Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
Harry, right: vapour is a gas. As it is O2. IMHO the probe of Dr Galantini detects the liquid phase of h2o or other liquid conductor capacitor. It is not a chemical reactant that binds to any h2o molecule that comes around. Conductivity of gases is very low compared to liquids. When you ask for tech specs of instruments used by people that know how to make good experiments search for the physical principles that is behind the measure not the range or the main field of application of an instrument. I bet Galantini knows how that probe works inside quite well. Il giorno 22/giu/2011 06:53, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com ha scritto: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity -- A common misconception Often the notion of air holding water vapor is presented to describe the concept of relative humidity. This, however, is a misconception. Air is a mixture of gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, and other gases) and as such the constituents of the mixture simply act as a transporter of water vapor but are not a holder of it. Humidity is wholly understood in terms of the physical properties of water and thus is unrelated to the concept of air holding water.[3][4] In fact, an air-less volume can contain water vapor and therefore the humidity of this volume can be readily determined. The misconception that air holds water is likely the result of the use of the word saturation, which is often misused in descriptions of relative humidity. In the present context the word saturation refers to the state of water vapor,[5] not the solubility of one material in another. -- Reading this makes me think Galantini used the probe correctly. Harry
[Vo]:RD contract between Rossi and the University of Bologna finally signed
Hello group, I guess this must mean something, other than its timing has been probably carefully chosen (as most of you know, tomorrow there's a Defkalion press conference in Greece). While we are still discussing how the evidence seen in videos can be consistent with the info provided by Rossi, the University of Bologna has signed yesterday a research and development agreement with Rossi, according to him in one of his latest blog comments: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=22#comment-47755 Andrea Rossi June 22nd, 2011 at 1:26 AM Dear Jon Soderberg: Yes, all of this is possible. I think that something like this will be made in the RD work of the University of Bologna (by the way: yesterday the research contract with the University of Bologna has been signed. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Rossi also seems to imply in another comment that the results of several tests made by the UoB will be made public (I'm not sure if it's related, but I know that data from the February 18-hour test will be soon): * * * [...]What I think would lay this issue to rest is if Dr. Levi, when he can find the time, would please provide some of the actual data from which calculations of energy balance (IN vs OUT)were made for the system. This would be of interest for the experiments summarized in Table 1 of the PDF report and it would be especially good to know if similar experiments, with the coolant remaining liquid (no steam), have been performed with a recent version of the E-Cat. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=10#comment-47759 Andrea Rossi June 22nd, 2011 at 1:36 AM Dear Maryyugo: In the RD program of the University of Bologna they will make a lot of this stuff. Gotta get fun. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * If I find more information, I will follow-up to this message. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity -- A common misconception [...] -- Reading this makes me think Galantini used the probe correctly. Harry That probe uses a capacitance measurement to determine the relative humidity. Typically, this measurement is made using a capacitor with a polymer dielectric which absorbs or releases water proportional to the relative environmental humidity, and thus changes the capacitance of the capacitor, which is measured by an onboard electronic circuit. ( www.sensorland.com/HowPage047.html) Such a device is calibrated in air, to represent the partial pressure of water vapor in air. It is not at all clear how that measurement can be used to determine the amount of mist (liquid droplets) entrained in water vapor. It seems likely that a mist-steam mixture would cause the polymer to be wetter than if the steam were dry. So a higher RH reading would indicate wetter, not drier, steam. Probably, inside that conduit, the polymer is saturated with water no matter what, and it reads close to 100% RH all the time. In any case, if the device is to be used to determine liquid content in steam, it would at least have to be calibrated for that purpose. There is no indication such a calibration was performed. It would be possible, just from the experiments performed, to determine if the RH probe were of any use. If the RH readings were *monitored* on a continuos basis, like the temperature, and *reported*, we could see if the reading ever actually changes. Presumably the steam must begin wet and then become drier as the power transfer increases. During this process, does the RH reading on that probe change? If it doesn't, whatever it is measuring is not relevant to the liquid content of the steam. There are two very simple ways to prove the steam is dry: (1) Measure the output flow rate (velocity); if it is steam, it should be 1700 times higher than the input flow rate; (2) Reduce the input flow rate so the steam temperature exceeds boiling by more than a few degrees -- say 120C or so. That these two methods are not used suggests the steam is not dry.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
Dear all, *this is my guess. I hope it’s correct, but thank you very much in advance for correction if necessary.* -The stated probe only measures relative umidity. If liquid phase is present, then R.U. is always 100%. what follows only applies for vapour-air mixture - knowing the temperature and R.U., data logger can calculate the vapour fraction of the mixture, also known as X=gr(vapour)/kg(dryair). It's just a calculation and no measurement is required. If no dry air is present, such calculation is *sensless*. -Back to saturated steam: in presence of liquid phase this kind of probe only give us 100% UR. (if not broken down because of too much vapour density and *no air*!). In order to measure the liquid fraction of a saturated steam, (Mliquid/M liquid+gas) this probe is *completely useless.* An academic way to carry out the measurement of the liquid fraction of a saturated steam, is based on superheating by isohentalping expansion through a valve. Perhaps there are transducer for this purpose. For sure not the one we are talkin 'bout. *Psychrometry is where we have about 30g of water as gas and 1kg of dry air. This is the field of such probes. Saturated steam is not the same. *I'm very confused. Sorry for my poor english. Best Regards. EE
[Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Hi All,I have two Toyota Priuses, one has a 1000W inverter hooked up to the battery, the other has a 1500W inverter. My water heater unit used to make coffee/tea requires 1.27 kW to operate via a standard outlet, roughly twice the input power of the E-Cat/Rossi unit. In Krivit's video -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E - the steam output is shown against a black backdrop around the 11:26 mark of the video. Since the amount is clearly shown in the video, I chose to compare that amount to my little water heater. The coffee/tea water heater connected to the inverter and turned on generates twice as much steam from strictly a qualitative standpoint - visual observations. In other words, it appears that the Rossi unit is generating about as much steam as one would expect from 3.4 amps X 230 V = 782 W as shown in Rossi's video. If this is supposed to be his illustrious 10 kW unit, generating enough steam to heat my entire home, then this is a scam...as soon as I find a USB adapter for the SD card used to take this morning's video, I'll upload my video and provide the link tonight for comparison. Just take a look at the amount of steam in Krivit's video and ask yourself if it's enough to heat a home...it's paltry...no way is that a 10 kW unit. MAYBE a 1 kW unit...max.Todd202-367-5921"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." ~Proverbs 9:10"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." ~John 16:33
[Vo]:Submission to Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum
The following was submitted to the Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=22#comments)this morning:PSCI-NETYour comment is awaiting moderation.June 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 AMSeehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E– the steam generated by the E-Cat unit in this video provided by Steve Krivit is roughly the amount expected from 748 watts (3.4 amps X 220V) input power. Our home electric water kettle has a measured input power of 1270 watts, and the amount of steam generated by the water kettle exceeds the amount of steam shown in the video linked above. A qualitative analysis of the steam output shown in Krivit’s E-Cat demo video will be compared with our video of the steam generated by the electric water kettle and will be made available online athttp://psci.us/gold.htmlater today.The Greek Embassy in Washington, D.C., has been notified of these findings."The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." ~Proverbs 9:10"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." ~John 16:33
Re: [Vo]:Submission to Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum
If your theory it is that he is a scammer, you can bet he has connections with high governmental entities in Greece. And, indeed, he is a friend, or at least strongly associated with, of a former minister and father of the actual prime minister of Greece. http://efie.net/change/rossi-ecat-cold-fusion-reactor-update/ You can bet that in both hypothesis, in being true or false, your complaint will not be heard. And given the economical and political stress of Greece right now, that possibility is far remoter. You should do something else, like, looking for the press.
RE: [Vo]:Submission to Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum
The argument of, Our home electric water kettle has a measured input power of 1270 watts, and the amount of steam generated by the water kettle exceeds the amount of steam shown in the video linked above is ridiculous. Legitimate arguments came be made from the expected volume of gas produced by boiling all of the input water, but a kettle full of water does not simulate water flow across a heating medium. Slowing down or speeding up the water flow rate will necessarily change the amount of steam produced. This rate can be easily calculated based on the rate of pump cycling x the known pump displacement. A static kettle does not come close to replicating the experimental conditions. Any expectations of gas discharge need to be centered on the volume of input water, full gas conversion, and include some subsequent condensation. Comparisons to kettles and light bulbs may be humorous, but they hold no real bearing on truly critical evaluation. One thing that has come up, though, is the accuracy of the steam tests. What I did find is that the Kullander report references a probe that was rated up to 550C. The only probe offered for that meter with that temperature threshold is a temperature probe, and should not have been used for any attempts at measuring humidity. They make special probes for that. This may have been a simple misunderstanding, but I do believe that the second test, if authentic, puts all of this to rest. Calculating output power without the phase change makes for elementary thermodynamics. Best, R. L. From: t...@wonksmedia.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:56:01 -0700 Subject: [Vo]:Submission to Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum The following was submitted to the Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=22#comments) this morning: PSCI-NETYour comment is awaiting moderation. June 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 AM See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E – the steam generated by the E-Cat unit in this video provided by Steve Krivit is roughly the amount expected from 748 watts (3.4 amps X 220V) input power. Our home electric water kettle has a measured input power of 1270 watts, and the amount of steam generated by the water kettle exceeds the amount of steam shown in the video linked above. A qualitative analysis of the steam output shown in Krivit’s E-Cat demo video will be compared with our video of the steam generated by the electric water kettle and will be made available online at http://psci.us/gold.htm later today. The Greek Embassy in Washington, D.C., has been notified of these findings. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. ~Proverbs 9:10 These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. ~John 16:33
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Todd: You really shold take some time and fully verify your facts before accusing someone of fraud... I believe that the e-Cat Krivit saw was only 2.5kW, not 10. -Mark _ From: t...@wonksmedia.com [mailto:t...@wonksmedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... Hi All, I have two Toyota Priuses, one has a 1000W inverter hooked up to the battery, the other has a 1500W inverter. My water heater unit used to make coffee/tea requires 1.27 kW to operate via a standard outlet, roughly twice the input power of the E-Cat/Rossi unit. In Krivit's video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E - the steam output is shown against a black backdrop around the 11:26 mark of the video. Since the amount is clearly shown in the video, I chose to compare that amount to my little water heater. The coffee/tea water heater connected to the inverter and turned on generates twice as much steam from strictly a qualitative standpoint - visual observations. In other words, it appears that the Rossi unit is generating about as much steam as one would expect from 3.4 amps X 230 V = 782 W as shown in Rossi's video. If this is supposed to be his illustrious 10 kW unit, generating enough steam to heat my entire home, then this is a scam...as soon as I find a USB adapter for the SD card used to take this morning's video, I'll upload my video and provide the link tonight for comparison. Just take a look at the amount of steam in Krivit's video and ask yourself if it's enough to heat a home...it's paltry...no way is that a 10 kW unit. MAYBE a 1 kW unit...max. Todd 202-367-5921 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. ~Proverbs 9:10 These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. ~John 16:33
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone can provide me a mathematical example refuting that, I will be happy.
