RE: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Just to clarify Terry's statement: LIQUID or SOLID water is heavier than air... Moist AIR is LESS DENSE than dry air! So water vapor is LESS DENSE than air... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. T
RE: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
From my time as a grad student at a place that did atmospheric research, and my research advisor being an expert on cloud physics... 1) water vapor is invisible, and when its mixed with air (N and O), it LESS DENSE than dry air, thus it rises. i.e., water evaporating off a lake is invisible and rises as a column of moist air until... 2) it reaches the condensation level, which is determined by the temperature and atmospheric pressure at any point as the vertical column of moist air is rising. 3) when that moist air reaches CL, water begins to condense onto dust particles. I.e., you need a nucleating particle onto which the water can condense, then the water droplet will grow by further condensation. Sodium iodide is commonly used as a nucleating agent in cloud seeding efforts. 4) Clouds can be VERY turbulent structures, with various vertical columns of rising air and columns of less humid falling air, and a significant shear at the boundaries!!! Ask any pilot who is still alive and has flown thru a reasonably large cumulus cloud. Can you say, E-ticket at Disneyland? 5) Whether the liquid water droplets in a cloud fall out (as rain) is simply a matter of how turbulent the cloud is (how strong the updrafts are) and how big the droplet are... As soon as the droplets reach a size that can no longer be supported by the updrafts, they fall out... 6) at the same time, dry air from above the cloud is being entrained (mixed) into the cloud causing dilution of the very humid cloud with drier air... This is for the usual convective cumulus clouds that most are familiar with. -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) At 08:54 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Sure it is, but water droplets can be airborne for a long time. Witness any cloud.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Hi, On 21-6-2011 9:08, Mark Iverson wrote: Just to clarify Terry's statement: LIQUID or SOLID water is heavier than air... Moist AIR is LESS DENSE than dry air! So water vapor is LESS DENSE than air... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. T mass N_2 28 gr/mol mass O_2 32 gr/mol mass H_2 O 18 gr/mol QED Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:54 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Eh, no, actually it takes a little more than that. The simple steam domes on old locomotives would keep liquid water from splashing into the pipes but a simple dome didn't produce dry steam all by itself. See, for instance, the following tangential steam dryer which could be fitted into a dome to turn it into an effective dryer: http://www.trainweb.org/j.dimech/6167/etsd.html They run the steam through a whizzy whirligig thing in order to get the entrained water droplets out of it. Gravity alone isn't enough, any more than gravity keeps dust from being entrained in the air in your house and your furnace ducts. To get out the water -- or the dust -- what you need to do is get the gas to go around a sharp turn; the entrained droplets (or dust) don't corner as well as gas, and will smash into the wall at that point. For a demonstration in your house, find a heating duct which is blowing on something (floor, ceiling, wall), such that the air needs to make a sharp turn as it comes out. You'll typically find a dirty spot where the entrained dust fell out of the air. For another example of the effect, find an old electric fan which has been heavily used, and look at the leading edges of the blades. The air must get out of the way very quickly as the blade comes around, and the entrained dust can't make the turn. Consequently, you end up with a layer of crud plastered onto the leading edges of the blades. But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it. How does it leave the surface of a liquid and remain a liquid? Even with evaporation, it's only the molecules with enough kinetic energy to overcome the liquid phase intermolecular forces that can leave the liquid. Obviously, I don't understand the basics of phase transition. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-21 02:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it. How does it leave the surface of a liquid and remain a liquid? Splashing. (At any rate, that's certainly one way.) Even with evaporation, it's only the molecules with enough kinetic energy to overcome the liquid phase intermolecular forces that can leave the liquid. Boiling water tends to do a lot of splashing, and a lot of liquid water gets projected into the air. I don't know, I'm waving my hands. None the less, the folks who designed steam locomotives seemed to think it was common to have wet steam. They cared enough about the issue to put in special steam dryers, which were, as the link I posted showed, a lot more complicated than a simple vertical pipe. Folks who are trying to comply with EN 285 worry about this kind of thing, too. Obviously, I don't understand the basics of phase transition. Sure you do -- enough for this, anyway. You just don't understand all the stuff the liquid water does at the boundary between air and water when a violent phase transition is taking place. And neither do I, that's for sure. The only solid thing I've gotten out of this so far is that, if the steam was dry, then the only clear temperature graph I've seen looks totally wrong, and, furthermore, if the steam was dry with no spitting, then there is not a shred of a sensible explanation for how (or why) the effluent temperature should have been nailed to boiling. Perhaps I spend too much time looking at graphs (it's part of what I do for my job, BTW). Perhaps I'm overconfident. But when a graph seems to want to tell me A!, and an expert is telling me B!, my immediate reaction is to wonder how the expert got it wrong... And if the steam wasn't dry, then at this point I sure don't trust Rossi, Levi, or Galantini, not one little bit. I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. OTOH if an in-private no-input test is done, which is enough to convince Rossi and Levi and maybe Galantini, but nobody else is at the party, I, for one, won't be convinced of anything. