Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
Hi Jed, On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: However, experts skilled in the art have said that Galantini's methods are correct. Did Galantini know whats inside the tower? Did these experts know whats inside? Did the experts get true and complete detail informations? Did they use enough time and care? Or might it be they where asked some suggestive questions and their answers where cited out of context? Please names of experts and pointers to interviews and documents. Thanks. Peter
Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: However, experts skilled in the art have said that Galantini's methods are correct. Did Galantini know whats inside the tower? Did these experts know whats inside? They say they looked inside it. They saw nothing unexpected or unusual. Did the experts get true and complete detail informations? No details are needed. The tower has nothing in it. It is an empty cylinder. Did they use enough time and care? In their opinion, and mine, they did. They were there for a few weeks in December and January. Please names of experts and pointers to interviews and documents. See the LENR-CANR.org library and: http://www.nyteknik.se/taggar/?tag=Cold+Fusion http://rossiportal.com/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
Am 23.09.2011 23:29, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: However, experts skilled in the art have said that Galantini's methods are correct. Did Galantini know whats inside the tower? Did these experts know whats inside? They say they looked inside it. They saw nothing unexpected or unusual. Did the experts get true and complete detail informations? No details are needed. The tower has nothing in it. It is an empty cylinder. Did they use enough time and care? In their opinion, and mine, they did. They were there for a few weeks in December and January. Please names of experts and pointers to interviews and documents. See the LENR-CANR.org library and: http://www.nyteknik.se/taggar/?tag=Cold+Fusion http://rossiportal.com/ http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3228376.ece Citation: Rossi relies on a report by the chemist Dr. Gilberto Galantini http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3228358.ece/BINARY/Galantini+steam+report.pdf who measured the steam quality and stated that it contained at most 4.73 percent water by mass, which would affect the calculated energy by 2 percent. *Ny Teknik turned to* Professor Björn Palm http://www.kth.se/en/itm/inst/energiteknik/Forskning/ett/personal/bjorn-palm-1.20386, Head of the Energy Technology Division at the Royal Institute of Technology, doing research on heat transfer by evaporation. Based on the given dimensions and geometry, he gave his assessment of the situation: Any air in the tube is driven out of the flowing steam. This means that at the outlet there is pure steam, possibly with a little water droplets that come with the flow from the liquid surface. However, I cannot imagine that this would affect the 'effective' enthalpy of vaporization. From other cases with evaporation in tubes I would guess that the steam quality is at least 90%. End citation Professor Palm did not doubt the steam quality. So probably the steam quality was ok and we dont need to bother if Galantinis measurement method was correct or not. The steam was probably ok and Krivits layman speculation about wet steam is probably nonsense. However, Professor Palm did not discuss or mention overflowing water. This does not happen in professional systems, so he did not take this possibility in account. For him, as a specialist, it is clear that this must not happen and he was not told that this happened. So he silently assumed -no overflow- which is probably false. I did not find anything else from independent experts that are masters of this art.
Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
Peter, in order to measure the enthalpy you need to know the mass flow of steam. This is not known therefore humidity sensor gives only the amount of liquid water in suspension with steam. That was measured 1.2% and thus steam quality was 98.8%. Problem is that critics such as Mattia Rizzi and Krivit has wrong definition for steam quality. Measuring steam quality is irrelevant because it is always 99-98%. Instead what would have been necessary to measure, was the mass flow of steam. This was not measured, therefore steam quality reading is useless. It tells only that 98.8% of steam mass flow was vapor and 1.2% was liquid water droplets in suspension. But indeed this does not tell us how much liquid water was overflown that was not in suspension with water vapor. I wonder how long people will repeat this Krivit's silly misconception! —Jouni On Sep 22, 2011 5:25 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 22.09.2011 15:53 Betreff: Re: Aw: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Now what happens, when an inventor without deep knowledge and experience constructs a steam device, makes it unaccessible and then lets unexperienced scientist measure the steam? Most scientists expect that devices that they use are properly constructed and work as designed because they know nothing else. Some questions for you and other self-appointed experts here: How much deep knowledge and experience do you have? How many steam devices have you constructed? Have you done calorimetry on this scale? What do you know about Galantini's background and his previous work? You are presumptuous. I do repair professional devices and had contact with many professors and doctors in chemical labors using our products. I have experiences with chromatography devices (with the electronic sensors,and computers, not with the chemistry), and with microparticel measurement devices and with continuous flow devices. All these dont only need calibration, fresh calibration is sometimes needed before each measurement. I have no experience with steam measurements, but was reading a lot in the last time and I learned that this are heavily nonlinear problems with many variable known and unknown parameters and it is too easy to make mistakes and too easy to fool others with such measurements.