RE: [Vo]:relative humidity
EE: Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the liquid water content as explained in my posting. -Mark _ From: aieie brazof [mailto:ezechiele.epst...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:13 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity Dear all, this is my guess. I hope it's correct, but thank you very much in advance for correction if necessary. -The stated probe only measures relative umidity. If liquid phase is present, then R.U. is always 100%. what follows only applies for vapour-air mixture - knowing the temperature and R.U., data logger can calculate the vapour fraction of the mixture, also known as X=gr(vapour)/kg(dryair). It's just a calculation and no measurement is required. If no dry air is present, such calculation is sensless. -Back to saturated steam: in presence of liquid phase this kind of probe only give us 100% UR. (if not broken down because of too much vapour density and no air!). In order to measure the liquid fraction of a saturated steam, (Mliquid/Mliquid+gas) this probe is completely useless. An academic way to carry out the measurement of the liquid fraction of a saturated steam, is based on superheating by isohentalping expansion through a valve. Perhaps there are transducer for this purpose. For sure not the one we are talkin 'bout. Psychrometry is where we have about 30g of water as gas and 1kg of dry air. This is the field of such probes. Saturated steam is not the same. I'm very confused. Sorry for my poor english. Best Regards. EE
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the outlet of the chimney, NOT at the end of a 10 foot hose that has condensation going on inside it. That condensation will REDUCE the steam volumn and therefore the flow rate of what steam makes it out to the end of the hose. I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the measurements of the steam at the chimney... -Mark -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone can provide me a mathematical example refuting that, I will be happy.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Yes, that's why I said 'supposed to be', which implied I didn't know whether it was one 2.5 kW unit, or all four running for a total of 10 kW. In either case, we're still short steam...that's the point. And the quality of the steam should be clear based on how it is exiting the hose - it's wet steam unless he's somehow filtering the steam. Regardless, it's the steam, not the water, that does useful work, and there isn't much steam coming out of the hose. Since it's not my technology, and I don't review advanced energy technologies for a living, it's not my concern beyond showing that what has been presented to date is inconclusive at best. What I WON'T do is pitch this as a valid technology to outside parties, and I have also alerted those who may be directly impacted by this technology to take a MUCH closer look, which at the moment Rossi will not allow. So with that said, I have no further comment on this technology due to a lack of information beyond what has been presented to date, which again, remains inconclusive at best. I'll check back in six months to see if anything has changed...fighting over which words are used in a forum post is a waste of time. Original Message Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: "Mark Iverson" zeropo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 12:09 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Todd: You really sholdtake some time and fully verify your facts before accusing someone of fraud... I believe that the e-Cat Krivit saw was only 2.5kW,not 10. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the liquid water content as explained in my posting. -Mark no, there is no way to make an indirect measurement of steam quality using a humidity probe that is designed for *air* HD 37AB1347 HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor is a tool manufactured by Delta Ohm for the analysis of air quality (Indoor Air Quality , IAQ). The instrument simultaneously measures several parameters: Carbon Dioxide CO2, Carbon monoxide CO, Temperature, Relative humidity and calculates Dew Point, wet bulb temperature, absolute humidity, mixing ratio, enthalpy and atmospheric pressure. All this with the P37AB147 SICRAM probe. The probe SICRAM P37B147 does not measure the Carbon Monoxide CO. Also combined temperature and humidity SICRAM probes, Hot wire Air speed SICRAM probes, Vane air speed SICRAM probes and temperature SICRAM probes can be connected to the instrument. The instrument, with proper procedure, calculates the percentage of outdoor air intake (% Outside Air) as a function of both carbon dioxide CO2 and temperature and the Ventilation Rate. HD37AB1347 data logger has a storage capacity of 67,600 presets for each of the two inputs divided into 64 blocks. Use the software DeltaLog10 version 0.1.5.0. The instrument is equipped with a large dot matrix graphic display with a resolution of 160x160 points. Standards: ASHRAE 62.1-2004, Decree Law 81/2008. The rules apply to all enclosed spaces that may be occupied by people. Should be considered, depending on air quality, chemical contaminants, physical and biological or outdoor air flow inside inadequately purified (Ventilation Rate). Typical applications of the instrument with the range of sensors mentioned above are: - Measure IAQ and comfort conditions in schools, offices and indoor. - Analysis and study of sick building syndrome (Sick Building Syndrome) and consequences. - Verification of HVAC system. - Investigation of IAQ conditions in factories to optimize the microclimate and improve productivity. - Audits in Building Automation. DELTA OHM, SIT, calibration centre http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 note the work enthalpy in the above text, it measures the enthalpy of the humid air! not steam quality !!!
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
The vortex-l discussion group has been around for decades, and most here aren't really interested in 'pitching' anything other than careful analysis and discussion and debate -- something you should at least try before shouting 'fraud'. As explained in a posting I made a few minutes ago, determining whether the steam volume or flow rate is adequate cannot be done at the end of a 10' piece of hose that has condensation occurring along its length... Agreed that this is very unfortunate and a constand source of frustration to all on vortex but I think the jury is still out as to whether we are witnessing what is claimed, or human error, or fraud. -Mark _ From: t...@wonksmedia.com [mailto:t...@wonksmedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... Yes, that's why I said 'supposed to be', which implied I didn't know whether it was one 2.5 kW unit, or all four running for a total of 10 kW. In either case, we're still short steam...that's the point. And the quality of the steam should be clear based on how it is exiting the hose - it's wet steam unless he's somehow filtering the steam. Regardless, it's the steam, not the water, that does useful work, and there isn't much steam coming out of the hose. Since it's not my technology, and I don't review advanced energy technologies for a living, it's not my concern beyond showing that what has been presented to date is inconclusive at best. What I WON'T do is pitch this as a valid technology to outside parties, and I have also alerted those who may be directly impacted by this technology to take a MUCH closer look, which at the moment Rossi will not allow. So with that said, I have no further comment on this technology due to a lack of information beyond what has been presented to date, which again, remains inconclusive at best. I'll check back in six months to see if anything has changed...fighting over which words are used in a forum post is a waste of time. Original Message Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 12:09 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Todd: You really shold take some time and fully verify your facts before accusing someone of fraud... I believe that the e-Cat Krivit saw was only 2.5kW, not 10. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
but I think the jury is still out as to whether we are witnessing what is claimed, or human error, or fraud. -Mark The discussion about the steam from the first demo may be interesting, but I keep remembering Joshu Cude's remarks about the video display of the power input that was shown during the demo. Cude, or someone, managed to digitize the display and, according to Cude, it showed that the input power was manipulated in a way that would explain what was seen. Nobody disagreed with what he said. His remarks made me think that the demo was, at best, meaningless, and at worst, evidence of a scam.
[Vo]:Novel Thermoelectric Conversion Material
Greetings Vortex-L Presented is an interesting thermoelectric conversion material. Perhaps useful in a Focardi Rossi LENR Cell: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-source-green-electricity.html Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Fair enough - I'll check back in six months to see if anything has changed beyond determining who's the smartest person in the forum.The 3 minute tea kettle youtube video is available viahttp://psci.us/gold.htm(select 720p resolution). Not that the three masters degrees under my belt matter (one of which is in nuclear engineering, plus a fourth master's degree by the end of next year), but when I see 'X' amount of steam generated by a unit that appears to produce less than my tea kettle at home, I cannot in good conscience support a technology like this. Rossi has had more than enough time to validate what he has to outside parties. It's time for the vortex clan to move on to something else...I have. Original Message Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: "Mark Iverson" zeropo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 12:40 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The vortex-l discussion grouphas been around for decades, and most here aren't really interested in'pitching' anything other than careful analysis and discussion and debate -- something you should at least try before shouting 'fraud'. As explained in a posting I made a few minutes ago, determiningwhether the steam volume orflow rate is adequate cannot be done at the end of a 10' pieceof hose that has condensation occurring alongits length... Agreed that this is very unfortunate and a constand source of frustration to all onvortex but I think the jury is still out as to whether we are witnessing what is claimed, or human error, or fraud. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:relative humidity
Jeff, Mass of water in = mass of water out It doesn't get any simpler. Everyone is assuming (wrongly) that they are using the instrument to measure the liquid content directly, which the instrument clearly cannot do. That is NOT what they are doing. You obviously didn't read my posting where I describe the simple algebra required to figure out how this can be done... The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water which is in the form of vapor... Its called the mixing ratio (sometimes referred to as mass ratio) and is displayed in g/cubic meter, which is exactly what Galantini states... device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. From that, one can easily work backward and calculate the mass of liquid water using simple algebra... One can calulate the mixing ratio from the humidity. I agree that this is not the most desirable method, but is valid, unless you're claiming that they are violating the conservation of mass. -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the liquid water content as explained in my posting. -Mark no, there is no way to make an indirect measurement of steam quality using a humidity probe that is designed for *air* HD 37AB1347 HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor is a tool manufactured by Delta Ohm for the analysis of air quality (Indoor Air Quality , IAQ). The instrument simultaneously measures several parameters: Carbon Dioxide CO2, Carbon monoxide CO, Temperature, Relative humidity and calculates Dew Point, wet bulb temperature, absolute humidity, mixing ratio, enthalpy and atmospheric pressure. All this with the P37AB147 SICRAM probe. The probe SICRAM P37B147 does not measure the Carbon Monoxide CO. Also combined temperature and humidity SICRAM probes, Hot wire Air speed SICRAM probes, Vane air speed SICRAM probes and temperature SICRAM probes can be connected to the instrument. The instrument, with proper procedure, calculates the percentage of outdoor air intake (% Outside Air) as a function of both carbon dioxide CO2 and temperature and the Ventilation Rate. HD37AB1347 data logger has a storage capacity of 67,600 presets for each of the two inputs divided into 64 blocks. Use the software DeltaLog10 version 0.1.5.0. The instrument is equipped with a large dot matrix graphic display with a resolution of 160x160 points. Standards: ASHRAE 62.1-2004, Decree Law 81/2008. The rules apply to all enclosed spaces that may be occupied by people. Should be considered, depending on air quality, chemical contaminants, physical and biological or outdoor air flow inside inadequately purified (Ventilation Rate). Typical applications of the instrument with the range of sensors mentioned above are: - Measure IAQ and comfort conditions in schools, offices and indoor. - Analysis and study of sick building syndrome (Sick Building Syndrome) and consequences. - Verification of HVAC system. - Investigation of IAQ conditions in factories to optimize the microclimate and improve productivity. - Audits in Building Automation. DELTA OHM, SIT, calibration centre http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 note the work enthalpy in the above text, it measures the enthalpy of the humid air! not steam quality !!!
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
Joshua, I hope you read this post by Mark. Harry - Original Message From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 22, 2011 1:42:07 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:relative humidity Jeff, Mass of water in = mass of water out It doesn't get any simpler. Everyone is assuming (wrongly) that they are using the instrument to measure the liquid content directly, which the instrument clearly cannot do. That is NOT what they are doing. You obviously didn't read my posting where I describe the simple algebra required to figure out how this can be done... The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water which is in the form of vapor... Its called the mixing ratio (sometimes referred to as mass ratio) and is displayed in g/cubic meter, which is exactly what Galantini states... device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. From that, one can easily work backward and calculate the mass of liquid water using simple algebra... One can calulate the mixing ratio from the humidity. I agree that this is not the most desirable method, but is valid, unless you're claiming that they are violating the conservation of mass. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
no, the instrument gives the mass of water in air at some temperature, so it is grams of water per kg of air, how do you get steam quality from that? steam quality is grams of vaporized water per gram of liquid and vapor. for example, they need steam quality for measuring how much liquid droplets are going through a steam turbine - there is no air involved when measuring steam quality, Rossi used the wrong instrument and I am sure about this, Read up on mixing ratios - that is for air and water vapor combined and we don't care about that. On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff, Mass of water in = mass of water out It doesn't get any simpler. Everyone is assuming (wrongly) that they are using the instrument to measure the liquid content directly, which the instrument clearly cannot do. That is NOT what they are doing. You obviously didn't read my posting where I describe the simple algebra required to figure out how this can be done... The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water which is in the form of vapor... Its called the mixing ratio (sometimes referred to as mass ratio) and is displayed in g/cubic meter, which is exactly what Galantini states... device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. From that, one can easily work backward and calculate the mass of liquid water using simple algebra... One can calulate the mixing ratio from the humidity. I agree that this is not the most desirable method, but is valid, unless you're claiming that they are violating the conservation of mass. -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity Yes, you're on the right track... see my posting at 6/21 at 9:04pm. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48242.html I would bet that Galantini is making an indirect measurement of the liquid water content as explained in my posting. -Mark no, there is no way to make an indirect measurement of steam quality using a humidity probe that is designed for *air* HD 37AB1347 HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor is a tool manufactured by Delta Ohm for the analysis of air quality (Indoor Air Quality , IAQ). The instrument simultaneously measures several parameters: Carbon Dioxide CO2, Carbon monoxide CO, Temperature, Relative humidity and calculates Dew Point, wet bulb temperature, absolute humidity, mixing ratio, enthalpy and atmospheric pressure. All this with the P37AB147 SICRAM probe. The probe SICRAM P37B147 does not measure the Carbon Monoxide CO. Also combined temperature and humidity SICRAM probes, Hot wire Air speed SICRAM probes, Vane air speed SICRAM probes and temperature SICRAM probes can be connected to the instrument. The instrument, with proper procedure, calculates the percentage of outdoor air intake (% Outside Air) as a function of both carbon dioxide CO2 and temperature and the Ventilation Rate. HD37AB1347 data logger has a storage capacity of 67,600 presets for each of the two inputs divided into 64 blocks. Use the software DeltaLog10 version 0.1.5.0. The instrument is equipped with a large dot matrix graphic display with a resolution of 160x160 points. Standards: ASHRAE 62.1-2004, Decree Law 81/2008. The rules apply to all enclosed spaces that may be occupied by people. Should be considered, depending on air quality, chemical contaminants, physical and biological or outdoor air flow inside inadequately purified (Ventilation Rate). Typical applications of the instrument with the range of sensors mentioned above are: - Measure IAQ and comfort conditions in schools, offices and indoor. - Analysis and study of sick building syndrome (Sick Building Syndrome) and consequences. - Verification of HVAC system. - Investigation of IAQ conditions in factories to optimize the microclimate and improve productivity. - Audits in Building Automation. DELTA OHM, SIT, calibration centre http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 note the work enthalpy in the above text, it measures the enthalpy of the humid air! not steam quality !!!