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I don't know, I'm waving my hands. Hi! waving back I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. Defkalion says they will not show the machine. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion says they will not show the machine. Oops, I see Jed already 'splained that. Messages are coming fast and furious. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton wrote: Defkalion says they will not show the machine. They said they will not demonstrate it. I am hoping they physically bring one into the room even if they do not run it. The good news is, they said they would discuss the machines. I expect that will include some technical details. It will not be a very convincing press conference otherwise. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 02:27 PM 6/21/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it. How does it leave the surface of a liquid and remain a liquid? Even with evaporation, it's only the molecules with enough kinetic energy to overcome the liquid phase intermolecular forces that can leave the liquid. Obviously, I don't understand the basics of phase transition. Yup. It leaves *without* phase transition. If you have a vigorous boil going on in a pot, when steam bubbles rise to the surface, they can cause little splashes of water that can be carried away by the gas flow, as mist. If there is trapped steam in the device, it can cause larger gushes of water. At low gas flow rate, a vertical pipe may handle drying it. At higher rates, no, the gas (steam) will just carry the mist with it.
[Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Hello group, Sorry for cluttering the mailing list by creating yet another new thread (please do tell me if it's starting to be an annoyance), but I wasn't unsure of where to post this and I thought it probably deserved a discussion of its own. It's a freshly uploaded Youtube video from Steven Krivit, filmed in Bologna, Italy, during his visit. I found the link in one of the latest comments on 22passi blog and strangely it hasn't appeared on New Energy Times as of yet. It shows Andrea Rossi explaining his Energy Catalyzer. But enough talking from me, I'll let the video (and Rossi) do it instead: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
An excellent video. The best yet. The sound quality is good. Unfortunately it cuts off after 18 minutes. You have to hand it to Krivit: he knows how to use a video camera to good effect. That's harder than it seems. If it were me behind the camera, you would only see the person from the neck down, or the lighting would be wrong, or the voice inaudible. In this steam test, Rossi weighed the reservoir to determine the total mass of water consumed. He weighed it before and after the test rather than leaving it on the scale, the way they did in the Jan. 14 test. When you leave it on the scale, you can record the weight periodically to be sure the flow rate remains constant. However, as pointed out here today, those pumps are reliable and do not vary, so this is not a big issue. EK do not mention whether they did this during the tests they observed. I think Rossi usually does. It is the kind of common sense technique he prefers. He is kind of slapdash at times, and he prefers rough estimates to exact numbers, but he knows what he is doing. I don't see a steam quality meter in this latest video, but I really, really think that issue should be put to bed. There was never any reason to doubt the steam is mostly dry, what with the second test. The brochures from Testo and Delta Ohm close the book on that dispute. Maybe I should update the LENR-CANR.org news item to point that out. I should make it explicit, since this wet/dry steam controversy has dragged on. I am sure the reason I linked to the brochure in the first place was to address this. I would have noticed if the brochure said it was not suitable! It said enthalpy and I thought bingo, that settles it, and honestly, it slipped my mind after that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Hah! Someone said there were no magnets involved. But, I heard the distinctive click of magnets as Rossi put the halves of his glasses together to read the gamma meter. :-) T PS Post as many threads as you please, Akira.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Unless liquid water is traveling up the chimney to the hose, the only way for the water to exit the reactor is to first be converted to a gas. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 02:42 PM 6/20/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E A very clear explanation ... but NOT an EXPERIMENT =8-) And, of course, it doesn't exclude a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake !
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
He beams the water out with a teleporter. ;) Haary - Original Message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 6:46:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) Unless liquid water is traveling up the chimney to the hose, the only way for the water to exit the reactor is to first be converted to a gas. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: And, of course, it doesn't exclude a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake ! It doesn't require a diversion. If the water level reaches the hose, liquid water will flow. If the water level never reaches the hose, it must be converted to steam to leave the reactor. They need a watch glass or an external water level indicator to prove that liquid water never reaches the level of the hose. Then they have proved their point by simply measuring the amount of water that is pumped into the reactor. Right now there is no way to tell how far the water level goes up the chimney. How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: He beams the water out with a teleporter. ;) Haary Krishna? :-) T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry wrote: How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? Terry speak for how the hell do I know for sure that liquid water is not flowing into the hose? If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. Harry
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 2011-06-20 23:42, Akira Shirakawa wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E It appears from this video that the data logger used during Krivit's visit was a Testo 177 T3 model which can only log temperatures. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong: http://i.imgur.com/QBsJT.jpg Testo US website for the 177 T3 logger: http://goo.gl/OGONu The Testo 176 H2 logger mentioned elsewhere can instead log both temperature and humidity. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: They need a watch glass or an external water level indicator to prove that liquid water never reaches the level of the hose. Then they have proved their point by simply measuring the amount of water that is pumped into the reactor. I don't understand what you mean. If that were happening, you would see liquid water flowing out of the pipe when Rossi removed the pipe from the drain. I suppose that does happen at first, before the heat turns on. How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? As I said, you would see it, wouldn't you? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. So will condensed steam once the hose diameter is blocked. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: As I said, you would see it, wouldn't you? Watch it. AR lifted up the hose to drain the water into the wall before showing the steam. Look, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just presenting a fact. Water can't get out of the reaction vessel without direct flow or becoming a gas first. If AR is right, steam condenses inside the hose. That will happen. Frankly, I tend to believe him; but, he seems to want to try to convince the world. He needs to show that he is not overflowing the chimney with water to convince me (at least). T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. Water changing state is always endothermic, even by evaporation (it's what cools humans on a hot day). Water cannot walk up the chimney and out the hose. Only a gas can do that. It's Newton's law. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Watch it. AR lifted up the hose to drain the water into the wall before showing the steam. Ah. I see what you mean. At around 10:50 he lifts up the hose. If AR is right, steam condenses inside the hose. That will happen. Yes, with such a long hose it has to be radiating heat, which means the water has to condense. That's why I suggested he test it with a short hose. A window would also be good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 05:42 PM 6/20/2011, you wrote: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E Remarkable. In this video, at about 10:40, Rossi acknowledges that there is a little water that, he claims, condenses in the hose. very small condensation, because this is very short, and so the maximum part is steam, that goes out. Krivit asks to see the steam. Rossi picks up the hose. He takes care, quite deliberately, it seems, raising the hose first, I interpret this as ensuring that water condensed in the hose runs down the drain. He pulls the hose out, holds it for a moment in the air, puts it back in the drain. Krivit starts sputtering himself, but Rossi understands. Meanwhile Levi has come up with a black T-shirt or other garment, which he holds up so that Rossi can hold the hose against it and we can see the steam, at about 11:25. I'm not certain what I'm seeing here. It seems to me sometimes that the steam is existing invisbly for a very short distance, which would indicate dry steam. Howver, sometimes I see the steam next to the outlet, this could be related to the end being moved around by Rossi. The volume of steam coming out seems low for the claimed power, just my impression, easily could be wrong. Rossi's explanation is not sound, that the steam isn't so visible because it's so hot. It's at normal temperature for steam!!! It will cool and condense, becoming visible, when it hits the ambient air. The only difference that will exist for various flow rates will be an increase in the plume size and an increase in the apparent velocity of any turbulence in it. The margin between the opening of the hose and the point at which the steam becomes visible will become larger (because it probably takes about the same time to cool, but if it's moving faster, it will travel further in that time.) The instability of the viewing of the steam plume is disappointing. I just looked again. I think I can see steam all the way down to the hose, which would imply that this is not dry steam, not completely, not exiting the hose. It might have been dry coming out of the E-Cat. The place to observe the steam would be at the valve, which they have completely covered here. The temperature inside the hose at the end would be of interest. If it's cooler, that would explain the visibility of steam. (A tee with valves on both branches would do it. The hose would run to the drain, as they have. To allow viewing the steam, they would open the valve on the vertical section of the tee fitting, and close the valve to the hose, wait a little while for the tee to heat up, and then one could view the steam plume clearly, with a black background, up very close. Nice test would be a small increase or decrease in heater power, which should fairly rapidly lengthen or shorten the position at which the plume becomes visible. I've suggested having a steam whistle on the vent, for fun. But the flow rate might not be adequate. Maybe a small whistle. Levi, by the way, has a great deal of fun with the black T-shirt or sweatshirt, clowning for the camera. Nice human touch.) My inclination is to believe that the device is actually boiling all the water going through, but that's got to be qualified by hedges. If we could see that the steam exiting the E-cat was invisible, and that no water was spitting out, that would ice it, and that should be so simple to do that I'm left with what has become my default hypothesis. Rossi is making weak demonstrations, and deliberately. And, of course, Krivit is not made a witness to details such as weighing the water input, etc. This is basically a Trust me demo, which is his right, and we can even appreciate the opportunity to see this, but I have to conclude that Rossi has no interest in convincing skeptics. It's quite understandable. Either way! (Real/fraud.)
