I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that
the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water
which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation
temp. Next, the steam has to rise through cooler water which will begin to
condense the steam. SAlso the temp of the steam bubble will cool slightly
from its slight expansion. Some of the overlying water is coming in at room
temp. with about 70K x 80J/gK= 5600J/g necessary to raise the temp of the
inlet water to 100C, this amount would also be available to cool the rising
steam bubble. Only ~2500J/g of cooling is needed to remove the heat of
vaporization of the steam to condense it. Also some splash carryover and
possible film formation on outlet tube would augment this. Rossi should just
take off the outlet hose and plug in the flow velocity attachment to the RH
probe he uses. Steam volume could be calculated from that allowing for
corrections due to any dribble that dosen't make it thru the flow meter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore
the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize
that.
I have to say that "really wet steam" is not implausible, Joshua has made
a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure
implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber
with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1
degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks
like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the
vaporization rate!
Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid
by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10%
mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was
interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.
Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have
functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize
wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would
make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two
phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also
look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would
not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam.
I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high
wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we
include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively
dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at
the E-Cat fires up!
Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not
that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems
it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so
often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat
itself.
Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given
bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance
isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks.
The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara
Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a
stationary "steam." Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be
flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up.
There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.