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the outlet of the chimney, NOT at the end of a 10 foot hose that has condensation going on inside it. . . . That is correct. I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the measurements of the steam at the chimney... They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do not think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney. Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong. I doubt it. In any case, the second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste of time. By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m from the steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is surprisingly small. The vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose. Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They are 2 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream: http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressure-washers.php 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an impressive plume. This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related http://wn.com/ICanSteamCleanwow - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the outlet of the chimney, NOT at the end of a 10 foot hose that has condensation going on inside it. . . . That is correct. I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the measurements of the steam at the chimney... They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do not think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney. Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong. yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument I doubt it. In any case, the second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste of time. By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m from the steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is surprisingly small. The vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose. Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They are 2 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream: http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressure-washers.php 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an impressive plume. This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related http://wn.com/ICanSteamCleanwow - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
I wrote: This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related Yup. It appears to be a Vapor Chief 16 amp 120 VAC unit. 1.8 kW. See: http://www.therma-kleen.com/vapor_steam_cleaners/vapor_steam_cleaners.html You don't want much more than that for a car interior. I gotta get me one of these! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument So you say, but Galantini and the manufacturers say differently. It is clear that Galantini is an expert in this subject and you not. I suggest you stop repeating yourself. Putting aside who is the pre-eminent expert (you, or the guy who designed the meter), you cannot argue with the second test. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Todd, Did you see Robert Leguillon’s response to your comparison? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48252.html He makes a good point about the energy required to heat a fixed quantity of water in a kettle as opposed to a constant “stream” of cold water from a reservoir. Did your kettle contain the same volume of water for a given time period and heat it into steam as quickly? The point he mentioned about the steam affluence being proportional to flow rates extends all the way down to the 5 degree rise in water temp highlighted in the Feb test where there was no change of state. I wouldn’t pitch this system to anyone yet either but I think you will see an increasing number of lesser replications and an avalanche of emerging information from several key players in addition to Rossi. Brian Ahern’s recent replication based on Arrata method is just the tip of the iceberg. regards Fran From: t...@wonksmedia.com [mailto:t...@wonksmedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... Yes, that's why I said 'supposed to be', which implied I didn't know whether it was one 2.5 kW unit, or all four running for a total of 10 kW. In either case, we're still short steam...that's the point. And the quality of the steam should be clear based on how it is exiting the hose - it's wet steam unless he's somehow filtering the steam. Regardless, it's the steam, not the water, that does useful work, and there isn't much steam coming out of the hose. Since it's not my technology, and I don't review advanced energy technologies for a living, it's not my concern beyond showing that what has been presented to date is inconclusive at best. What I WON'T do is pitch this as a valid technology to outside parties, and I have also alerted those who may be directly impacted by this technology to take a MUCH closer look, which at the moment Rossi will not allow. So with that said, I have no further comment on this technology due to a lack of information beyond what has been presented to date, which again, remains inconclusive at best. I'll check back in six months to see if anything has changed...fighting over which words are used in a forum post is a waste of time. Original Message Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netmailto:zeropo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 12:09 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Todd: You really shold take some time and fully verify your facts before accusing someone of fraud... I believe that the e-Cat Krivit saw was only 2.5kW, not 10. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Jeff, You still did NOT read my posting and the simple algebra that is needed... I can't spoon-feed you knowledge Jeff; I have pointed you at the explanation and you refuse to read it. You obviously aren't interested in learning... You stated AGAIN: yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument. AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM QUALITY! YOURE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT! IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO CALCULATE IT THOUGH! THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM THE MASS OF WATER GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!! Its ALGEBRA-I level math... -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the outlet of the chimney, NOT at the end of a 10 foot hose that has condensation going on inside it. . . . That is correct. I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the measurements of the steam at the chimney... They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do not think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney. Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong. yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument I doubt it. In any case, the second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste of time. By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m from the steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is surprisingly small. The vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose. Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They are 2 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream: http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressur e-washers.php 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an impressive plume. This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related http://wn.com/ICanSteamCleanwow - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff, You still did NOT read my posting and the simple algebra that is needed... I can't spoon-feed you knowledge Jeff; I have pointed you at the explanation and you refuse to read it. You obviously aren't interested in learning... You stated AGAIN: yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument. AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM QUALITY! YOURE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT! IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO CALCULATE IT THOUGH! THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM THE MASS OF WATER GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!! no it doesn't give the mass of water as vapor because it only works for measuring the mass of water of vapor in AIR. NOT in a mixture of vapor and microscopic water DROPLETS Its ALGEBRA-I level math... -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: The only way to guage whether the steam flow is adequate is at the outlet of the chimney, NOT at the end of a 10 foot hose that has condensation going on inside it. . . . That is correct. I believe that the demo for Essen and Kullander did make the measurements of the steam at the chimney... They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do not think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney. Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong. yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument I doubt it. In any case, the second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste of time. By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m from the steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is surprisingly small. The vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose. Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They are 2 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream: http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressur e-washers.php 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an impressive plume. This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related http://wn.com/ICanSteamCleanwow - Jed
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote: The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water which is in the form of vapor... No. It certainly doesn't do that. And that means your simple algebra is all wet. The device gives the mass of water vapor per unit volume of air. That's the context it is calibrated for, as Driscoll says. They have determined that for a given humidity (mass of water vapor per unit volume of air), the polymer dielectric will have a certain permittivity, resulting in a certain measured capacitance. This, however, gives no indication what the dielectric constant of the polymer will be in the presence of a mixture of pure water vapor and mist. In any case, we know the mass of the water vapor per unit volume of steam without measuring it. It is simply the density of the steam. So even if the device correctly indicated this quantity, without knowing the volume of steam, it is not possible to get the total mass of the vapor. And your equation breaks down. A RH probe is just the wrong tool for the job. They could measure the flow rate of the steam. It's easier to measure, and easier to interpret.
Re: [Vo]:Submission to Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum
That vapor is a water gas. It is being produced at about 2g per second. 18 grams of water have about 30 liters (1 mol at 373K) at 100C. So, 2 grams of water fills 3 liters or 3,000 cm^2 passing through an opening with an area of 2 cm^2. So, you need to pass a cilinder of 1500 cm in 1 second to keep the pressure constant inside the boiler. That means, 15m/s. That's fast as a hair dyer wind at maximum power.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Jeff Driscoll wrote: no it doesn't give the mass of water as vapor because it only works for measuring the mass of water of vapor in AIR. NOT in a mixture of vapor and microscopic water DROPLETS All air has microscopic water droplets in it. Sometimes they are macroscopic, for example, when it rains, or when someone takes a shower, or in any kitchen. Are you suggesting that this meter does not work when it rains? Or it does not work in a bathroom? (If you think rain does not come indoors, you should visit a traditional Japanese house, or our house in Atlanta.) Low temperature steam also always has microscopic water droplets in it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Hi Terry, Life is so much more interesting when one ponders the implications behind the obvious facts! I have no doubt that your granddaughter's life is much more enjoyable because of her grandpa T... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I gotta get me one of these! If you do, I want to borrow it. I was taking my granddaughter to the theatre and pointed out the smushed chewing gum along the outside walkway to the mall. As you approached the trash can, the density of gum increased exponentially. Good trys shooting for the garbage, but few ringers. T
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
At 11:20 PM 6/21/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: ABD wrote: Rossi held up the hose, Krivit had also mentioned this. He didn't want to allow this to continue, he said it was dangerous. Really? How? I think its quite obvious and simple... yes. That was a rhetorical question. It showed that there is water in the hose, Rossi knows there is water in the hose, and he proceeded to acknowledge that there was water in the hose. A little. So, why didn't he pour it out into a container, instead of into the drain? Well, maybe there was a *lot* of water in the hose! Speculation. The point is that the conditions of the demo don't allow us to come to firm conclusions on this. Other demos had different conditions and might have been more convincing. But each demo had its problems, and Rossi has no motive to clear this up. None. He gains nothing from a good reputation and a convincing demo at this time. Rossi is way over concern about his personal image. Being tossed in jail can have that effect. Water in the hose would be expected, from condensation. What this means is that we can't tell, without complex calculations fraught with opportunity for error, how much steam is being generated. We could tell, far more simply, by observation of the steam plume from the valve at the top of the chimney. That's been covered up in this Krivit video.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Terry, Life is so much more interesting when one ponders the implications behind the obvious facts! I have no doubt that your granddaughter's life is much more enjoyable because of her grandpa T... Thanks! I don't know if her life is more enjoyable, but her path to the theatre is longer. Quoting: Eeew, that's nasty! T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong. No. Only Galantini. The manufacturers make no claim about enthalpy in steam. This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior: What is your point? That thing produces steam at several times the rate of the ecat in the Krivit video.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument So you say, but Galantini and the manufacturers say differently. The manufacturers do not say differently. Only Galantini does. He could be wrong. Putting aside who is the pre-eminent expert (you, or the guy who designed the meter), you cannot argue with the second test. Then why did they bother with the 3rd, 4rth, 5th, and 6th demo? And why didn't they use the method of the 2nd in the subsequent demos?
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 12:02 AM 6/22/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote: http://www.testosites.de/export/sites/default/datalogger2011/en_INT/local_downloads/brochure_EN.pdf yes, this device, and its probes, measure the relative humidity of *air* . It does not measure steam quality. What is Galantini doing? I don't know. A visible steam cloud will have an RH of 100%, as will live steam. Wet steam will have a water content of g/m^3 greater than that of dry steam at the same temperature and pressure. However, the question is whether or not the meters in question will measure this, I suspect that when they indicate g/m^3, they are assuming dry steam, or they may read erratically if it's wet steam. I see no specification or guidance on this from the manufacturer literature, and no indication that this device measures the water burden of air when the water is as liquid instead of vapor. In wet steam, the probe, being initially cooler, would heat up from condensation of steam onto it, so it would become wet, covered with liquid water. If the steam is wet, it will not evaporate this water, thus skewing the readings toward higher water, depending on how the humidity measurement is made. It might be possible, from this, to infer that steam is dry. That, however, would seem to be an off-label usage of the meter, and would require much more information from the expert user than a simple result. In confirming his results to Krivit, Galantini did not state his results, beyond temperature and pressure. He didn't state the actual pressure, it was stated as ambient, which is not quite enough for an accurate understanding (of the meaning of the temperature measurement). The meter does have a mode which indicates g/m^3, but that is grams of water vapor per cubic meter of gas. I think. The meter is not specified for accuracy at 100% RH. I'm not seeing any clarification of this appearing, except for confirmation that there are grounds to think the meter can't be used for the kind of measurement asserted, which concern has been widespread and goes back, I think, to January. One would think that in all this time, and all this discussion, if this meter could be used for measuring steam quality in a direct way, it would have come out. Have I missed something? And if it is used indirectly, how? What's the procedure?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll wrote: no it doesn't give the mass of water as vapor because it only works for measuring the mass of water of vapor in AIR. NOT in a mixture of vapor and microscopic water DROPLETS All air has microscopic water droplets in it. It's a question of degree. An RH measurement in the plume of an ultrasonic mister would probably not be accurate either. But the more important point is that the gas is pure water vapor. The probe is designed to measure water content in air. That's how it's calibrated. Even if this device measures, in any context, the mass of water vapor in a gas, as G. claims, then it will simply return the density of the steam. How can that be used to determine enthalpy? But of course, it doesn't measure mass directly, even in air. It measures how wet the dielectric gets. That can be used to determine RH if it is suitably calibrated. I don't see how it can be used to determine the liquid content in steam. And the manufacturer makes no claim that it can.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: Putting aside who is the pre-eminent expert (you, or the guy who designed the meter), you cannot argue with the second test. Then why did they bother with the 3rd, 4rth, 5th, and 6th demo? I suppose because different people wanted to see it. It is nice of Rossi to let so many people in, even after he declared there will be no more demos. I wanted to see it myself, and I kinda wish I had gone instead of Krivit. It is a shame that Rossi did not want to spend the whole day letting me measure temperatures and do different tests. I would have nailed this dispute, you can be sure. And why didn't they use the method of the 2nd in the subsequent demos? I don't know. I was hoping to see both kinds of tests. The steam method does have a few advantages. It is easier to measure the mass of cooling water. It demonstrates that the machine operates at high temperatures. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
At 12:52 AM 6/22/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity -- A common misconception Often the notion of air holding water vapor is presented to describe the concept of relative humidity. Stop right there. You are citing Wikipedia as evidence? Wikipedia is worse than Rossi It's worse because it's often right, leading you to think you can trust it. I've seen common misconceptions there which were actually correct, there is a whole article on common misconceptions, which then supposedly corrected them, and the corrections were bogus, in a case I studied, someone made them up and posted them on a blog, and then some editor incorporated that without any understanding of the physics involved. That error stood for a long time.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM THE MASS OF WATER GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!! No. It determines the mass of water vapor per unit volume of air. Even if it gave the mass of water vapor per unit volume of steam, you'd need to know the volume to get the mass. For that you'd need a flowmeter. But if you had a flowmeter to measure the flow rate of the steam, you wouldn't need the RH meter.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
At 04:16 AM 6/22/2011, Michele Comitini wrote: Harry, right: vapour is a gas. As it is O2. IMHO the probe of Dr Galantini detects the liquid phase of h2o or other liquid conductor capacitor. It is not a chemical reactant that binds to any h2o molecule that comes around. Conductivity of gases is very low compared to liquids. Do you see any specifications of the meter for detecting the liquid phase? I've looked, it's missing. The problem with this is that water would condense on the probe. You would always see 100% liquid water, if this is how it's being detected, unless you preheated the probe. Tricky. There are descriptions on-line of how to measure steam quality, and this approach is not mentioned at all. When you ask for tech specs of instruments used by people that know how to make good experiments search for the physical principles that is behind the measure not the range or the main field of application of an instrument. I bet Galantini knows how that probe works inside quite well. He might and he might not. It depends on his specific experience. He might have never made a measurement like this before, though he would certainly understand the physics; he might simply assume that g/m^3 referred to liquid water, without thinking much about it. Do you see his actual measured values anywhere? Seems to me I saw something somewhere.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: Even if it gave the mass of water vapor per unit volume of steam, you'd need to know the volume to get the mass. For that you'd need a flowmeter. But if you had a flowmeter to measure the flow rate of the steam, you wouldn't need the RH meter. They do not need a flow meter. They weigh the reservoir before and after the test. That works better than most flow meters. If they did not measure the weight of the water, you would be right. The RH meter reading alone is not sufficient. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: Even if it gave the mass of water vapor per unit volume of steam, you'd need to know the volume to get the mass. For that you'd need a flowmeter. But if you had a flowmeter to measure the flow rate of the steam, you wouldn't need the RH meter. They do not need a flow meter. They weigh the reservoir before and after the test. That works better than most flow meters. If they did not measure the weight of the water, you would be right. The RH meter reading alone is not sufficient. - Jed
[Vo]:Revolutionary new aircraft engine.