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:47 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Water changing state is always endothermic, even by evaporation (it's what cools humans on a hot day). Water cannot walk up the chimney and out the hose. Only a gas can do that. It's Newton's law. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. Well, as you said, it might be filling up the chimney and then flowing out. You need a window to be sure. If he had held the tube up to the black cloth for several minutes I suppose we would have seen it. I don't see an RH meter in this test. Rossi says the hose is short but it seems long to me. Enough to radiate a lot of heat. About as much as a 1 or 2 kW electric heater, which means the steam has lost a lot of its umph by the time it reaches the end, to address Abd's concern. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Here is an estimative of the power output of the steam based on the video. What do you people think? Is it OK? It gives only 16Wats as the output. http://disq.us/2bl5a3 * We, who've actually boiled water on a stove, we who've actually done any thermodynamics in the lab (or industry). We can see. That is a ½ inch (13 mm) copper tube. Its inside diameter is less than 10 mm. Using those dimensions, and a video editor, then following the turbulent features, I measure the steam maximum velocity as 14 cm/s. But hey — the invisible part is undoubtedly faster. Let's say 25 cm/s Circular volume is circular area times length of a cylinder (or rate of flow in cm/s). ( 14 cm × (3.14 × (($radius = ( 1.0 cm / 2) ↑ 2 = 11 cubic cm [ML] per second. Now, as I recall, I was expecting about 3120 ML/s. That makes this evolution 11/3120 … 0.35% of expected for a 4.7 KW unit. 0.35% ( 4700 ) = 16.5 watts. 16 watts Daniel, is nowhere NEAR 4,700 watts. Sure as the sun rises, this demonstration is bullsnot. Complete bullsnot. With that relatively tiny pipe, I'd expect a roaring plume to come out at 4,700 watts. Because, lest anyone (and especially you, since you seem kind of naïve in the ways of boiling-water physics) forget… 4,700 watts of heat is approximately 2 of the “large” coil standard kitchen range electric burners. Even ONE of those gets a remarkable amount of steam flowing from a hot-water kettle. Bullsnot. Thanks for the video. Unforgettable tripe. G O A T G U Y *
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi says the hose is short but it seems long to me. Enough to radiate a lot of heat. Yeah, in the video, he knew better than to grab the hose with his hand. He paused to grab something to hold the hose. The hose is hot; so, heck yeah, it's radiating a lot of heat. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
sorry to say: in that video I hear a stroke frequency of 20/min, perhaps a bit more. That means flow 3 kg/hr. For 7 kg/hr you would need 60 strokes/min. Mains tension in Italy is 230 V and not 220 V, see Wikipedia. A bit shocked, Angela -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: in that video I hear a stroke frequency of 20/min, perhaps a bit more. That means flow 3 kg/hr. For 7 kg/hr you would need 60 strokes/min. Well, he says they weigh the reservoir before and after. Other people who have observed the tests told me they weighed it. If the video was long enough we would see them do that. So I do not think you need to worry about the flow rate being incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Well, he says they weigh the reservoir before and after. Other people who have observed the tests told me they weighed it. If the video was long enough we would see them do that. So I do not think you need to worry about the flow rate being incorrect. - Jed But then tell us please, why on march 29 the calculated values (audible stroke freq x volume) were exactly equal to the measured values, but this time they were so different? Angela time to go to bed over here... 3 hours left for some sleep -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Goat Guy did not account for the heat loss over the length of the tube. Harry - Original Message From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:08:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) Here is an estimative of the power output of the steam based on the video. What do you people think? Is it OK? It gives only 16Wats as the output. http://disq.us/2bl5a3 * We, who've actually boiled water on a stove, we who've actually done any thermodynamics in the lab (or industry). We can see. That is a ½ inch (13 mm) copper tube. Its inside diameter is less than 10 mm. Using those dimensions, and a video editor, then following the turbulent features, I measure the steam maximum velocity as 14 cm/s. But hey — the invisible part is undoubtedly faster. Let's say 25 cm/s Circular volume is circular area times length of a cylinder (or rate of flow in cm/s). ( 14 cm × (3.14 × (($radius = ( 1.0 cm / 2) ↑ 2 = 11 cubic cm [ML] per second. Now, as I recall, I was expecting about 3120 ML/s. That makes this evolution 11/3120 … 0.35% of expected for a 4.7 KW unit. 0.35% ( 4700 ) = 16.5 watts. 16 watts Daniel, is nowhere NEAR 4,700 watts. Sure as the sun rises, this demonstration is bullsnot. Complete bullsnot. With that relatively tiny pipe, I'd expect a roaring plume to come out at 4,700 watts. Because, lest anyone (and especially you, since you seem kind of naïve in the ways of boiling-water physics) forget… 4,700 watts of heat is approximately 2 of the “large” coil standard kitchen range electric burners. Even ONE of those gets a remarkable amount of steam flowing from a hot-water kettle. Bullsnot. Thanks for the video. Unforgettable tripe. G O A T G U Y *
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
