On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and > I was in error.» > > No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his explanation > would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers would be impossible, > because all water would escape from tea pots as low quality steam when > water starts boiling. > Only if the input flow rate to the boiler or tea pot exceeded the rate of steam formation. That's not what happens in boilers though, but if the ecat power were less than 470 kW, then that would *have* to happen. > Therefore it is impossible that ecat would produce less quality steam than > 99-98%, because low quality steam cannot be produced in low pressures and > it cannot exist in closed container where velocity is not ultra high > (pressure difference counted in megapascals). > This again. Please explain what would happen if the flow rate was 675 kg/L, and a power of say 235 kW was delivered to the ecats (electrically, or whatever). In that case, there is only enough power to vaporize half the incoming water. So, the other half has to leave as liquid. That means the fluid in the pipe is half liquid and half vapor (by mass) but 99.8% vapor (by volume). Therefore also Galantini's and Kullander's attempt to measure steam quality > was silly, because we knew a priori that steam quality was ca. 98.8%. But > of course steam quality does not tell us anything how much steam was formed > and how much water was overflown and percolated as hot water. > In the 2-phase literature, this mixture of percolated hot water and steam is still called low-quality steam. >Ps. What Joshua is mixing that he does not understand that hot water is not 0% quality steam, but it is, well, hot water. Actually hot water is 0% quality steam by definition.