Jed, Here's one for you! (if you've not already seen it.) http://www.gizmag.com/d-dalus-uav-design/18972/ I've not found any video footage of it yet. I bet it's something to behold. Joe -- Dr Joe Karthauser
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Even if it gave the mass of water vapor per unit volume of steam, you'd need to know the volume to get the mass. For that you'd need a flowmeter. But if you had a flowmeter to measure the flow rate of the steam, you wouldn't need the RH meter. They do not need a flow meter. They weigh the reservoir before and after the test. That works better than most flow meters. That gives the input flow rate. If you want to know how much steam vs liquid is coming out the other end, then you need to measure the flow rate at the output. You see, water changes volume when it changes phase. If they did not measure the weight of the water, you would be right. The RH meter reading alone is not sufficient. The RH meter reading is not enough even with the input flow rate. You need the output flow rate.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
Breaking the mold, I'm agreeing with Cude here, in part. At 05:29 AM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: In any case, if the device is to be used to determine liquid content in steam, it would at least have to be calibrated for that purpose. There is no indication such a calibration was performed. There are procedures given for calibrating the meter for other measurements. We have no information allowing us to accept, so far, that this meter is useful for steam quality determination, nor do we have the kind of information I've seen where critical measurements are reported legally. There will be reference to calibrations and when the calibration was performed, etc. Galantini's report is relatively informal, which isn't surprising, in itself. But for us, the information is missing, and may reflect the absence of any such calibration. It would be possible, just from the experiments performed, to determine if the RH probe were of any use. If the RH readings were *monitored* on a continuos basis, like the temperature, and *reported*, we could see if the reading ever actually changes. Presumably the steam must begin wet and then become drier as the power transfer increases. Not necessarily. Indeed, the steam may be wetter with higher power, because of higher turbulence inside the device. During this process, does the RH reading on that probe change? If it doesn't, whatever it is measuring is not relevant to the liquid content of the steam. Well, there may be a transient wet steam phase, where dry steam generated in the device is made wet by condensation as it passes into the still-cool outlet chimney. But the probe has a delay time, it doesn't instantly change the humidity level in that capacitor, I don't recall what the time necessary is. I think I may have read about watching the humidity reading until it settles. There are two very simple ways to prove the steam is dry: (1) Measure the output flow rate (velocity); if it is steam, it should be 1700 times higher than the input flow rate; Yeah, but it's not so simple to determine that rate. Could be done, though. (2) Reduce the input flow rate so the steam temperature exceeds boiling by more than a few degrees -- say 120C or so. That these two methods are not used suggests the steam is not dry. Not really. It suggests that measures have not been taken to prove that it's dry. Reducing the input flow rate could be dangerous with this device, possibly. I'd prefer to see gravity feed, so that water is replace as it boils. A feed container sitting on a scale on an elevated table is how I'd think of doing it, the water would siphon into the E-Cat to maintain constant water level there, matching the level outside in the feed container, which would be kept at that level periodically by adding a known weight (or volume would be accurate enough) of water. If it's confirmed that the steam is dry, then, the energy generated could be directly measured by the consumption of water. The confirmation of dry steam would take place in the vent at the top of the chimney, I described how a tee could be placed there so that an observer could switch the steam from the hose (normal operation) to the vent aiming straight up (steam quality test position). No meter is necessary.
Re: [Vo]:Submission to Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum
At 09:56 AM 6/22/2011, t...@wonksmedia.com wrote: The following was submitted to the Journal of Nuclear Physics Forum (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=22#commentshttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=22#comments) this morning: http://psci.us/gold.htmPSCI-NET Your comment is awaiting moderation. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=22#comment-47826June 22nd, 2011 at 8:53 AM See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E the steam generated by the E-Cat unit in this video pprovided by Steve Krivit is roughly the amount expected from 748 watts (3.4 amps X 220V) input power. Our home electric water kettle has a measured input power of 1270 watts, and the amount of steam generated by the water kettle exceeds the amount of steam shown in the video linked above. A qualitative analysis of the steam output shown in Krivitâs E-Cat demo video will be compared with our video of the steam generated by the electric water kettle and will be made available online at http://psci.us/gold.htmhttp://psci.us/gold.htm later today. The Greek Embassy in Washington, D.C., has been notified of these findings. I'm sure they will be fascinated. This is inadequate, because the steam exiting the hose, after three meters of hose, is being compared, I assume, with direct steam from a water kettle. Do this with three meters of black flexible hose, like that in the Krivit video, you will have something much more interesting. That is, if the steam actually seen at the end of the long hose is similar to steam produced by 750 watts, then the actual steam-generating power must be higher than that. I suspect quite a bit higher. When the steam condenses, it shrinks enormously in volume, so what is being seen at the end of the hose is a pale shadow of the original. Which is why this whole demo is so shaky.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 12:12 PM 6/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone can provide me a mathematical example refuting that, I will be happy. *What steam?* Understand that 2.5 KW of steam being generated at the E-Cat is not going to be 2.5 KW of steam coming out of a 3 meter hose, right. Suppose, as someone claimed, the steam is right for the input power claimed (about 750 watts). So, then, we need only lose 1.75 KW by conduction, convection, and radiation, from the 3 meters of hose, and someone did calculations showing that to be reasonable. You'd want to see the steam coming out of the E-Cat chimney steam escape valve, if open and the hose closed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: If they did not measure the weight of the water, you would be right. The RH meter reading alone is not sufficient. The RH meter reading is not enough even with the input flow rate. You need the output flow rate. Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow rate from that. It is rather difficult to measure a gas flow rate accurately. At least, I have difficulty doing it. It is expensive. Mizuno has a high precision gas flow meter contributed to him by a corporate sponsor that looks like it costs a fortune. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
At 02:00 PM 6/22/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote: no, the instrument gives the mass of water in air at some temperature, so it is grams of water per kg of air, No. The meter reads in grams per cubic meter. But the question stands how do you get steam quality from that? steam quality is grams of vaporized water per gram of liquid and vapor. I think there is more than one way of expressing it. But the point would be that the meter is not designed to give us information about liquid water, it is measuring water vapor. Dip it in water, the water, as vapor, will penetrate the measurement capacitor, it will think 100% RH. Unless that capacitor can carry more water than air can which seems unlikely to me! ... in which case it might show something higher. Calibration? Specifications? missing. It looks like the meter was very much not designed for measuring steam quality. That application is completely missing from the promotional literature.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
2011/6/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: The problem with this is that water would condense on the probe. You would always see 100% liquid water, if this is how it's being detected, unless you preheated the probe. Tricky. There are descriptions on-line of how to measure steam quality, and this approach is not mentioned at all. Condense on the probe? What is the temperature of the probe? 100° C or less? Galantini would not make such a mistake... When you ask for tech specs of instruments used by people that know how to make good experiments search for the physical principles that is behind the measure not the range or the main field of application of an instrument. I bet Galantini knows how that probe works inside quite well. He might and he might not. It depends on his specific experience. He might have never made a measurement like this before, though he would certainly understand the physics; he might simply assume that g/m^3 referred to liquid water, without thinking much about it. So we should think Galantini setup instruments picking up the first probe without understanding how it works. Or he always makes this kind of mesures just to fool people? Do you see his actual measured values anywhere? Seems to me I saw something somewhere. I recall that something is on JONP... no time to search in that mess. mic
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 01:58 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: They measured the steam quality at the chimney with the meter. I do not think they actually saw the steam emerge directly from the chimney. Bummer. You sure? Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong. I doubt it. In any case, the second test proved that the steam is dry. All other discussion is obfuscation, handwaving, unfounded accusations of fraud, and a waste of time. The second test proved that the steam is dry. What second test? By the way, I have seen 30 kW of steam emerge from a pipe about 1 m from the steam generator. It is impressive, but the plume is surprisingly small. The vapor is visible ~30 cm from the end of the hose. Easy to be confused by the complex variables involved. The cross-sectional area of the outlet restriction is important, and this will be the restriction at smallest area, it is not necessarily the diameter at the end. But just coming out of the hose, it would be the cross-sectional area of the inside of the hose. However, the flow rate would almost certainly depend on the plumbing which the hose is connected to. But as the steam cools in the hose, it rapidly loses volume, so the flow rate at the end decreases. That's why we see such a piddly steam plume, I suspect. Wet and dry steam generators at dry cleaners are not that large. They are 2 to 5 kW. Here is a photo of a 5 kW wet steam stream: http://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressure-washers.phphttp://www.chewinggumremovalmachines.com/wet-steam-gum-removal-pressure-washers.php 1.5 kW steam cleaners for home use are common. They do not produce an impressive plume. These things are designed to spread the steam out. The applied power determines the steam flow, and they would then spread this out before it actually leaves the device.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 02:12 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jeff Driscoll mailto:hcarb...@gmail.comhcarb...@gmail.com wrote: yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument So you say, but Galantini and the manufacturers say differently. No, the manufacturers do *not* say differently. Jed, you do. You are calling on other experts, interpreting what they say, to make your own point. It is clear that Galantini is an expert in this subject and you not. I have no idea what Galantini is expert in. Do you know? As always, I'm happy to find out I'm wrong. I suggest you stop repeating yourself. Putting aside who is the pre-eminent expert (you, or the guy who designed the meter), you cannot argue with the second test. Get a statement from the guy who designed the meter -- or a manufacturer's recommendations for usage -- you'd have something. Otherwise you are blowing steam, nothing more, Jed. It is a huge mistake to dismiss skeptical arguments because you disagree with skeptical conclusions. It's really just a mirror image of what pseudoskeptics do.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
- Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 22, 2011 3:35:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity At 12:52 AM 6/22/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity -- A common misconception Often the notion of air holding water vapor is presented to describe the concept of relative humidity. Stop right there. You are citing Wikipedia as evidence? Wikipedia is worse than Rossi It's worse because it's often right, leading you to think you can trust it. I've seen common misconceptions there which were actually correct, there is a whole article on common misconceptions, which then supposedly corrected them, and the corrections were bogus, in a case I studied, someone made them up and posted them on a blog, and then some editor incorporated that without any understanding of the physics involved. That error stood for a long time. Are you saying that it is wrong and that your conception of RH is right? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Novel Thermoelectric Conversion Material
It seems to me that this new Multiferroic material could best be utilized in a cold fusion reactor using a rotating turbine wheel made from the stuff and connected to an electric generator. Since the magnetic transition temperature is 135C, one side or quadrant of a veined turbine wheel could be heated just beyond the critical transition temperature of 135 C by a jet of pressurized steam. Each vain of the turbine is made from Multiferroic material and would transition to a magnet as it passed through the steam. To supplement the force of steam pressure, each magnetized vain would contribute to the rotational force derived from a pushing magnetic force provided by a permanent magnet. This magnetized area would cool as the wheel rotates either passively or through the action of a cooling spray of cold water. This cooling would demagnetize the magnetic zone. In this way, a cycle of heating and cooling over a very small delta temperature difference would cause the wheel to rotate. This action would supplement the motive pressure of steam. Best regards, Axil On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L Presented is an interesting thermoelectric conversion material. Perhaps useful in a Focardi Rossi LENR Cell: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-source-green-electricity.html Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 02:25 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM QUALITY! YOURE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT! IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO CALCULATE IT THOUGH! THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM THE MASS OF WATER GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!! Its ALGEBRA-I level math... The capital letters inspire and express confidence, right? The instrument does not provide mass of water as vapor, unfortunately, that's not what it shows. It reads in g/m^3. To convert this to mass we'd need to know the volume, eh? (This is really just a relative humidity measurement, converted at the relevant temperature and pressure.) Further, we do not know the effect of the presence of liquid water on the meter readings, so the g/m^3 might be affected by the presence of liquid water. Slow down, folks, pressing the caps lock before engaging the mind is a way to look really well, I won't say it. You get the idea.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 02:58 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jeff Driscoll wrote: no it doesn't give the mass of water as vapor because it only works for measuring the mass of water of vapor in AIR. NOT in a mixture of vapor and microscopic water DROPLETS All air has microscopic water droplets in it. Sometimes they are macroscopic, for example, when it rains, or when someone takes a shower, or in any kitchen. Are you suggesting that this meter does not work when it rains? Or it does not work in a bathroom? The meter will work there. However, if there are microscopic water droplets in any air, they will quickly vanish if the RH is below 100. (If you think rain does not come indoors, you should visit a traditional Japanese house, or our house in Atlanta.) Low temperature steam also always has microscopic water droplets in it. That means condensed stream and this is why it's visible as a cloud. Live steam is invisible and has no microscopic droplets in it. Wet steam does, that's the very definition of wet steam. Wet steam is visible. I'd think you could make a wet steam gauge that would work from light scattered by the droplets. Could be pretty simple, and would be calibrated to various flow rates. There are really two issues here, that get conflated. One is wetness of steam, the other is the possibility of liquid water being pushed out of the chamber into the outlet hose.