Re: [Vo]: About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
Mattia, you can also measure the steam quality by measuring the speed of sound in steam. This is correlated with amount of liquid water droplets in steam suspension. Therefore you do not need to condense steam in order to find it's quality. In close to room pressure it is really not necessary to condense the steam, but it is enough to measure steam quality and separate hot water and steam with water trap. This gives the mass flow of steam and thus we can calculate the total enthalpy from humidity sensor readings. Usually water boilers are designed thus that there is build in water trap so that only steam escapes. With tube boiler this is however the case due to percolator effect. Of course it would be easier and more reliable to condense the steam by sparging it into the water bucket and measure the change of water temperature. Then we would not need to worry about the amount of overflown water. —Jouni On Sep 22, 2011 6:21 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: It’s the manufacter that say the readings are useless, not me. If you don’t trust the manufacter, then provide a single reference from the literature that say that it’s possibile to measure the entalphy/steam quality/ecc from a RH reading. I challenge you. Nobody do it. ISO standard is to condensate the steam. From: Jouni Valkonen Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe Peter, in order to measure the enthalpy you need to know the mass flow of steam. This is not known therefore humidity sensor gives only the amount of liquid water in suspension with steam. That was measured 1.2% and thus steam quality was 98.8%. Problem is that critics such as Mattia Rizzi and Krivit has wrong definition for steam quality. Measuring steam quality is irrelevant because it is always 99-98%. Instead what would have been necessary to measure, was the mass flow of steam. This was not measured, therefore steam quality reading is useless. It tells only that 98.8% of steam mass flow was vapor and 1.2% was liquid water droplets in suspension. But indeed this does not tell us how much liquid water was overflown that was not in suspension with water vapor. I wonder how long people will repeat this Krivit's silly misconception! —Jouni On Sep 22, 2011 5:25 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 22.09.2011 15:53 Betreff: Re: Aw: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Now what happens, when an inventor without deep knowledge and experience constructs a steam device, makes it unaccessible and then lets unexperienced scientist measure the steam? Most scientists expect that devices that they use are properly constructed and work as designed because they know nothing else. Some questions for you and other self-appointed experts here: How much deep knowledge and experience do you have? How many steam devices have you constructed? Have you done calorimetry on this scale? What do you know about Galantini's background and his previous work? You are presumptuous. I do repair professional devices and had contact with many professors and doctors in chemical labors using our products. I have experiences with chromatography devices (with the electronic sensors,and computers, not with the chemistry), and with microparticel measurement devices and with continuous flow devices. All these dont only need calibration, fresh calibration is sometimes needed before each measurement. I have no experience with steam measurements, but was reading a lot in the last time and I learned that this are heavily nonlinear problems with many variable known and unknown parameters and it is too easy to make mistakes and too easy to fool others with such measurements.
Re: [Vo]: About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
We'are talking about galantini did the measuremnts, it's an RH measurement. 2011/9/22 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com Mattia, you can also measure the steam quality by measuring the speed of sound in steam. This is correlated with amount of liquid water droplets in steam suspension. Therefore you do not need to condense steam in order to find it's quality. In close to room pressure it is really not necessary to condense the steam, but it is enough to measure steam quality and separate hot water and steam with water trap. This gives the mass flow of steam and thus we can calculate the total enthalpy from humidity sensor readings. Usually water boilers are designed thus that there is build in water trap so that only steam escapes. With tube boiler this is however the case due to percolator effect. Of course it would be easier and more reliable to condense the steam by sparging it into the water bucket and measure the change of water temperature. Then we would not need to worry about the amount of overflown water. —Jouni On Sep 22, 2011 6:21 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: It’s the manufacter that say the readings are useless, not me. If you don’t trust the manufacter, then provide a single reference from the literature that say that it’s possibile to measure the entalphy/steam quality/ecc from a RH reading. I challenge you. Nobody do it. ISO standard is to condensate the steam. From: Jouni Valkonen Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe Peter, in order to measure the enthalpy you need to know the mass flow of steam. This is not known therefore humidity sensor gives only the amount of liquid water in suspension with steam. That was measured 1.2% and thus steam quality was 98.8%. Problem is that critics such as Mattia Rizzi and Krivit has wrong definition for steam quality. Measuring steam quality is irrelevant because it is always 99-98%. Instead what would have been necessary to measure, was