I'm afraid you seem to know nothing about which you write.
"The temperature and flow rate of the cooling water through the condenser controls the temperature of the condensate. This in turn controls the saturation pressure (vacuum) of the condenser. To prevent the condensate level from rising to the lower tubes of the condenser, a hotwell level control system may be employed. Varying the flow of the condensate pumps is one method used to accomplish hotwell level control. A level sensing network controls the condensate pump speed or pump discharge flow control valve position. Another method employs an overflow system that spills water from the hotwell when a high level is reached.
Condenser vacuum should be maintained as close to 29 inches Hg as practical. This allows maximum expansion of the steam, and therefore, the maximum work. If the condenser were perfectly air-tight (no air or noncondensable gasses present in the exhaust steam), it would be necessary only to condense the steam and remove the condensate to create and maintain a vacuum. The sudden reduction in steam volume, as it condenses, would maintain the vacuum. Pumping the water from the condenser as fast as it is formed would maintain the vacuum. It is, however, impossible to prevent the entrance of air and other noncondensable gasses into the condenser. In addition, some method must exist to initially cause a vacuum to exist in the condenser. This necessitates the use of an air ejector or vacuum pump to establish and help maintain condenser vacuum."
Right: so is the system described in that article open or closed? Three guesses...
Our GCH radiator system is closed. So are many steam systems. But not Rossi's.
Well I think it would be little more like a seesaw balancing trick to get a flow with 1 atmospere at the point of measurement. It would not only require a drop in pressure at the 'customers' end, but also a slight positive pressure in the reactors. But hey, that's possible with a feedback system to maintain that perfect balance and no doubt an important clue as to the 'Rossi Effect'.... or not
I just get bored with mentioning all this stuff: there are so many things that don't work in this Rossi system. One is this. To keep a temperature of boiling point (as is observed) you need both liquid and gas phases in equilibrium. That then shows Rossi's magnificent assumption of phase change is busted. You can have anything from 0.1% to 99.9% phase change and still buffer teh temperature. But 100% phase change, as Rossi and IHFB claim this 103C temperature implies, would mean no stabilisation and the temperature would be very highly variable. The phase change power (2250kJ/kg) is much higher than the gas spec heat capacity 2kJ/kgK
Thus a 0.1% change in power output, or flow rate, would result in a 1C change in temperature if not buffered.
We have here a magnificent (impossible) control system doing something that in any case is quite unnecessary. Also, Rossi has just happened to make the controlled temperature very close to boiling point, instead of at 150C that would clearly at the given pressure be gas phase. Why would that be? Does he not want the 89M?
the whole thing is absurd and I guess I keep on posting here because the engineering lack of common sense of IHFB and a few others annoys me...