Alan, The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam beyond 100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative. Does this affect your analysis?
Jack On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > *From: *"David Roberson" <dlrober...@aol.com> > *Sent: *Thursday, November 6, 2014 10:09:13 AM > > > I was referring to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the > usefulness of the steam itself. Accurate measurement of the heat power is > the important issue at hand. Of course the guys calculating the COP must > know how much heat the steam contains. That seems obvious and not needing > to be stated. > > Still needs to be taken into account. They don't describe the structure > of the "boiler". Since they're only aiming for 100C steam the hotcat > heater elements are most likely immersed in a tank of water, so they just > boil the water and don't super-heat the resulting steam. > > In that case it's most like a kettle boiler, which will typically (is this > situation typical?) generate 95% steam quality. Depending on the > application they might not even need "dry" 100C steam. > > In the original test they just had a simple outlet valve to check that no > liquid water was escaping. They probably had that here, too, though it's > not described. > > A real-life steam customer will be happy just seeing some steam vented, > with no liquid water running out of the outlet. > > But it won't satisfy scientists and skeptics. Or the patent office? >