RE: [Vo]:relative humidity
Michele wrote: Condense on the probe? What is the temperature of the probe? 100° C or less? Galantini would not make such a mistake... Exactly... As soon as the probe was placed in the steam flow, some condensation would occur on it, but within seconds the probe would heat up and the condensation will evaporate. -Mark -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini [mailto:michele.comit...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity 2011/6/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: The problem with this is that water would condense on the probe. You would always see 100% liquid water, if this is how it's being detected, unless you preheated the probe. Tricky. There are descriptions on-line of how to measure steam quality, and this approach is not mentioned at all. Condense on the probe? What is the temperature of the probe? 100° C or less? Galantini would not make such a mistake... When you ask for tech specs of instruments used by people that know how to make good experiments search for the physical principles that is behind the measure not the range or the main field of application of an instrument. I bet Galantini knows how that probe works inside quite well. He might and he might not. It depends on his specific experience. He might have never made a measurement like this before, though he would certainly understand the physics; he might simply assume that g/m^3 referred to liquid water, without thinking much about it. So we should think Galantini setup instruments picking up the first probe without understanding how it works. Or he always makes this kind of mesures just to fool people? Do you see his actual measured values anywhere? Seems to me I saw something somewhere. I recall that something is on JONP... no time to search in that mess. mic
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I have no idea what Galantini is expert in. Do you know? Yes. The second test proved beyond any doubt that he is an expert in identifying dry steam, and it proved that all of the objections raised here are bunk, including yours. In science, you are supposed to answer questions by doing another experiment, and measuring the effect with a different method. That eliminates the possibility that the first method was mistaken. That's what Rossi did. So there is nothing more to talk about, unless you believe (as some people apparently do) that he measured the temperature and flow rates wrong by some large factor (up to a factor of a 1000 according to some). I don't believe that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Abd wrote: I have no idea what Galantini is expert in. Do you know? Yes, chemistry. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** Joshua Cude wrote: If they did not measure the weight of the water, you would be right. The RH meter reading alone is not sufficient. The RH meter reading is not enough even with the input flow rate. You need the output flow rate. Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow rate from that. Right. But how do you get the total mass of the steam? Even in your interpretation of what information that device provides, it only gives mass per unit volume. So you need the volume to get the mass. To get the volume, you need the flow rate. Infinite loop. It's a rookie mistake, and you're a seasoned programmer. It is rather difficult to measure a gas flow rate accurately. Measuring the flow rate of wet steam or any 2-phase fluid is difficult, but mainly the inaccuracy comes in converting the volume flow rate to a mass flow rate. But measuring the flow of dry steam is easy, and can be done to a few % accuracy. Google steam flow meter to see plenty of examples of commercial devices designed for the purpose. Since the claim is that the steam is dry, this should work, and should indicate a rate 1700 times the input. If the steam is wet, the volume flow rate measurement will presumably be much lower; even if it is not accurate, a lower value will indicate wet steam.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow rate from that. Right. But how do you get the total mass of the steam? Even in your interpretation of what information that device provides, it only gives mass per unit volume. So you need the volume to get the mass. To get the volume, you need the flow rate. Infinite loop. It's a rookie mistake, and you're a seasoned programmer. I repeat: they measure the total mass, separately. They measure the weight of the water reservoir before and after the test. The mass of water is starting weight minus ending weight. The flow rate does not vary significantly with this kind of pump. If you want to know what it is, divide the mass by the duration of the test. If the flow rate does change significantly, or if the machine starts putting out more power or less power, the RH meter will tell you. The temperature will change. - Jed
[Vo]:I retract 90% of my skepticism towards the e-cat.
Hmm, I just notice a mistake here (in GoatGuy's post he did 1.03g/s * 12.7 m/s = 13.1N) : 1.03g/s * 12.7 m/s = 0.00103kg/s*12.7m/s= 0.0131N. You forgot to convert to SI, which is based on kg, not on grams. That's the typical force and speed of the the wind of when you blow a candle on a cake. That force you obtained is typical of pressures during supersonic wind tunnel simulations, that is, 2 psi. This like the blow of a 1kton atomic explosion 600 meters away from the explosion, at sea level. 2 psi is also in the range of severe to total damage in atomic explosions... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blastcurves_psi.svg I made some very strong blows, and tried to measure the speed. It clearly diminishes to much less than 1.0 m/s after 20 cm, and it scatters very strongly after 4 cm, when I keep my mouth opened as that hose. The average speed is like the one you said, something around 0.8m/s. As far as the current is ok, but if it is nuclear, it is useless as an energy source if just by the vapor blow. 2500Watts are just converted to around 2*10^(-3)*(15 ^2)/2=0.225W. So, you'd need more than 1000 e-cats to feed 1 e-cat. The only way to make this work is make the gas to go up, but I am afraid it wouldn't go up too much. Maybe by heating another gas? So, at least I am, back to see only if there is any hidden energy source or clever manipulation. For me, there is enough proof that exhaust output is OK, humidity is OK. So, I retract part of my skepticism...
Re: [Vo]:I retract 90% of my skepticism towards the e-cat.
Can you let GoatGuy know his mistake? It'd be really good to see how he responds. On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Hmm, I just notice a mistake here (in GoatGuy's post he did 1.03g/s * 12.7 m/s = 13.1N) : 1.03g/s * 12.7 m/s = 0.00103kg/s*12.7m/s= 0.0131N. You forgot to convert to SI, which is based on kg, not on grams.
Re: [Vo]:I retract 90% of my skepticism towards the e-cat.
Sure: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/steven-b-krivit-of-new-energy-times-has.html#comment-232178721 But as I said, it is useless to use the vapor of an e-cat to blow a turbine. Unless if one used that to heat another gas and use that in cycles. Anyway, that would be a large scale project.
Re: [Vo]:I retract 90% of my skepticism towards the e-cat.
Daniel Rocha wrote: Hmm, I just notice a mistake here (in GoatGuy's post he did 1.03g/s * 12.7 m/s = 13.1N) : 1.03g/s * 12.7 m/s = 0.00103kg/s*12.7m/s= 0.0131N. You forgot to convert to SI, which is based on kg, not on grams. What did I tell you?! Always include the units. That's what I learned in 4th grade. Remember how NASA crashed the damn rocket into Mars by using the wrong units. Rule 2: always use SI. As far as the current is ok, but if it is nuclear, it is useless as an energy source if just by the vapor blow. 2500Watts are just converted to around 2*10^(-3)*(15 ^2)/2=0.225W. So, you'd need more than 1000 e-cats to feed 1 e-cat. WHY would anyone use it as an energy source, using the force of the vapor after it comes out of a 3 m rubber hose at 1 atm?!? Maybe I misunderstand this comment, but if you mean you would use the vapor to push something like a turbine, that would be insane. That would be like using a 1 GW nuclear reactor to make steam in Washington DC, and then transporting the steam to Baltimore MD 63 km away to run a generator. The thing produces ~2 kW of heat. If you want to use that as a mechanical energy source, you make steam at high pressure, and you run a small steam turbine, placed right next to the boiler. Or you use a thermoelectric chip. Actually, for a practical home generator you need about ~20 kW of raw heat. Look at the length of the hose and the size of the orifice in this 1.9 kW steam heater used to clean automobile interiors. Look at steam as it comes out. It is not hard to imagine this is how the steam from the eCat would look if you used a short hose and a small orifice: http://www.therma-kleen.com/vapor_steam_cleaners/vapor_steam_cleaners.html http://www.therma-kleen.com/vapor_steam_cleaners/vapor_steam_cleaners.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pcOgkRbfQfeature=related By the way, I said you don't want more than ~2 kW of steam in a car because you start melting plastic and stuff and destroying the interior. Oops. Been there. Done that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I retract 90% of my skepticism towards the e-cat.
About using it as a power source: Living and learning. ;) I never did any calculation on exhaust speed of a boiler before 2 days ago.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
It would take a long time for water to evaporate out of any crevices, so the liquid would stay around a long time, any probe measuring steam quality has to do it from below 100 C and above 100 C. but this is all moot. Galantini used the wrong instrument. I can't find the amount of grams per kg of air at 100 C. But I did find that air at 50 C and 100% humidity has about 95 grams of water per kg of Air. This is a ratio of 10%. See chart here: http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2007/07/humidity-effects-on-tuning-and-intonation/ so at 100 C I'd expect there to be something like 300 or 400 grams of water per kg of air (that's 30% to 40% which I find amazing!) Problem is the Ecat puts out microscopic liquid droplets (i.e. fog) and water vapor. The humidity meter Galantini used is designed for humidity in AIR! The Ecat does not put out any air. Steam quality requires a complex expensive instrument. It can be done by expanding pressurized steam into a chamber and measuring the resulting temperature of the vapor. For this method to work, all the water has to vaporize during the expansion which requires an adequate pressure change. On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Michele wrote: Condense on the probe? What is the temperature of the probe? 100° C or less? Galantini would not make such a mistake... Exactly... As soon as the probe was placed in the steam flow, some condensation would occur on it, but within seconds the probe would heat up and the condensation will evaporate. -Mark -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini [mailto:michele.comit...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:relative humidity 2011/6/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: The problem with this is that water would condense on the probe. You would always see 100% liquid water, if this is how it's being detected, unless you preheated the probe. Tricky. There are descriptions on-line of how to measure steam quality, and this approach is not mentioned at all. Condense on the probe? What is the temperature of the probe? 100° C or less? Galantini would not make such a mistake... When you ask for tech specs of instruments used by people that know how to make good experiments search for the physical principles that is behind the measure not the range or the main field of application of an instrument. I bet Galantini knows how that probe works inside quite well. He might and he might not. It depends on his specific experience. He might have never made a measurement like this before, though he would certainly understand the physics; he might simply assume that g/m^3 referred to liquid water, without thinking much about it. So we should think Galantini setup instruments picking up the first probe without understanding how it works. Or he always makes this kind of mesures just to fool people? Do you see his actual measured values anywhere? Seems to me I saw something somewhere. I recall that something is on JONP... no time to search in that mess. mic
[Vo]:What did Galantini actually say?
