We'are talking about galantini did the measuremnts, it's an RH measurement.
2011/9/22 Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> > Mattia, you can also measure the steam quality by measuring the speed of > sound in steam. This is correlated with amount of liquid water droplets in > steam suspension. Therefore you do not need to condense steam in order to > find it's quality. > > In close to room pressure it is really not necessary to condense the steam, > but it is enough to measure steam quality and separate hot water and steam > with water trap. This gives the mass flow of steam and thus we can calculate > the total enthalpy from humidity sensor readings. Usually water boilers are > designed thus that there is build in water trap so that only steam escapes. > With tube boiler this is however the case due to percolator effect. > > Of course it would be easier and more reliable to condense the steam by > sparging it into the water bucket and measure the change of water > temperature. Then we would not need to worry about the amount of overflown > water. > > —Jouni > On Sep 22, 2011 6:21 PM, "Mattia Rizzi" <mattia.ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It’s the manufacter that say the readings are useless, not me. > > If you don’t trust the manufacter, then provide a single reference from > the literature that say that it’s possibile to measure the entalphy/steam > quality/ecc from a RH reading. I challenge you. Nobody do it. ISO standard > is to condensate the steam. > > From: Jouni Valkonen > > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:45 PM > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe > > > > > Peter, in order to measure the enthalpy you need to know the mass flow of > steam. This is not known therefore humidity sensor gives only the amount of > liquid water in suspension with steam. That was measured 1.2% and thus steam > quality was 98.8%. > > > > Problem is that critics such as Mattia Rizzi and Krivit has wrong > definition for steam quality. Measuring steam quality is irrelevant because > it is always 99-98%. Instead what would have been necessary to measure, was > the mass flow of steam. This was not measured, therefore steam quality > reading is useless. It tells only that 98.8% of steam mass flow was vapor > and 1.2% was liquid water droplets in suspension. But indeed this does not > tell us how much liquid water was overflown that was not in suspension with > water vapor. > > > > I wonder how long people will repeat this Krivit's silly misconception! > > > > —Jouni > > > > On Sep 22, 2011 5:25 PM, <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Nachricht ---- > >> Von: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > >> An: vortex-l@eskimo.com > >> Datum: 22.09.2011 15:53 > >> Betreff: Re: Aw: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe > >> > >>> peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: > >>> > >>> > Now what happens, when an inventor without deep knowledge and > experience > >>> constructs a steam device, makes it unaccessible and then lets > unexperienced > >>> scientist measure the steam? > >>> > Most scientists expect that devices that they use are properly > constructed > >>> and work as designed because they know nothing else. > >>> > >>> Some questions for you and other self-appointed experts here: > >>> > >>> How much deep knowledge and experience do you have? How many steam > >>> devices have you constructed? Have you done calorimetry on this scale? > >>> What do you know about Galantini's background and his previous work? > >>> > >>> You are presumptuous. > >>> > >> > >> I do repair professional devices and had contact with many professors > and doctors in chemical labors using our products. > >> I have experiences with chromatography devices (with the electronic > sensors,and computers, not with the chemistry), and with microparticel > measurement devices and with continuous flow devices. > >> All these dont only need calibration, fresh calibration is sometimes > needed before each measurement. > >> I have no experience with steam measurements, but was reading a lot in > the last time and I learned that this are heavily nonlinear problems with > many variable known and unknown parameters and it is too easy to make > mistakes and too easy to fool others with such measurements. > >> > >> > >> >
