On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I obtain
30000 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This is 4.75
hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one refill in the 5.5
hour period. Do you agree?
>You're right about the flow rate. I slipped a decimal point, so the water only
>changes 1.1 times in 5.5 hours. It's a simpler calculation than you did though
>(and I still got it wrong): 675 L/h is 675/107 = 6.3 L/h per ecat, so in 5.5
>hours that's 34.7 liters or about 1.1 ecat. >That changes the requirement for
>accurate flow rate to satisfy your condition to 10%, but I no longer think
>that's relevant, and as it happens, unnecessary to counter your argument.
>Here's why.
This was one of the easier things for us to agree on. I am sure there are many
more if we continue to evaluate the system.
>If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree that
>if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be
>accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the water
>level. In this case, the steam has to be at >the boiling point, because there
>is nothing to heat the steam after it is formed. If you agree that the
>measured output temperature is at the boiling point though, then the question
>about why it's so stable is not necessary. Because that's what I was trying to
>establish >in the first place. If the output were 1% steam, it would also be
>at the boiling point. Since the temperature is the only thing measured, it
>does not constitute evidence for dry steam.
I think we both think that the system operates as you described above. The
heater is submerged and the dry steam exits the output check valve heading
toward the dissipaters. We are beginning to make a lot of progress. I hope
that we reach a good consensus as I would be happy to admit a problem with the
ECAT if we uncover one. I want to be sure that Rossi delivers what he suggests.
>The reason I asked the question about the stable temperature, was to counter
>the claim that the temperature was above the boiling point, and therefore the
>steam must be dry. I think F. made that claim in his interview with Lewan, or
>at least implied it. If the steam is >above the boiling point, then part of
>the heaters must be exposed to heat the steam. And in that case the level
>would be regulated pretty tightly by the need to balance the ecat power with
>the output power, since the power transfer would depend strongly on the
>>amount of the heater submerged. With the level relatively stable, the output
>flow rate would be pretty constant, and then fluctuations in power would
>result in fluctuations in steam temperature. An increase in the power would
>cause a brief increase in the boiling rate, >but that would reduce the level,
>causing the boiling rate to decrease, restoring the level, so the increased
>power would have to be removed by hotter steam. It is undoubtedly not as
>simple as the formula I gave, but if the steam is already a few degrees above
>the >boiling point, it seems pretty reasonable that power fluctuations would
>result in significant temperature fluctuations.
Super heating is not in the cards in my opinion. The system design did not
suggest that to me so I have never really thought about it in any detail.
>So, the relatively stable output temperature indicates that it is at the
>boiling point (including in your scenario), or the power is stable to 1% (in
>the second scenario).
Yes, I agree that the boiling of the water within the ECAT devices is linked to
the output via the check valve and thus the temperature is controlled to a
reasonable degree. The interactions among the various ECATs can get very
interesting with the non linear behavior associated with the valve performance.
>But I think we agree that the output is at the boiling point. And to my mind,
>that means there is no evidence of dry steam.
We are in agreement that the output is at the boiling point plus any strange
valve modifications. But to me the fact that the steam must exit through a
small aperture that sits above the water level suggests that it will be pretty
dry. And, the lack of water collection in the capture vessel suggests pretty
dry steam. The layout of the piping for the steam path was arranged to allow
the HVAC engineer to capture any significant water that flows inside these
pipes. I have to assume that he is experienced in this type of testing and
would understand any mechanism that demonstrates low quality vapor. This is
the type of trick one learns on the job.
>The issue of the 8-fold power transfer increase suggests that dry steam is not
>reached for at least several hours after the onset of boiling, and of course,
>there is no evidence that it is ever reached.
I have not evaluated this issue yet. I assume that we can get to the bottom of
the reason for the indication if we have all of the pertinent facts.
I suspect that we can agree on another factor after this discussion. In your
earlier posts, you seemed to insist that the actual power output was 70 kW or
in that ball park. I have not made the calculation yet, so I will accept your
figure at this time. But, now I assume that you would allow that the output
must be somewhat greater since we can see that a lot of vapor is generated by
the ECATs. Do you agree that the output is heading toward the 480 kW range now?
I have just begun to analyze the test results for the 1 MW system so it will be
beneficial to go through all of the talking points, one at a time, to see if
the system makes sense and can be better understood. I would propose that the
pressure within the input region of the dissipaters is slightly above
atmospheric. Someone needs to calculate the pressure required to push the
condensed water out of the system and into the holding bin. My first guess is
that some where near 5 psi would do the task. This is just a guess and I would
appreciate it if someone within vortex could help obtain a more accurate figure.
