On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The steam experts were right in the INITIAL steam discussions. I agree > with you. But they were being asked about steam quality, not water > "overflow." > Krivit raised his questions on steam quality which were, more than likely, > bullshit. Steam quality and "entrained droplets" were totally unnecessary > and confused a valid issue. > While I agree with your fundamental point, that the data do not show that more than a small fraction of the water was vaporized, I think the picture you show cannot represent reality, and that the idea of steam quality and mist and entrained drops is relevant to what was observed at the end of the hose, and in particular, why Lewan only collected about half the liquid that went in. The reason that picture is wrong is because the steam is formed in the ecat, not at the water surface. Then it has to bubble through the water. It takes only 1% vaporization (by mass) to produce 94% gas by volume. So, you would not see the chimney full of quiet water like that. The chimney would be mostly gas, and the turbulence would produce a lot of droplets that would be carried into the hose by the fast moving steam. Depending on the actual geometry of the chimney, the water might be forced up the walls into the hose (a kind of annular flow). Or Rossi might use a nozzle to promote the formation of mist. That way, much of the water could disappear into the air as a mist at the end of the hose. And that could easily explain why Lewan collected only half the liquid, even if only a few per cent was actually vaporized.
