I was under the presumption that there a few here that understood elementry physics. Good Grief!
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig <decra...@gmail.com> 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. >> > > What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most > likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply > to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of > the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is > from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of > the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as > fine droplets (mist). > > >> >> >> 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. >> > > Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means > the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times > less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely > plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. > > >> Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my >> estimate. >> > > And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water > through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist > humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at > all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. > > I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. >> > > Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. > > >> >> >> 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. >> > > What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in > calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface > tension is made. It is negligible. > >> >> >> 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. >> > > That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with > air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the > air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. > Entrainment! >
