It is misleading (and slightly anal) to believe precision measurements of steam quality are required to prove it is not a scam. As Jed says for an effect of this magnitude rough and ready estimation methods suffice: quickly feel the steam and view the steam where it exits the reactor. If it doesn't sting and it is invisible it passes the dry steam test.
Harry ----- Original Message ---- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 12:32:21 AM > Subject: Re: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam > > At 11:24 PM 6/20/2011, you wrote: > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> > > wrote: > > > > The Testo 650 is used for measuring *humidity*, Jed, for, like, food >manufacturing and storage, etc. > > > > Read that HP literature. The device measures up to 100% humidity, it > > claims. >Wet steam is above 100% humidity. The literature claims that the device >measures: CO2, CO, temperature, and relative humidity. Other parameters are >calculated from these measurements. > > > > > > ><http://www.testo.com/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf>http://www.testo.com/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf > > > > > It isn't HP; it is testo. The meter also measures "absolute humidity g/m^3" >(mass) and enthalpy (kcal/kg), which is what we want to measure. I guess >enthalpy is derived from absolute humidity and temperature. > > Jed, these devices measure a number of things directly, and others are >calculated. I see no sign that the device is designed to measure steam >quality. >It's not a described application. Consider the humidity specifications: ±2 %RH >(+2 to +98 %RH) > > The accuracy is not rated above 98% RH. > > The Testo unit described has a bit more range than the HP device used by > Essen >and Kullander. > > > Elsewhere you wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > There would be no point to making a meter like this if it did not work in > > the >presence of liquid water, because there is almost always some liquid water in >process steam. It is never purely dry. > > None of the probes seem to be design for measuring steam quality, and what > the >devices do measure directly would not provide you with steam quality, as far >as >I can tell. Wet steam would be at 100% RH, or above, in fact, i.e., a steam >cloud is carrying water above the saturation vapor pressure. > > "Humidity," quite simply, is of the air, not the water droplets that might be >carried by the air. A cloud is generally at 100% humidity, if the water is as >fine mist. > > > I think people here should concede that Galantini is expert enough to > > select >the right kind of meter after all, and it is likely he also knows how to use >the >meter to measure by mass instead of volume. > > I would not assume that from what we have seen. Remember people making >assumptions about Fleischmann measuring neutrons. He'd never done it before.... > > Does Galantini have specific experience with this kind of measurement? Where >have we seen that? If we knew how he obtained the steam quality statement from >what the meter showed, we'd have a clue. We don't have that kind of report. > > That the questions have been asked but have not found clear answers leaves me >with no confidence in this evidence. There may be other reasons to think that >the demonstrations really showed serious heat generation. But this steam >quality >evidence, unless someone with experience with that meter can show differently, >falls flat. I don't see that the meter is designed to measure steam quality at >all, and from the specifications, I'd expect it to be useless for that. > > So am I misunderstanding the specifications? After all, I haven't used a > meter >like this for this purpose either! > >