But that would mean an almost complete loss... Daniel
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
I agree the gas flow out the end of the black hose seems to be visible right at the end -- whereas steam would be invisible for a short distance. Trained as a dishwasher since age 10, 80 miles E of Houston, Texas, I am sure that hot water gives off mist in low altitude, warm, humid climates. Rossi seems to be saying that cool steam is slightly visible as a mist, while hot steam is invisible! All steam is invisible, by definition. Rossi seems to me to be natural, relaxed, matter of fact, genuine. Isn't it possible for the pump to fill the reactor up totally with water, which would then overflow and exit as water just below boiling, or water exactly at boiling, mixed with variable amounts of steam? Would any bubbling at the outlet of the reactor be audible? How noisy is the background? Since about 1 m of the hose lies on the floor, before rising about1.5 m to pass through a hole in the wall, wouldn't that part of the hose on the floor fill up completely with water, with a flow of 7 kg/hour? How much pressure results from the 1.5 m rise in the hole? Also the hose on the floor, if full to 1.5 m, would be equally full on both arms of its U bend... If so, then would that ensure that all steam is condensed while passing through a full U bend? How much output heat is there if very little of the water is boiled within the reactor? My guess is that the Rossi team actually don't have a clue about what is happening between the device outlet and the far end of the hose.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 05:42 PM 6/20/2011, you wrote: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E Remarkable. In this video, at about 10:40, Rossi acknowledges that there is a little water that, he claims, condenses in the hose. very small condensation, because this is very short, and so the maximum part is steam, that goes out. Krivit asks to see the steam. Rossi picks up the hose. He takes care, quite deliberately, it seems, raising the hose first, I interpret this as ensuring that water condensed in the hose runs down the drain. He pulls the hose out, holds it for a moment in the air, puts it back in the drain. Krivit starts sputtering himself, but Rossi understands. Meanwhile Levi has come up with a black T-shirt or other garment, which he holds up so that Rossi can hold the hose against it and we can see the steam, at about 11:25. I'm not certain what I'm seeing here. It seems to me sometimes that the steam is existing invisbly for a very short distance, which would indicate dry steam. Howver, sometimes I see the steam next to the outlet, this could be related to the end being moved around by Rossi. The volume of steam coming out seems low for the claimed power, just my impression, easily could be wrong. Rossi's explanation is not sound, that the steam isn't so visible because it's so hot. It's at normal temperature for steam!!! Measured at between 100 and 102C, in fact, according to what I've read. So, no, it's not superheated steam. It will cool and condense, becoming visible, when it hits the ambient air. The only difference that will exist for various flow rates will be an increase in the plume size and an increase in the apparent velocity of any turbulence in it. The margin between the opening of the hose and the point at which the steam becomes visible will become larger (because it probably takes about the same time to cool, but if it's moving faster, it will travel further in that time.) The instability of the viewing of the steam plume is disappointing. I just looked again. I think I can see steam all the way down to the hose, which would imply that this is not dry steam, not completely, not exiting the hose. It might have been dry coming out of the E-Cat. The place to observe the steam would be at the valve, which they have completely covered here. The temperature inside the hose at the end would be of interest. If it's cooler, that would explain the visibility of steam. It's going to be within a degree or so of 100C, which is the reported temperature in the chimney. Certainly no cooler, since there's steam coming out, and certainly not much warmer. So, I don't think you'd see anything interesting with two thermometers. Remember, steam with entrained droplets is buffered, and will stay at almost exactly 100C even if it either gives up or absorbs some amount of heat. (This is the internal feedback mechanism I've referred to elsewhere.) Spitting water would also function to nail the output temperature at or near 100C, by the way. It doesn't have to be entrained droplets -- just some liquid water which is carried all the way to the end of the boiler, so it can hold the temperature of the steam at boiling, rather than letting it heat up farther. And occasional spitting might very well allow them to still measure the steam as dry, come to think of it, even though, like wet steam, spitting would result in some water passing through unboiled, and would allow for easy balancing of the energy budget with a fixed output temp of just over 100C. And, of course, a hose which is wet on the inside will also keep steam at 100C quite nicely, as the wet inner surface functions as a buffering agent -- but the water on the inner surface will eventually crawl out the end of the hose, so it needs to be replenished, either from condensation or from spitting. (A tee with valves on both branches would do it. The hose would run to the drain, as they have. To allow viewing the steam, they would open the valve on the vertical section of the tee fitting, and close the valve to the hose, wait a little while for the tee to heat up, and then one could view the steam plume clearly, with a black background, up very close. Nice test would be a small increase or decrease in heater power, which should fairly rapidly lengthen or shorten the position at which the plume becomes visible. I've suggested having a steam whistle on the vent, for fun. But the flow rate might not be adequate. Maybe a small whistle. Levi, by the way, has a great deal of fun with the black T-shirt or sweatshirt, clowning for the camera. Nice human touch.) My inclination is to believe that the device is actually boiling all the water going through, but that's got to be qualified by hedges. If we could see that the steam exiting the E-cat was invisible, and