There certainly is plenty of confusion to go around here. Were measurements by volume or by mass? -- the whole Krivit/Levi/Rossi flap. The meter in question measures a number of variables, I believe the relevant ones here are temperature, pressure, and relative humidity. It does not seem to directly measure liquid water per cubic meter, but this is what Galantini told Krivit, as translated: I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by E-Cat generators, always was made providing results in % of mass, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure. The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . The used device does have a feature to interpret and translated what it actually measures, temperature, pressure, and relative humidity, into grams per cubic meter. It does this for air. This is not a measurement of liquid water, as far as I can tell. Galantini may have made some calculation, but does not disclose this, nor his method, nor the readings he took. The statement does not make or confirm any claim on steam quality. I'm seeing statements like this: http://peakoil.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60688p=1062397 Just re-iterate, http://peakoil.com/forums/cold-fusion-merged-t60688-389.htmlDr. Galantini confirmed today that any condensed water in the steam was measured as a percentage of MASS, not volume. Of course, what Galantini actually said was not that! What I can see is that there are people reading things the way they want them to be. Galantini, quite simply, did not say what was claimed. He said that he provided results as % of mass, apparently referring to a previous report, but what was indicated by the meter was grams per unit volume. The problem is grams of *what* per unit volume? Is the meter measuring condensed water, or is it measuring *water vapor,* as the meter seems designed to do? Galantini, if he provided measurements as percentage of mass, did so by making a calculation, so it is then very proper to ask how the meter readings were converted to calculations of mass ratio, since the meter does not read in mass ratio, it reads in grams (grams of what?) per unit volume. Given the normal applications of this meter, the reading in grams per unit volume would be expected to be grams of water -- as vapor -- per cubic meter of air. Measuring liquid water content is not nearly as easy. Looking back, I see this in Levi's January 21 report: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3076881.ece/BINARY/Levis+and+Bianchinis+rapport+%28pdf%29 The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measure was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry. During [Test2 ] this measure was done by Dr. Galantini a senior chemist who has used an air quality monitor instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe . Notice: no statement of results from Galantini. Notice that Galantini is presented as a senior chemist. I would not expect a chemist to necessarily be expert on the issues involved here. Not the same field at all. I've been looking and have not been able to find actual data from Galantini. Given all this flap, isn't that interesting? We have better information from Kullander and Essen, from the March 29 test. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess As an aside, this statement is in that report: If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation. This is likely an error. There is no sign that, before 60 degrees was reached, of an asymptotic approach to that temperature. The basis for making this statement is not given, perhaps Kullander and Essen will clarify at some time, I think this was just a slip. What would have been true is that the rate of change of temperature would not have increased beyond the rate existing before that point. The temperature, without excess power, would have still increased to some level, unknown and apparently not tested. (It would be easy to test, just don't add the hydrogen) Indeed, a lot of fuss would have been avoided by running two identical E-Cats in parallel, one with and one without hydrogen, and with identical input power. Between 11:00 and 12:00 oclock, control measurements were done on how much water that had not evaporated. The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** Joshua Cude wrote: Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow rate from that. Right. But how do you get the total mass of the steam? Even in your interpretation of what information that device provides, it only gives mass per unit volume. So you need the volume to get the mass. To get the volume, you need the flow rate. Infinite loop. It's a rookie mistake, and you're a seasoned programmer. I repeat: they measure the total mass, separately. They measure the weight of the water reservoir before and after the test. The mass of water is starting weight minus ending weight. I got that. That gives the total mass of the input water. That's the same as the mass of the output water. But the output is a different phase. That means it has a different volume. The flow rate does not vary significantly with this kind of pump. I accept that the input flow rate is constant. But the output *volume* flow rate is very different because at least part of the water changes phase. If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need to know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam. But you don't know the *volume* of the output steam unless you measure the *output* *volume* flow rate. That RH probe measured directly the wetness of a certain polymer, and relates that to the *density* of water vapor in air. Even if it could give the density of water vapor in steam, we already know that: it's just the density of steam. There are a lot of people interested in the quality (wetness) of steam, and quite elaborate ways to determine it. If it were possible with a simple RH probe, I should think the manufacturers would advertise that as a useful feature of the device. But they don't.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need to know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam. Ah. Here is what you overlooked. It also says that it gives mass of water per unit of mass. That is degree of humidity (g/kg), partial pressure in water vapour in mbar/hPa. and: Ethalpy kcal/kg (Interesting that they use kcal.) See: http://www.testo.com/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf It also measures Absolute humidity g/m^3 which is what you had in mind. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
RE: Abd's comment about, the instrument does not provide mass of water as vapor, unfortunately, that's not what it shows. It reads in g/m^3. To convert this to mass we'd need to know the volume, eh? NO, you do NOT need to know the volume to calculate the mixing ratio if you have measurements of the proper other variables. In atmospheric science the mixing ratio is a very common and key variable. It is always CALCULATED from other more common variables which do NOT include flow rate or volume. This is gas law and in gas law, concentrations do not matter... Its all about mass or Mole fraction. I will provide the explanation shortly, but I have to run an errand... I may not get to it this eve, but I will definitely respond. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
More frustration than confidence! Jeff kept on insisting that there is no documentation that the instrument (actually sensor) can measure the liquid content of steam, to which I AGREED, but I requested twice that he read my proposal of a very easily understood method that one could calculate that value with information that the instrument DOES give us... And he did not. He was pretty much digging in his heals and refusing to even read and discuss what I was proposing! Gee, that's real open-minded... -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... At 02:25 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM QUALITY! YOURE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT! IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO CALCULATE IT THOUGH! THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM THE MASS OF WATER GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!! Its ALGEBRA-I level math... The capital letters inspire and express confidence, right? The instrument does not provide mass of water as vapor, unfortunately, that's not what it shows. It reads in g/m^3. To convert this to mass we'd need to know the volume, eh? (This is really just a relative humidity measurement, converted at the relevant temperature and pressure.) Further, we do not know the effect of the presence of liquid water on the meter readings, so the g/m^3 might be affected by the presence of liquid water. Slow down, folks, pressing the caps lock before engaging the mind is a way to look really well, I won't say it. You get the idea.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: It would be possible, just from the experiments performed, to determine if the RH probe were of any use. If the RH readings were *monitored* on a continuos basis, like the temperature, and *reported*, we could see if the reading ever actually changes. Presumably the steam must begin wet and then become drier as the power transfer increases. Not necessarily. Indeed, the steam may be wetter with higher power, because of higher turbulence inside the device. If the steam were wetter, then it would remove less power from the reactor, and if the reactor is producing more power, where does the energy go? The reactor would have to get hotter, and then of course it would heat the water faster, boil it more quickly, and produce more steam, and it would be drier. Higher power transfer means drier steam, if energy is to be conserved. There are two very simple ways to prove the steam is dry: (1) Measure the output flow rate (velocity); if it is steam, it should be 1700 times higher than the input flow rate; Yeah, but it's not so simple to determine that rate. Could be done, though. It's not hard to measure the flow rate of dry steam to 1 or 2% accuracy. There are commercial devices that advertise exactly that. If the steam were dry, it would be easy to prove it this way. (2) Reduce the input flow rate so the steam temperature exceeds boiling by more than a few degrees -- say 120C or so. That these two methods are not used suggests the steam is not dry. Not really. It suggests that measures have not been taken to prove that it's dry. Reducing the input flow rate could be dangerous with this device, possibly. The same device has been operated with several different flow rates, and always the temperature at the output is 100C. If the steam were dry, a modest decrease in the flow rate would give a significant increase in the steam temperature. It would have to in order to remove the same amount of heat from the reactor.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua: STOP THINKING ABOUT VOLUME! Yes, you're right in that the extreme volume change complicates the measurements, and thats why I and others including Krivit, are focused on MASS. Think in terms of mass. That eliminates the complication of the 1700:1 change in volume that you are stuck on. If you condense all the gaseous water molecules (i.e., the water vapor) and you then measure the mass of the CONDENSED LIQUID water (that USED TO BE VAPOR), that is what the meter is measuring in grams of water (molecules) per m^3! All this is based on gas law and concentrations of any other gaseous molecules in the gaseous mixture DO NOT MATTER. gotta go run my errand... go do some homework and try to convince me that concentrations of whatever molecules other than H2O have anything whatsoever to do with what we're debating... -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow rate from that. Right. But how do you get the total mass of the steam? Even in your interpretation of what information that device provides, it only gives mass per unit volume. So you need the volume to get the mass. To get the volume, you need the flow rate. Infinite loop. It's a rookie mistake, and you're a seasoned programmer. I repeat: they measure the total mass, separately. They measure the weight of the water reservoir before and after the test. The mass of water is starting weight minus ending weight. I got that. That gives the total mass of the input water. That's the same as the mass of the output water. But the output is a different phase. That means it has a different volume. The flow rate does not vary significantly with this kind of pump. I accept that the input flow rate is constant. But the output *volume* flow rate is very different because at least part of the water changes phase. If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need to know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam. But you don't know the *volume* of the output steam unless you measure the *output* *volume* flow rate. That RH probe measured directly the wetness of a certain polymer, and relates that to the *density* of water vapor in air. Even if it could give the density of water vapor in steam, we already know that: it's just the density of steam. There are a lot of people interested in the quality (wetness) of steam, and quite elaborate ways to determine it. If it were possible with a simple RH probe, I should think the manufacturers would advertise that as a useful feature of the device. But they don't.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need to know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam. Ah. Here is what you overlooked. It also says that it gives mass of water per unit of mass. per unit mass of what? It's supposed to be mass of water per kg of air, but there's no air in there. So, what specifically do you think that g/kg means in the context of a 2-phase mixture of steam and water? What do you use for the denominator to calculate the total mass of the steam? If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of water vapor, then it should be 1000 g / kg. How do you use that? If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of total fluid, how could a device that measures humidity (i.e. wetness of air) determine that? You are not making sense.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Joshua: STOP THINKING ABOUT VOLUME! Yes, you're right in that the extreme volume change complicates the measurements, and thats why I and others including Krivit, are focused on MASS. Think in terms of mass. That eliminates the complication of the 1700:1 change in volume that you are stuck on. If you condense all the gaseous water molecules (i.e., the water vapor) and you then measure the mass of the CONDENSED LIQUID water (that USED TO BE VAPOR), that is what the meter is measuring in grams of water (molecules) per m^3! You just told me to stop thinking about volume, and then you give me a quantity with units of mass per unit volume. You are thinking about volume, and that's why I am. If that device did as you say, where do you get the m^3 to calculate the total mass of the vapor? But no. That device is not measuring the mass of condensed liquid. It's measuring capacitance, which is affected by the wetness of a dielectric, which corresponds in some known, predetermined way to the amount of water vapor in air. There is no known, predetermined correspondence between the wetness of the dielectric and the mass of condensed liquid that used to be vapor, or the fraction of steam in a steam-mist mixture. No matter how many caps you use. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: More frustration than confidence! Jeff kept on insisting that there is no documentation that the instrument (actually sensor) can measure the liquid content of steam, to which I AGREED, but I requested twice that he read my proposal of a very easily understood method that one could calculate that value with information that the instrument DOES give us... And he did not. He was pretty much digging in his heals and refusing to even read and discuss what I was proposing! Gee, that's real open-minded... -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... At 02:25 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: AS I ALREADY STATED, I AGREE THAT THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT MEASURE STEAM QUALITY! YOURE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT! IT DOES GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO CALCULATE IT THOUGH! THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT FROM THE MASS OF WATER GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING OUT!! Mark, I read and understand what you wrote. I know exactly what you are trying to explain. But you are not understanding me and you don't understand that an instrument designed for humid air does not work with 100% vapor or a mixture of vapor and liquid water. You literally wrote THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR But the instrument measures mass of water as vapor in an air and water vapor mixture. It is made for measuring only in *humid air* with no liquid droplets present. It will not for the Ecat which is putting out a state of water vapor and liquid water. And there is no way to mickey mouse some sort of method.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Oh well, I'll run the errand tomorrow... As a start, go read about the gas laws and partial pressure and how humidity is calculated from partial pressure... In order to understand how Galantini can ESTIMATE the liquid water content of the steam, you need to think several steps ahead as in chess, or in a complex mathematical derivation that involves many steps and applying theorems at each step in order to derive the final desired answer. Its not a direct measurement as I've said numerous times. The behavior and properties of gases are very different from liquids, and are dictated by mass or mole fraction, not concentrations. Gases dissolve, diffuse, and react according to their partial pressures, and not according to their concentrations in gas mixtures or liquids. If you vaporized so many grams of liquid water into a cubic meter box with NO other molecules present, you'd end up with a specific temperature and pressure, and that could also be communicated as a mixing ratio. For atmospheric science where we ARE dealing with air, then the mixing ratio is the mass of water (if you condense the water vapor) to the mass of dry air. However, you do NOT need other molecules in order to measure humidity. Another quote which might help... This general property of gasses is also true of chemical reactions of gasses in biology. For example, the necessary amount of oxygen for human respiration, and the amount that is toxic, [my emphasis] *** is set by the partial pressure of oxygen alone ***. This is true across a ***very wide range of different concentrations*** of oxygen present in various inhaled breathing gases, or dissolved in blood. So you're getting hung up on the denominator thinking that there has to be some entity or volume of some other molecule(s) when in fact, it might as well say, cubic meter of empty space. -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua: STOP THINKING ABOUT VOLUME! Yes, you're right in that the extreme volume change complicates the measurements, and thats why I and others including Krivit, are focused on MASS. Think in terms of mass. That eliminates the complication of the 1700:1 change in volume that you are stuck on. If you condense all the gaseous water molecules (i.e., the water vapor) and you then measure the mass of the CONDENSED LIQUID water (that USED TO BE VAPOR), that is what the meter is measuring in grams of water (molecules) per m^3! You just told me to stop thinking about volume, and then you give me a quantity with units of mass per unit volume. You are thinking about volume, and that's why I am. If that device did as you say, where do you get the m^3 to calculate the total mass of the vapor? But no. That device is not measuring the mass of condensed liquid. It's measuring capacitance, which is affected by the wetness of a dielectric, which corresponds in some known, predetermined way to the amount of water vapor in air. There is no known, predetermined correspondence between the wetness of the dielectric and the mass of condensed liquid that used to be vapor, or the fraction of steam in a steam-mist mixture. No matter how many caps you use. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, what specifically do you think that g/kg means in the context of a 2-phase mixture of steam and water? What do you use for the denominator to calculate the total mass of the steam? If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of water vapor, then it should be 1000 g / kg. How do you use that? If 10% by mass is liquid water then it would be 900 g/kg. That's the whole point. How could it measure enthalpy or partial pressure of vapour if it doesn't know how much vapour there is? If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of total fluid, how could a device that measures humidity (i.e. wetness of air) determine that? You are not making sense. Not me. Complain to instrument manufacturer or Galantini. - Jed
[Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi
A bit of street cred . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJnZZi41YA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJnZZi41YAfeature=player_embedded feature=player_embedded
[Vo]: liquid water contains dissolved air...
