I wrote:
> It occurs to me that at 18:54, when Lewan measured 0.9 g/s of condensate, > that would indicate 2 kW, but that is assuming it was all vaporized. If > there were "slugs" of water coming out at that time, then there is no > telling how much enthalpy the 0.9 g represents. . . . . > Hmmm . . . Let's assume the inflow rate really is 4.2 mL/s. Does it make sense to say: if the reactor was overflowing at 18:54, with "slugs" of water, the outlet flow would have to be around 4.2 mL/s? Could it be overflowing at a much lower rate than the inflow? It seems to me that if it was full up, boiling, and overflowing, the outflow rate might fluctuate because the water is roiling and splashing, but it would have to be close to the inlet rate. Lewan measured the rate for 6 minutes. I suppose if the vessel was full and overflowing, it would be reasonably uniform over that duration . . . Hard to say. I guess this was at the end of the long hose. Who knows how that worked. You have to let the hose fill up before you start. It is frustrating trying to speculate about the thing with such thin evidence and poorly documented performance. Perhaps this is a waste of time. - Jed
