Joshua, Stephen, I have no desire to incessantly argue my POV - till I'm blue in the face. As I've stated many times in the past, I might be wrong.
In any case I think I now understand where our mutual misunderstanding might lie. There appears to be a semantics problem, one that may have obfuscated our mutual perception of the situation. My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume of water entering the reactor core could vary. Obviously, I could be very wrong on this key point. I thought it was obvious to any observer reading my posts that I was implying that there would always be a sufficient amount of water being fed into the internal reactor core in order to make sure it never ran dry. To be more precise, I was implying that the VOLUME of liquid water within the core would remain relatively stable, or fixed. Obviously, if the reactor core gets hotter, but the amount of water entering remains fixed the amount of water converted into steam would increase. This would subsequently REDUCE the volume of liquid H2O within the reactor core, and more gaseous H2O would end up being exposed to internal surface area of the reactor core for longer periods of time, and yes, indeed, I agree with both Josh and Stephen, that the H2O gas should increase in temperature. Indeed, simple conservation of energy explains this. OTOH, if the volume of liquid H2O within the reactor core can be maintained at a constant volume, it would obviously imply that the volume of water being fed into the system would have to vary/increase as the reactor core temperature increased - to compensate... and I believe my original premise would then be more accurate. To be honest, I have not studied carefully the actual numerical figures given in the January test, and that is my fault. I could be wrong on this point but I will assume the January test states that the amount of water being fed into the January test was always maintained at a fixed volume flow. Is this correct? If so, my original premise would not apply here. Feel free to verify my conclusion, or disagree with it. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