I've also got another bone to pick with Jeff... Let's please not claim that there is NO air (i.e., O2 and N2) in the steam... --- ever hear of a dissolved oxygen meter? --- ever been in the hospital when they put an oximeter probe on your finger? --- ever hear of the term, 'blood gases'? --- if there was no oxygen in liquid water, then all aquatic life would suffocate! It should be very obvious that water HAS dissolved gases in it, and when the water is vaporized the dissolved gases are also released and present in the steam, although not at the same concentration as the ambient (normal) 'air'. But all that is moot since it is NOT necessary to have ANY 'air' in order to make a humidity measurement... ... an air-less volume can contain water vapor and therefore the humidity of this volume can be readily determined. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 03:21 PM 6/22/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: I don't know if her life is more enjoyable, but her path to the theatre is longer. Quoting: Eeew, that's nasty! Normal girl. I found a large spider dead on my bathroom floor, and showed it to my two young daughters. Both of them recoiled. It really was a large spider, very ugly. Or ... hey, very beautiful, it's all in how it's framed! Both of them were interested to see the leg under the microscope. Daddy, it's way cool that you have a microscope! So ... gum on the ground, notice how the gum is more plentiful the closer you get to the waste container. You could teach statistics with this, just right for a certain age; the gross factor would actually increase interest. I think it's great to get kids over this hump of instinctive revulsion. After all, there are reasons to be instinctively jumpy about a large spider, but no reason to fear it once you know it's dead. No reason to get upset over that gum, unless you are tasked with cleaning it up! And then you give them the right tools and suggest that they approach the theater to get paid to clean it up I could imagine a nice little contract All it would take is a little research into what works with gum on that surface. And they can wear gloves. And then they start to see the world as being full of interesting stuff and opportunities.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Quick-freezing would probably be the 'cleanest' way to get it off the concrete... Works for gum on clothes! -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... At 03:21 PM 6/22/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: I don't know if her life is more enjoyable, but her path to the theatre is longer. Quoting: Eeew, that's nasty! Normal girl. I found a large spider dead on my bathroom floor, and showed it to my two young daughters. Both of them recoiled. It really was a large spider, very ugly. Or ... hey, very beautiful, it's all in how it's framed! Both of them were interested to see the leg under the microscope. Daddy, it's way cool that you have a microscope! So ... gum on the ground, notice how the gum is more plentiful the closer you get to the waste container. You could teach statistics with this, just right for a certain age; the gross factor would actually increase interest. I think it's great to get kids over this hump of instinctive revulsion. After all, there are reasons to be instinctively jumpy about a large spider, but no reason to fear it once you know it's dead. No reason to get upset over that gum, unless you are tasked with cleaning it up! And then you give them the right tools and suggest that they approach the theater to get paid to clean it up I could imagine a nice little contract All it would take is a little research into what works with gum on that surface. And they can wear gloves. And then they start to see the world as being full of interesting stuff and opportunities.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 03:21 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Iverson mailto:zeropo...@charter.netzeropo...@charter.net wrote: Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the temperature to measure enthalpy. They are saying the manufacturers of these meters are wrong, and Galantini are wrong. No. Only Galantini. The manufacturers make no claim about enthalpy in steam. Correct here. Not in what follows. This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior: What is your point? That thing produces steam at several times the rate of the ecat in the Krivit video. The Krivit video does not show the steam production rate, that's the problem. It shows what's left after the steam runs through three meters of rubber hose. We know that steam will condense in this hose, and some estimates have been made of how much. It's quite enough to explain that weak showing. All this means is that the demo is a piece of crap. It would only convince someone who is inclined to believe. It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power. That conclusion would only come from someone who is inclined to disbelieve. My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky. The sad thing about this is that a convincing demo -- absent true and serious fraud -- could be easily done. I've pointed out many times that there is no way, with a demo controlled by the inventor or close allies of the inventor, to rule out a sophisticated fraud. But the demo Krivit video'd, that isn't a sophisticated fraud, it's an obviously deficient demo! If Rossi were interested in fooling people, he could manage much better than this! Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. Maybe. I'm skeptical. I suspect that Rossi is smarter than that, that he knows how he looks and is deliberately creating the impressions that he's creating. I can think of a number of reasons for this, both psychological and practical or economic. And, of course, none of this helps us to actually know how much power this kitten is producing. Kullander and Essen did see a more convincing demo, and apparently did see (directly) the quality of the steam, at least at one point. Unfortunately, their report doesn't allow us to rule out that significant water may have been flowing out the outlet tube, consider the possibility that their inspection of this tube was controlled precisely how Rossi controlled it with Krivit. Measuring steam quality with their meter, even if it actually worked for that purpose, would not rule out this water flow problem. I love it, in a way. The situation causes many observers to reveal their biases, by how they respond. However, I'll caution myself that Rothwell, for example, does claim to have private information that he trusts, and private information can create an appearance of bias. Still, Jed's attachment to the expert testimony here is not a good sign, I urge him to quickly climb down from that! The sooner the better! It's fascinating to me that the Levi paper included detailed information about the calibration of the fundamentally irrelevant radiation measurements, and nothing, in fact, on the steam quality measurements. The results of those measurements was not even reported, it was merely *implied* that the issue was addressed. And then everone is falling all over themselves over whether the non-reported measurements were based on mass or volume! It would be like arguing over the result of zero divided by zero. Hey! my result checks correctly and perfectly, therefore your different result is wrong!
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 03:24 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comjedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll mailto:hcarb...@gmail.comhcarb...@gmail.com wrote: yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality. Galantini used the wrong instrument So you say, but Galantini and the manufacturers say differently. The manufacturers do not say differently. Only Galantini does. He could be wrong. Actually, what does Galantini say. I haven't notice him say anything, really. Putting aside who is the pre-eminent expert (you, or the guy who designed the meter), you cannot argue with the second test. Then why did they bother with the 3rd, 4rth, 5th, and 6th demo? And why didn't they use the method of the 2nd in the subsequent demos? Rothwell is defending the indefensible here -- at least with the evidence we have -- and Cude is asserting another of his pseudoskeptical how come arguments. Habits. Both of them, I'd guess, are arguing from independent conclusions, defending or attacking evidence that they imagine leads to contrary conclusions. Arguing from conclusions is generally a bad habit! It blinds us.
Re: [Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A bit of street cred … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJnZZi41YAfeature=player_embedded Judy didn't have a brush in her purse? BJ looks like Dr. Brackish Okun. I guess that lends credibility with some. For those who do not know him, he became a Nobel Prize laureate in 1973 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/index.html for the prediction of the eponymous Josephson effect. Some of his more recent endorsements have not advanced his CREDibility. I do tend to side with him, however. Ah well, tomorrow is another day. T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 03:32 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Putting aside who is the pre-eminent expert (you, or the guy who designed the meter), you cannot argue with the second test. Then why did they bother with the 3rd, 4rth, 5th, and 6th demo? I suppose because different people wanted to see it. It is nice of Rossi to let so many people in, even after he declared there will be no more demos. I wanted to see it myself, and I kinda wish I had gone instead of Krivit. It is a shame that Rossi did not want to spend the whole day letting me measure temperatures and do different tests. I would have nailed this dispute, you can be sure. Which may be precisely why Rossi did not allow it. He *likes* the dispute, it is comfortable for him, it amplifies his sense of himself against a world full of idiots. And why didn't they use the method of the 2nd in the subsequent demos? I don't know. I was hoping to see both kinds of tests. The steam method does have a few advantages. It is easier to measure the mass of cooling water. It demonstrates that the machine operates at high temperatures. Yes, I understand why they like steam generation. So ... it's not hard to arrange a convincing steam generation demo that addresses the problems. You knew how to do that, Jed. He wouldn't let you. I'm not convinced that this was merely because he didn't want to waste his time. He's wasted plenty of time with the demos, far more than would have been involved in a convincing demo. I'm ever more convinced. He's either a fraud (which I personally consider unlikely) or he's deliberately (or perhaps subconciously) creating an impression of a con. I think it's fascinating, because it's the opposite of what we might expect. We are accustomed to inventors desperate to show the world that they have invented this amazing thing. Rossi isn't desperate to show that. Is he pretending disinterest or is he for real? And I'm assuming that, in fairly short order, we will know. We will know even if there is some problem with the Defkalion delivery, which wouldn't be surprising at all (under any scenario). (If Rossi fails to deliver to Defkalion, and at the same time refuses to allow better demonstrations, he's going to be hooted off the stage, his support will collapse, etc. He may need to allow a university test where the researchers -- under non-disclosure agreements -- have full access. At least, even if the E-Cat is sealed, they would have total control over everything conceivably connected to the thing, and this silly steam quality issue will be nailed, and the calorimetry will be conclusive.)
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I found a large spider dead on my bathroom floor, I found a palmetto bug on our office floor and pointed it out to our HR director. Her response, When will all you engineers understand that NO PETS ARE ALLOWED IN THE OFFICE. Go figure. T
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
At 04:19 PM 6/22/2011, Michele Comitini wrote: 2011/6/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: The problem with this is that water would condense on the probe. You would always see 100% liquid water, if this is how it's being detected, unless you preheated the probe. Tricky. There are descriptions on-line of how to measure steam quality, and this approach is not mentioned at all. Condense on the probe? What is the temperature of the probe? 100° C or less? Galantini would not make such a mistake... What make syou think that? What's Galantini's expertise? The probe would enter the chimney, presumably in the port provided. It would be below 100 C and would take time to heat up. Meanwhile, it would get wet because steam would condense on it (this would heat it rapidly). If the steam is wet, the condensation would stay, but I don't think that dry steam would quickly remove the water; only if the RH is below 100% would water be quickly removed, if I understand this correctly. If the probe were preheated, and the steam is dry, no water would condense on the probe, unless it somehow cooled (through its body, perhaps). If the steam is wet, though, the surface would become wet, I'd expect. I don't see how such a probe can measure the total water content of the steam. So we should think Galantini setup instruments picking up the first probe without understanding how it works. Or he always makes this kind of mesures just to fool people? We do not know how many measurements of this kind Galantini has ever made. We don't know if it's his meter or he borrowed it or checked it out from the university equipment stores. I have no reason to think that Galantini set out to fool anyone, but it is possible that he made a mistake. This is not a mistake that someone who routinely makes steam quality measurements would make. Is there any evidence that Galantini (a chemist!) routinely makes such measurements? It would not be expected, particularly. He was presented as an expert chemist, not an expert steam quality engineer! Do you see his actual measured values anywhere? Seems to me I saw something somewhere. I recall that something is on JONP... no time to search in that mess. mic I've searched and can't find it, but you know how that goes. I expect someone will find it if it is there. What I do see is that lots of people are referring to non-reports, without any specific information, as if they were definitive reports, the BS factor is huge here. On all sides.
RE: [Vo]:relative humidity
At 04:34 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Michele wrote: Condense on the probe? What is the temperature of the probe? 100° C or less? Galantini would not make such a mistake... Exactly... As soon as the probe was placed in the steam flow, some condensation would occur on it, but within seconds the probe would heat up and the condensation will evaporate. Why will the condensation evaporate? Only if the steam is superheated will it be sure to evaporate. Because of a small level of cooling in the path to the place where the probe is sitting, there would normally be some small level of water present; water is formed when the steam heats something like the walls of the vessel -- or the probe, initially. That steam isn't totally dry, and not being totally dry, it cannot remove water. It might, if the flow rate is high enough, blow it off. This would depend on how much the water adheres to the probe Maybe it would blow off. As some have pointed out, steam engines have to deal with steam quality issues, and measures are taken to dry the steam, they are basically mechanical, catching or trapping the water droplets.
