1% extra liquid water is
continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will eventually overflow and
begin to flow out of the port as a combination of vapor and liquid water
leading to wet steam. This would take place at a constant temperature which
would make thermal control difficult.
On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then
eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon entry. It
might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under this condition
since the chamber would likely begin to rise in temperature without adequate
coolant. Here, the temperature feedback would be asked to take over control of
the process.
Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious due to
having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the system. Do you now
believe that level control is not being used in the system? I am not totally
convinced that feedback water level control is not part of the main plan once
everything settles down in production. That control technique would go a long
way toward ensuring dry steam is always generated.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
You don't need "active feedback." The steam escapes the reactor
shortly after being formed
On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As I have 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.
Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to believe
the effluent is dry steam. The heat capacity of steam is so small
compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would expect the
temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be driven well above
boiling -- not just barely over it.
This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the
beginning: There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature barely
above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees above. Either
there's feedback nailing the power output to the level needed to just
exactly vaporize the water (with essentially no heat left over to
superheat the steam), or there is feedback nailing the water flow rate to
the be just fast enough to consume all the heat from the system in
vaporizing the water, or there is a miraculous coincidence between the
heat produced and the water flow rate.
We know there's no feedback controlling the flow rate, because that
was rock steady.
No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing about
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to believe such a
thing exists. In fact we don't even know that the reaction (if there is a
reaction) can be controlled with the precision needed to keep the output
temperature so close to boiling -- and we also have no reason to believe
anyone would even want to do that.
So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that
the "feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling is
provided by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently the steam
must be very wet.
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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <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