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:54 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Yeah, that's why clouds always fall to Earth as soon as they form. Particularly those heavy things packed with solid icicles, like you get down in Antarctica. You see one forming, man, you better put on your hardhat quick before it comes down! Hmm.. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Ho! I had forgotten about this one -- one of the early issues raised was that 14 kW of steam coming out the end of a hose should be a little like a rocket engine, and it would have been nice if some witness had mentioned that. Trouble was, there was no video, and witnesses didn't comment on it either way, so no conclusion could be drawn. Now we've got a video, albeit of a lower power demo -- and it doesn't sound like the plume visuals are living up to their billing. Well, well. On 11-06-20 09:08 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Here is an estimative of the power output of the steam based on the video. What do you people think? Is it OK? It gives only 16Wats as the output. http://disq.us/2bl5a3 * We, who've actually boiled water on a stove, we who've actually done any thermodynamics in the lab (or industry). We can see. That is a ½ inch (13 mm) copper tube. Its inside diameter is less than 10 mm. Using those dimensions, and a video editor, then following the turbulent features, I measure the steam maximum velocity as 14 cm/s. But hey — the invisible part is undoubtedly faster. Let's say 25 cm/s Circular volume is circular area times length of a cylinder (or rate of flow in cm/s). ( 14 cm × (3.14 × (($radius = ( 1.0 cm / 2) ↑ 2 = 11 cubic cm [ML] per second. Now, as I recall, I was expecting about 3120 ML/s. That makes this evolution 11/3120 … 0.35% of expected for a 4.7 KW unit. 0.35% ( 4700 ) = 16.5 watts. 16 watts Daniel, is nowhere NEAR 4,700 watts. Sure as the sun rises, this demonstration is bullsnot. Complete bullsnot. With that relatively tiny pipe, I'd expect a roaring plume to come out at 4,700 watts. Because, lest anyone (and especially you, since you seem kind of naïve in the ways of boiling-water physics) forget… 4,700 watts of heat is approximately 2 of the “large” coil standard kitchen range electric burners. Even ONE of those gets a remarkable amount of steam flowing from a hot-water kettle. Bullsnot. Thanks for the video. Unforgettable tripe. G O A T G U Y *
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
- Original Message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 8:34:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. So will condensed steam once the hose diameter is blocked. True, but with water flowing a water plug should form relatively quickly and you should hear a spurting sound shortly after the hose is put back in the drain. You would have to wait much longer if the water plug formed from condensate. Also the Swedes did get an opportunity to view the steam leaving the chimney of an earlier version of the e-cat. However Steven Krivit presents the observation as ambiguous based on his telephone interview Sven Kullander: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/phone-interview-with-sven-kullander/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 06:40 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Maybe I should update the LENR-CANR.org news item to point that out. I should make it explicit, since this wet/dry steam controversy has dragged on. I am sure the reason I linked to the brochure in the first place was to address this. I would have noticed if the brochure said it was not suitable! It said enthalpy and I thought bingo, that settles it, and honestly, it slipped my mind after that. You misunderstood that, I believe. Look at what the thing actually measures, and look at the humidity measurement operating range. 85% (max), no condensation. This thing doesn't work in the presence of liquid water, as I read it. It calculates a number of things, probably given some settings you'd make, such as flow rate and enthalpy. That would be for *air cooling*, Jed. The heat carrying capacity of air at various humidity levels
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 06:46 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: Unless liquid water is traveling up the chimney to the hose, the only way for the water to exit the reactor is to first be converted to a gas. There are two ways, dependent on design. The first way is, yes, liquid water travels up the chimney, being forced by steam pressure accumulating behind it. This would generally be avoiding by ensuring that rising steam bubbles cannot be trapped anywhere inside, but will exit the chimney. The second would be that something is producing an aerosol. this would be below the operating temperature, I'd think. The interesting thing is that Rossi has now acknowledged that there is some water in the hose. Some would accumulate there from condensation, and it's possible that Rossi's concern that this, which would be water at the boiling point, generally, might be spit out the hose, was just based on that. Having an openable valve at the top of the chimney would generally handle this, one could see the exiting steam directly, without that long hose for it to consense in. It would be very simple to set up, with a tee and two valves, one in the hose that comes off horizontally, the other in the top of the tee that can be opened to allow steam to escape directly. This should never spit water if it's at the very top. Unless turbulence inside is causing an aerosol or spitting of some kind.