Jeff Driscoll <hcarb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you > know > > the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by > mass, > > not volume. > > - Jed > > > > It calculates the enthalpy of humid air based on the temperature and > relative humidity. It does *not* measure the enthalpy of saturated > steam having some unknown steam quality. > Look, suppose for the sake of argument you are right. Suppose the steam is much wetter than Galantini thought. It makes no difference! It cannot be so wet there is no anomalous heat. In most of the tests, the water temperature would not exceed 60°C if there was no anomalous heat. You can throw away all of the enthalpy from a phase change to steam and the results are STILL massively positive. So why on earth do you care about this?!? I cannot understand this mindset. It is as if you watch Orville Wright fly for 20 minutes and then you say the flight was invalid because they used a derrick to launch. It is worse than that! It is as if you dismiss the flight because Wright wore his hat backwards, so you say the airplane flew in the wrong direction. This is ridiculous, meaningless, pointless, empty nitpicking. Even if you are right, it proves NOTHING. It means NOTHING. All these other assertions about how Rossi's steam tests and flowing water tests might be wrong and how Rossi, Levi, Krivit cannot read a digital weight scale are blather and a stupid waste of time. Anyone who has done tests of this nature will know that the temperature of 101°C proves there was steam and you can add in the heat of vaporization to get a reasonable approximation, the way Rossi did in Krivit's video. If the meter was wrong or there was some other fundamental problem, the second test with flowing water would proved decisively that there was no heat. Levi would have retracted. He does not want to destroy his own reputation. Furthermore, Defkalion has spent millions developing this technology, and the Greek Ministry has already subjected their prototypes to testing. The machines passed the first round of tests. So there is no question this technology is real. There is a mountain of evidence proving that. You are quibbling with one tiny part of that evidence. This is like looking at one Pd-D cold fusion experiment by one second-rate researcher, finding a possible error, and declaring that every experiment ever done was wrong. You are wasting your time fretting about this!!! It makes NO DAMN DIFFERENCE. Go ahead and assume you are right and Galantini is wrong. Pat yourself on the back, consider this argument case closed, and move on. Just remember that this does not affect the conclusion one tiny bit. It does not call into question Rossi's claims. Remember also that Rossi did not select that particular meter, so don't blame him for this (imaginary) problem you have found with Galantini's work. I am pretty sure that Rossi's attitude about this meter is the same as mine, because we often think alike. Rossi asked an expert to measure the steam quality. He probably does not know much about meters or steam (although he knows way more than I do!). The expert told him the steam is dry. Good enough. Move on. Lewan and I have asked several other experts and they said: "Sure, that meter is fine. Anyway the answer can't be wrong by more than 20%, worst case, so what difference does it make?" > You (Jed) sent to me a private message quoting someone who knows about > capacitance probes. Did you email them my response? Yes, I did. - Jed