the mass flow of steam. This was not measured, therefore steam quality reading is useless. It tells only that 98.8% of steam mass flow was vapor and 1.2% was liquid water droplets in suspension. But indeed this does not tell us how much liquid water was overflown that was not in suspension with water vapor. I wonder how long people will repeat this Krivit's silly misconception! —Jouni On Sep 22, 2011 5:25 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 22.09.2011 15:53 Betreff: Re: Aw: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Now what happens, when an inventor without deep knowledge and experience constructs a steam device, makes it unaccessible and then lets unexperienced scientist measure the steam? Most scientists expect that devices that they use are properly constructed and work as designed because they know nothing else. Some questions for you and other self-appointed experts here: How much deep knowledge and experience do you have? How many steam devices have you constructed? Have you done calorimetry on this scale? What do you know about Galantini's background and his previous work? You are presumptuous. I do repair professional devices and had contact with many professors and doctors in chemical labors using our products. I have experiences with chromatography devices (with the electronic sensors,and computers, not with the chemistry), and with microparticel measurement devices and with continuous flow devices. All these dont only need calibration, fresh calibration is sometimes needed before each measurement. I have no experience with steam measurements, but was reading a lot in the last time and I learned that this are heavily nonlinear problems with many variable known and unknown parameters and it is too easy to make mistakes and too easy to fool others with such measurements.
Re: [Vo]: About measurement of steam with Galantini probe
Who knows enough about sound velocity in various quality steam? - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About measurement of steam with Galantini probe Mattia, you can also measure the steam quality by measuring the speed of sound in steam. This is correlated with amount of liquid water droplets in steam suspension. Therefore you do not need to condense steam in order to find it's quality. In close to room pressure it is really not necessary to condense the steam, but it is enough to measure steam quality and separate hot water and steam with water trap. This gives the mass flow of steam and thus we can calculate the total enthalpy from humidity sensor readings. Usually water boilers are designed thus that there is build in water trap so that only steam escapes. With tube boiler this is however the case due to percolator effect. Of course it would be easier and more reliable to condense the steam by sparging it into the water bucket and measure the change of water temperature. Then we would not need to worry about the amount of overflown water. —Jouni On Sep 22, 2011 6:21 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: It’s the manufacter that say the readings are useless, not me. If you don’t trust the manufacter, then provide a single reference from the literature that say that it’s possibile to measure the entalphy/steam quality/ecc from a RH reading. I challenge you. Nobody do it. ISO standard is to condensate the steam. From: Jouni Valkonen Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe Peter, in order to measure the enthalpy you need to know the mass flow of steam. This is not known therefore humidity sensor gives only the amount of liquid water in suspension with steam. That was measured 1.2% and thus steam quality was 98.8%. Problem is that critics such as Mattia Rizzi and Krivit has wrong definition for steam quality. Measuring steam quality is irrelevant because it is always 99-98%. Instead what would have been necessary to measure, was the mass flow of steam. This was not measured, therefore steam quality reading is useless. It tells only that 98.8% of steam mass flow was vapor and 1.2% was liquid water droplets in suspension. But indeed this does not tell us how much liquid water was overflown that was not in suspension with water vapor. I wonder how long people will repeat this Krivit's silly misconception! —Jouni On Sep 22, 2011 5:25 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 22.09.2011 15:53 Betreff: Re: Aw: [Vo]:About measurement of steam with Galantini probe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Now what happens, when an inventor without deep knowledge and experience constructs a steam device, makes it unaccessible and then lets unexperienced scientist measure the steam? Most scientists expect that devices that they use are properly constructed and work as designed because they know nothing else. Some questions for you and other self-appointed experts here: How much deep knowledge and experience do you have? How many steam devices have you constructed? Have you done calorimetry on this scale? What do you know about Galantini's background and his previous work? You are presumptuous. I do repair professional devices and had contact with many professors and doctors in chemical labors using our products. I have experiences with chromatography devices (with the electronic sensors,and computers, not with the chemistry), and with microparticel measurement devices and with continuous flow devices. All these dont only need calibration, fresh calibration is sometimes needed before each measurement. I have no experience with steam measurements, but was reading a lot in the last time and I learned that this are heavily nonlinear problems with many variable known and unknown parameters and it is too easy to make mistakes and too easy to fool others with such measurements.