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:13 PM 6/20/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Terry wrote: How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? Terry speak for how the hell do I know for sure that liquid water is not flowing into the hose? If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. Harry I don't think it would make any noise at all. Did you notice in the video that Rossi deliberately raised the hose in a way that would cause any water in the hose to promptly flow into the drain, before pulling the hose out of the wall? The hose goes from the E-Cat to the floor, across into that room with the sink fittings, and up into the drain. Water would accumulate in the hose pipe until it blocks the steam flow, at which point it would be pushed up into the drain. I doubt you'd hear a thing. I don't know the inner diameter of the hose, and there might be some muffled sound if the steam bubbles up through the water. Not much. The water level in the hose would never reach back up to the E-Cat, which is at a higher level.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:33 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.comhohlr...@gmail.com wrote: They need a watch glass or an external water level indicator to prove that liquid water never reaches the level of the hose. Then they have proved their point by simply measuring the amount of water that is pumped into the reactor. I don't understand what you mean. If that were happening, you would see liquid water flowing out of the pipe when Rossi removed the pipe from the drain. I suppose that does happen at first, before the heat turns on. How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? As I said, you would see it, wouldn't you? Jed, take another look at the video. As I recall, it's at about 10:45. Rossi lifts the hose in a manner that would drain the hose into the pipe, before pulling it out. He acknowledges, in the video, that there is condensation in the pipe. He claims it's only a little. Given that live steam entering that hose at the E-Cat would indeed condense in the length of it, all we can say is that this demonstration is less than satisfying. This, by the way, could explain what seems like low steam output for the claimed energy. The steam, much of it, is condensing on the inside of that long hose. What is left is weak.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:47 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. Water changing state is always endothermic, even by evaporation (it's what cools humans on a hot day). Water cannot walk up the chimney and out the hose. Only a gas can do that. It's Newton's law. Arrgh. Imagine that a steam bubble is trapped in the reaction chamber, and grows, forcing water up and out of the outlet. Without knowing how the interior chamber is arranged, we can't know that this can't happen. A gas can drive the water up and out. *Probably* the E-Cat is not arranged to do that, or only did it a little, and they've fixed it. It might have been as simple as putting the thing on a bit of an angle, I was trying to see if the E-cat had a tilt to it. Couldn't tell.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
In the Essen paper, they were apparently able to examine steam coming out of an open valve in the top of the chimney, a separate exit from the hose. That would be why they were able to say that it was dry steam, it's easy to tell if you can see it. More accurately, if you can't see it until it's cooled enough to condense as a steam cloud! That long hose complicates the hell out of this. If you want to run a long test, sure, using the hose makes sense. But periodically, an observer should be able to open the relief valve at the top of the chimney so steam will shoot up in the air, and close the valve to the hose, so that no water -- or steam -- will be escaping through that hose From the characteristics of the steam plume, one could, with a given relief valve and some calibration, get a very direct indication of enthalpy. How high above the opening does the steam rise before becoming visible? At 08:49 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.comhohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Watch it. AR lifted up the hose to drain the water into the wall before showing the steam. Ah. I see what you mean. At around 10:50 he lifts up the hose. If AR is right, steam condenses inside the hose. That will happen. Yes, with such a long hose it has to be radiating heat, which means the water has to condense. That's why I suggested he test it with a short hose. A window would also be good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:54 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Sure it is, but water droplets can be airborne for a long time. Witness any cloud.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 09:00 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi says the hose is short but it seems long to me. Enough to radiate a lot of heat. About as much as a 1 or 2 kW electric heater, which means the steam has lost a lot of its umph by the time it reaches the end, to address Abd's concern. Great minds think alike.