[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/16/thoughts-on-1mw-plant-schematic-engineer48/']The following post and drawing has been submitted by Engineer48 My thoughts on a possible 1MW plant schematic. Please consider and add to this proposed 1MW plant schematic as the better we make this schematic, the more we will understand how the plant functioned. Engineer48[/feedquote]
Thoughts on 1MW Plant Schematic (Engineer48)
-
Wow, this is better then the moth light.
It looks even more stupid. Anyone having time to create a schematic, also should take the time, to create it properly. This is absolute nonsense, ridiculous and stupid, as the entire Rossi story is going to become. And that is very likely the case. -
At the age of five my son made similar drawings! The scheme looks like a coke refinement process...
-
Based on the last news on Rossi-Stuff, Your son might even be faster then Rossi, in exploring and explaining e-cat functions at all, and even more important, reliably.
-
The schematic is interesting. Main feature I notice: the "condensate tank." If this is used and it is clear that there is no connection between the pipe from the customer area and the input line to the Plant, that any steam would be sparged, this would eliminate one of the possible fraud modes: a direct connection between the outlet and inlet lines, thus allowing steam back into the Plant coolant feed. It also would rule out supplying chemical fuel through that pipe, another conceivable fraud mode.
The diagram does not show what may have been a feature, the devices may be operated in pairs, with the lower one being "immersed" entirely in water, feeding hot water and/or wet steam to the upper device, which then is only partly immersed, and the upper fins of it could then superheat the steam. Otherwise, as shown the device would probably not generate superheated steam or would be inefficient.
Why so much effort wold be put into generating superheated steam is unclear. It would be enough that wet steam is limited to a certain level. Having part of the reactor not immersed will create more difficult, less controlled conditions inside the reactor, with uneven cooling. Difficult to control. And I am not sure it would work. Engineer48 has mentioned "superheated steam" at a pressure of 0.2 barG, and 105 C. Such steam would be saturated, not superheated. In fact, 105 C is slightly below the boiling point at that pressure. Yet these are the kinds of figures that Rossi has used, if I'm correct. So something is off.
I have not seen that the diagram is supported by references, so this is Engineer48's idea. Nevertheless, it can be a basis for discussion, and that is commendable. Unfortunately, the forum is not ideal.
-
People who do not have first-hand information should not go overboard speculating about things. For example, here is how Donald Rumsfeld imagined Bin Laden's mountain fortress in Tora Bora looked like, in 2001:
http://usvsth3m.com/post/93407…llain-style-mountain-lair
Bin Laden's lair turned out to be less impressive.
-
Engineer48 has mentioned "superheated steam" at a pressure of 0.2 barG, and 105 C. Such steam would be saturated, not superheated. In fact, 105 C is slightly below the boiling point at that pressure. Yet these are the kinds of figures that Rossi has used, if I'm correct.
That is not quite right. Rossi said the pressure is 0.0 bar (not barG). In other words, it is a perfect vacuum. I doubt that!I have heard there were earlier versions of the data showing positive pressure in bars, somewhat above 1 bar, which indicated the fluid was hot water, not steam. For some strange reason these pressure figures were later revised to 0.0 bar. I can't imagine why.
-
Jed
I made this mistake, 0.0 bar on the gauge is in fact 1 bar when accounting for atmospheric pressure. At this pressure water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. Its not a perfect vacuum.
The strange reason? if the e-cat is not a 'pressure vessel' then it cannot be classed as a 'boiler'.
Best regards
Frank -
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Engineer48 has mentioned "superheated steam" at a pressure of 0.2 barG, and 105 C. Such steam would be saturated, not superheated. In fact, 105 C is slightly below the boiling point at that pressure. Yet these are the kinds of figures that Rossi has used, if I'm correct.That is not quite right. Rossi said the pressure is 0.0 bar (not barG). In other words, it is a perfect vacuum. I doubt that!
I have heard there were earlier versions of the data showing positive pressure in bars, somewhat above 1 bar, which indicated the fluid was hot water, not steam. For some strange reason these pressure figures were later revised to 0.0 bar. I can't imagine why.
The comment from Engineer48 was on Peter Gluck's blog, and he got the figure, he claims from Rossi. 0.2 barG and 105 C, and this is an obvious reference to the boiling point at 0.2 barG, assuming 1.0 bar atmospheric. It's actually just a tad above 105 C, but very close. And Rossi, in the Agreement, considered that steam had to be 100 C. Which is obviously too low in a system with any back pressure. Engineer48 consistently called this steam, "superheated steam," but it would not be. And he continued to repeat the error.
But his diagram seems to suggest superheating by having the water level in the E-cat only go part way up the cooling fins. That's a very weird design, since the fins will presumably be highly heat conductive, so the fins above will not be much hotter than the fins below. I have no idea why major effort would be put into superheated steam, to avoid some level of wetness. Yeah, if you can prove it's superheated, then you have no residual unevaporated water to contend with, but ... this would be placing "proof" above function.
So Rossi used the wrong unit spelling. Big deal. He obviously meant barG, i.e,. gauge pressure, which is differential from atmospheric. It is a bit of a nuisance, because absolute pressure will give the boiling point with no complications.
-
I made this mistake, 0.0 bar on the gauge is in fact 1 bar when accounting for atmospheric pressure.
Nope. I have heard it used to say 1.2 or 1.4 or something. (Not sure what.) It was changed to 0.0 bar. It was never meant to be barG.The strange reason? if the e-cat is not a 'pressure vessel' then it cannot be classed as a 'boiler'.
The strange reason is that Rossi and Penon are liars, who erase data to hide the truth.I was joking about the vacuum.
-
by the way to make superheated steam, is there a possibility
First to heat water at high pressure (120C at 2barA), then depressurize it quickly with a sprinkler in an expansion chamber.Is it a workable method?
NB: for computations
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/c…steam-table-pressure.html -
Incredulity is not an argument.
-
@Alain. Generally steam locomotive engineers found that sudden pressure drops (as in an expanding piston space in an engine) would create tiny droplets of (possibly superheated) water in the steam- something that led to the rapid wear of exhaust valves. The solution was to raise the exhaust steam temperature higher - by raising the in;et temperature even more - and modifying the valves.
So while your idea is possible, it may bring along unexpected problems.