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
At 04:24 PM 6/22/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message Stop right there. You are citing Wikipedia as evidence? Are you saying that it is wrong and that your conception of RH is right? No. That would be stupid unless I spent a lot of time with that article, read and considered the references, etc. What I'm actually saying is that Wikipedia is not an authority at all. If you want to make a citation with some authority, cite the source for the claim in the article. Once upon a time I'd have gone there and done that, and I've found lots of these claims that turn out to be unsupported by the source, the claim in the text was synthesis or original research by the editor. But I'm banned on Wikipedia, and I don't waste perfectly good IP or established sock puppets on mere bullshit. And maybe the article is right. I'm unconvinced that Mr. Veeder understands what is being said.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 04:38 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I have no idea what Galantini is expert in. Do you know? Yes. The second test proved beyond any doubt that he is an expert in identifying dry steam, and it proved that all of the objections raised here are bunk, including yours. Jed, I've asked this before. What second test proved what you show? Are you referring to the Levi test that increased the flow rate? How would this show that Galantini was correct? Or are you referring to the results of Kullander and Essen? Those results appear to contradict Galantini, though, to be sure, we don't have Galantini's results, so how can non-existent results be confirmed, or contradicted, for that matter. What we have is an *implication* from Levi, in his January report, that Galantini addressed the steam quality issue. No results were given, i.e., an actual measure of water per whatever, neither mass ratio nor volume. (The meter will apparently provide a mass/volume number, but it appears that this is mass of water vapor per volume of gas, which would be a number which would depend only on the temperature and pressure, if what we have is only steam and water present, and the temperature is at boiling, as is the case here. The mass/volume is not actually measured by measuring mass and volume, it is, instead, inferred (calculated) from relative humidity, temperature, and pressure, which is what the meter actually measures. In science, you are supposed to answer questions by doing another experiment, and measuring the effect with a different method. That eliminates the possibility that the first method was mistaken. That's what Rossi did. So there is nothing more to talk about, unless you believe (as some people apparently do) that he measured the temperature and flow rates wrong by some large factor (up to a factor of a 1000 according to some). I don't believe that. Jed, you are completely confused here. It looks like you are confusing confirmation of heat generation, in very rough numbers, with confirmation of steam quality. You are mixing public demonstrations with private evidence, as with the second test, i.e., by Levi with high flow. The claim that I'm making, which is echoing concerns from many, not just from pseudoskeptics, is that the public demonstrations, because of issues with steam quality and/or possible liquid flow out of the device, aren't convincing. That claim is not affected by whatever private evidence Levi has seen, at all. You have already acknowledged being convinced by private information. That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of us. From the information I have, I can't tell how much energy was generated. From the bulk of the evidence, and a tendency to believe testimony unless controverted (a legal principle) I suspect some. But I can't prove it. Note that when I believe testimony, what I'm believing is a careful report of what was actually observed. When a witness doesn't state what they observed, but only their conclusions from what they observed, there is nothing to believe in the way of primary, objective evidence. There is only opinion, which may or may not be expert opinion, and even experts make mistakes. Which is why we expect formal reports from experts to contain lots of details of the evidence from which the expert derived their conclusioins. I am not proceeding from a pseudoskeptical position, Jed. The different method approach is valid; in this case, though, that different method does not in any way confirm the accuracy of the method used by Galantini to measure steam quality. Basically, Galantini could be right as rain or quite wrong, and that Rossi -- especially privately, with only Levi -- shows excess heat with some other test method has no impact on that, and there are lots of reasons for this. Missing in all this, Jed, is an actual report of what Galantini found! Do you have that information, is it on-line somewhere?
RE: [Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi
Terry, What 'endorsements' has Brian Josephson missed-out on, specifically? He is an LENR advocate for sure, but the factuality of LENR is still pending, so one cannot call him out on that. He may have picked other tech losers (on the fringes) - which I do not know of - since he is open-minded, to a fault. Funny you mention it ... yours is the same initial response that several others (in fact almost everyone) expresses on first seeing the video - but I overlooked it: that these two are rather unattractive (at least unkempt) people. Too bad. Plus the video is a huge yawner in terms of visual-effects. I gave up television (aside from YouTube) some years ago and am not accustomed to being fed news by perfectly coifed, made-up, handsome and well-dressed talking-heads, so these two look pretty normal to me :) In fact, as far as believability this kind of natural appearance can be a plus, not a negative... at least it is clear they are not trying to impress anyone with anything other than science or logic. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: A bit of street cred . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJnZZi41YAfeature=player_embedded Judy didn't have a brush in her purse? BJ looks like Dr. Brackish Okun. I guess that lends credibility with some. For those who do not know him, he became a Nobel Prize laureate in 1973 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/index.html for the prediction of the eponymous Josephson effect. Some of his more recent endorsements have not advanced his CREDibility. I do tend to side with him, however. Ah well, tomorrow is another day. T
Re: [Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi
It is a shame the sound quality isn't better. Harry - Original Message From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, June 22, 2011 9:52:43 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi Terry, What 'endorsements' has Brian Josephson missed-out on, specifically? He is an LENR advocate for sure, but the factuality of LENR is still pending, so one cannot call him out on that. He may have picked other tech losers (on the fringes) - which I do not know of - since he is open-minded, to a fault. Funny you mention it ... yours is the same initial response that several others (in fact almost everyone) expresses on first seeing the video - but I overlooked it: that these two are rather unattractive (at least unkempt) people. Too bad. Plus the video is a huge yawner in terms of visual-effects. I gave up television (aside from YouTube) some years ago and am not accustomed to being fed news by perfectly coifed, made-up, handsome and well-dressed talking-heads, so these two look pretty normal to me :) In fact, as far as believability this kind of natural appearance can be a plus, not a negative... at least it is clear they are not trying to impress anyone with anything other than science or logic. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Jones Beene wrote: A bit of street cred . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJnZZi41YAfeature=player_embedded Judy didn't have a brush in her purse? BJ looks like Dr. Brackish Okun. I guess that lends credibility with some. For those who do not know him, he became a Nobel Prize laureate in 1973 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/index.html for the prediction of the eponymous Josephson effect. Some of his more recent endorsements have not advanced his CREDibility. I do tend to side with him, however. Ah well, tomorrow is another day. T
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 04:41 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd wrote: I have no idea what Galantini is expert in. Do you know? Yes, chemistry. -Mark It is *claimed* that he is expert in chemistry. However, he may be expert in other things. If his only expertise is in chemistry, per se, he would not be qualified as an expert witness on steam quality. Chemists don't ordinarily deal with that, unless their particular research requires them to become experienced and expert. I found a strange statement from Galantini, rummaging around http://peakoil.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6t=60688p=1062253 Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:02:22 +0200 From: Greit Service Ltd. Reply-To: Greit Service Ltd. [snip] A: [snip] Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat all my measurements taken during the dozens of tests to measure the amount of evaporated water is not present steam produced by the generators in the E-Cat have always been made by giving the results in mass% used as the instrument indicates the gr.of water per cubic meter.Steam. I confirm that the measured temperature was always greater than 100.1 ° C. And the pressure measured in the fireplace is always found to be equal to the ambient pressure. The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . The Swedish teachers were not present during the January test, if I'm correct. They used their own RH meter, the Testo meter. So Galantini may be confused. Not a good sign. Maybe I've misunderstood something. Now, Galantini apparently does have an instrumentation company, see http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greitservice.it%2Fchi-siamo.php The fields mentioned on that home page don't include steam quality or related issues. They are more what I'd expect to be of interest to a chemist. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greitservice.it%2Fchi-siamo.php Gives the equipment that this company uses. Mentioned there is System for sampling in the workplace, and air emissions. My guess is that Dr. Galantini had an RH meter handy! That does not indicate that he *ever* used this for measuring steam quality. He certainly did not explain his measurements to Krivit, he only answered the really bogus question about mass and volume. In the absence of any numbers, and only an implied answer from Galantini, which might be a verbal comment he made to someone in January, the mass and volume question is completely irrelevant. In the Kullander and Essen report, there are some numbers (1.2-1.4%) which clearly, from how they used them, were thought to be mass ratios, they assumed that the numbers, read from the meter or calculated from what the meter read, represented the percentage of water mass in the steam sample that was present as liquid water. Which the meter is not designed to report, it appears. What we don't know is how they obtained these numbers. They did not state the instrumental readings. (The instrument they used has a mode which reports in g/m^3, which could only be converted to mass of whatever it is that the machine reports by knowing the volume involved. And they didn't measure that. Krivit, unfortunately, did not ask Kullander the important questions, being stuck on this mass/volume thing.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 05:22 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow rate from that. Right. But how do you get the total mass of the steam? Even in your interpretation of what information that device provides, it only gives mass per unit volume. So you need the volume to get the mass. To get the volume, you need the flow rate. Infinite loop. It's a rookie mistake, and you're a seasoned programmer. I repeat: they measure the total mass, separately. They measure the weight of the water reservoir before and after the test. The mass of water is starting weight minus ending weight. The flow rate does not vary significantly with this kind of pump. If you want to know what it is, divide the mass by the duration of the test. If the flow rate does change significantly, or if the machine starts putting out more power or less power, the RH meter will tell you. The temperature will change. Let's agree on this: the total mass is reasonably accurately measured. The problem is that we don't know where this mass goes. If it all goes to dry steam, great! Then the total energy can easily be calculated, given a few other parameters, such as pressure and temperature (feed water and outlet temperature, and output pressure) There is some possible error from changes in water level inside the device. One of the problems here is a constant input flow rate, which has been pointed out raises some question! However, neglecting that shift, the question is how much of the input water has been converted to steam, and how much is merely hot water. Water may leave the device in two ways, other than as steam: it may leave as entrained droplets, mist, or it might leave as an actual flow of water. Suppose that the input flow exceeds the boiloff rate. If so, then the water level in the E-Cat will rise until it flows out the hose. The hose is fairly large diameter, so it might take some significant time to fill the hose. If water that has actually flowed out the hose is considered as having boiled, then, of course, the output energy might be drastically overestimated. And nothing we have seen rules out this kind of flow. We do know that there is some water in that hose, that's what Rossi is emptying into the drain when he raises up the hose in the Krivit video. That water might be condensed steam, even if the steam is dry entering the hose. Or it might just be water being pumped out! I see no way to tell, if that water goes into the drain. There are ways that have been described which would rule out this direct flow of water, as well as to measure the water content of the steam itself. In a good design, here, I'd expect the steam quality to be high, and Rossi has actually acknowledged that the early tests were of E-Cats with wet steam! (He claims to have fixed it!) But those clearer demonstrations *have not been done,* and this whole flap about the use of RH meters and mass/volume (a semantic issue that only steamed up Krivit, Rossi, and Levi, and then people lining up to give ignorant opinions all over the internet) is just obscuring smoke. Note: you could have dry steam with water flowing out the hose. It would depend on exactly where the steam quality was measured. If there was no mist, there could easily be dry steam above a certain water level, and the water level in the E-Cat only would have to reach up to the bottom of the hose port.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Let me reiterate what I mentioned before. In the Kullander test, they used the Testo 650. Their site report says that they used a probe rated up to 550 degrees. If you looks at the accessories for the testo 650, the only probe rated for 550 is a temperature probe. All of the humidity probes are not rated over 100 degrees. The reason that this is important is that the probe matters, too. Regardless of the question of %RH in an all-steam environment, it appears that they were using the temperature probe for humidity measurements. The meter measures more than humidity. Think of it like a multimeter. I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it makes me REALLY wish that we had more information on that 2nd test. The Febrauary test was made to put to bed all of the questions of phase-change calorimterty, relative humidity meters, and steam enthalpy... Why was it limited to Levi?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 06:34 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: I accept that the input flow rate is constant. But the output *volume* flow rate is very different because at least part of the water changes phase. If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need to know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam. But you don't know the *volume* of the output steam unless you measure the *output* *volume* flow rate. That RH probe measured directly the wetness of a certain polymer, and relates that to the *density* of water vapor in air. Even if it could give the density of water vapor in steam, we already know that: it's just the density of steam. There are a lot of people interested in the quality (wetness) of steam, and quite elaborate ways to determine it. If it were possible with a simple RH probe, I should think the manufacturers would advertise that as a useful feature of the device. But they don't. I'm just quoting this to underscore it. Cude is completely correct here, unless someone comes in from left field and corrects us all, having specific knowledge and especially experience with some estoteric application of an RH meter.