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 10:01 PM 6/20/2011, Rich Murray wrote: My guess is that the Rossi team actually don't have a clue about what is happening between the device outlet and the far end of the hose. We do know that the whole length of that hose was hot To me, the video means little except to show how little is being disclosed. Essen and Kullen were apparently able to look at the steam directly from a vent at the top of the chimney. That's where you'd see live steam, if it's live. I.e., you wouldn't see it until it had cooled enough. That little gap would show that it was live steam, and then you'd merely need to watch for flying water drops. I doubt you'd see any if this was really live steam, unless turbulent conditions inside the E-Cat tossed up some water.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 10:02 PM 6/20/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Rossi's explanation is not sound, that the steam isn't so visible because it's so hot. It's at normal temperature for steam!!! Measured at between 100 and 102C, in fact, according to what I've read. So, no, it's not superheated steam. Right. The explanation was BS. It will cool and condense, becoming visible, when it hits the ambient air. The only difference that will exist for various flow rates will be an increase in the plume size and an increase in the apparent velocity of any turbulence in it. The margin between the opening of the hose and the point at which the steam becomes visible will become larger (because it probably takes about the same time to cool, but if it's moving faster, it will travel further in that time.) The instability of the viewing of the steam plume is disappointing. I just looked again. I think I can see steam all the way down to the hose, which would imply that this is not dry steam, not completely, not exiting the hose. It might have been dry coming out of the E-Cat. The place to observe the steam would be at the valve, which they have completely covered here. The temperature inside the hose at the end would be of interest. If it's cooler, that would explain the visibility of steam. It's going to be within a degree or so of 100C, which is the reported temperature in the chimney. Certainly no cooler, since there's steam coming out, and certainly not much warmer. So, I don't think you'd see anything interesting with two thermometers. I don't know that there is steam coming out. What's coming out is a cloud, i.e., condensed steam, though it looks like a mixure (because it does seem to become more visible above the hose), so I think some steam is making it to the end of the pipe. Still, there might be a fraction of a degree of temperature difference. It's really moot. The steam should be examined at the other end, at the top of the chimney, with a valve, as was done by Essen and Kullen. Remember, steam with entrained droplets is buffered, and will stay at almost exactly 100C even if it either gives up or absorbs some amount of heat. (This is the internal feedback mechanism I've referred to elsewhere.) Yes, it is.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
The temperature of steam-vapour (consisting of microscopic water droplets) is slightly cooler than the temperature of the steam-gas. If the temperature did not drop the invisible gas wouldn't condense to become visible vapour. Rossi is not spouting BS. Harry - Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 11:58:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) At 10:02 PM 6/20/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Rossi's explanation is not sound, that the steam isn't so visible because it's so hot. It's at normal temperature for steam!!! Measured at between 100 and 102C, in fact, according to what I've read. So, no, it's not superheated steam. Right. The explanation was BS. It will cool and condense, becoming visible, when it hits the ambient air. The only difference that will exist for various flow rates will be an increase in the plume size and an increase in the apparent velocity of any turbulence in it. The margin between the opening of the hose and the point at which the steam becomes visible will become larger (because it probably takes about the same time to cool, but if it's moving faster, it will travel further in that time.) The instability of the viewing of the steam plume is disappointing. I just looked again. I think I can see steam all the way down to the hose, which would imply that this is not dry steam, not completely, not exiting the hose. It might have been dry coming out of the E-Cat. The place to observe the steam would be at the valve, which they have completely covered here. The temperature inside the hose at the end would be of interest. If it's cooler, that would explain the visibility of steam. It's going to be within a degree or so of 100C, which is the reported temperature in the chimney. Certainly no cooler, since there's steam coming out, and certainly not much warmer. So, I don't think you'd see anything interesting with two thermometers. I don't know that there is steam coming out. What's coming out is a cloud, i.e., condensed steam, though it looks like a mixure (because it does seem to become more visible above the hose), so I think some steam is making it to the end of the pipe. Still, there might be a fraction of a degree of temperature difference. It's really moot. The steam should be examined at the other end, at the top of the chimney, with a valve, as was done by Essen and Kullen. Remember, steam with entrained droplets is buffered, and will stay at almost exactly 100C even if it either gives up or absorbs some amount of heat. (This is the internal feedback mechanism I've referred to elsewhere.) Yes, it is.
