Your first point supports the idea that the control would need to exist within each of the sources at an elevated temperature. I assume 130 C. Water leaving all of the units at such a controlled temperature would deliver a constant power if the water flow rate were constant. This is not to say a power delivery rate is 1 MW is required.
I don't understand what you refer to as no feedback control by terms. It would not be required by my scenario, but why not allowed? I also assume that the liquid level within each unit is not actively regulated. The coolant just needs to have a sufficient flow rate to fill up the ECATs at a modest pressure. It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the un boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the individual heating drive elements. This is not required in my scenario but not disallowed. My scenario is that the steam supplied to the customer is very wet indeed. If dry, then much more power would be delivered to the customer than many believe. Your last statement is pretty much what I have been attempting to simulate in support of the idea that 1 MW is not being supplied. You should read over my previous posts and I suspect you will find much in common with my thoughts. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation And BTW if the beast put out a continuous 1 MW, then it was impossible to control the power level via feedback from the output temperature. Any such feedback control would have caused the power output to vary down from the nominal 1 MW. So, there was no feedback control of the power level, by definition of the terms of the test. And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, by testimony of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate. In short, there was no possible active matching of power level to flow rate. The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient to exactly vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore, coincidence. (Either that, or the steam was not dry.) Am I missing something? When stated this way, this sounds like a no-brainer, even without reference to any of the details of the setup. If this thing was supposed to produce dry steam, and its output temp was always within a few degrees of boiling, then it had to be a fake.