Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 11:04 AM 7/30/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jouni Valkonen mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.comjounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: That is very true, it requires lots of steam to rise boiling point temperature by one degree of celsius. How much is lots? If 2% of the liquid vaporizes, that makes lots of steam. Right. The behavior of the E-cat indicates that some water is vaporizing. How much, we have few clues, except that the weakness of the steam in some demos makes it look like not much. It's been pointed out that some demos may have represented not working E-cats. This, all by itself, if true, raises a major issue. To those of us with a major interest in LENR, that there might be Ni-H results wasn't so surprising. There was resistance to Ni-H for theoretical reasons, but this kind of thinking was really the same kind of thinking that caused premature rejection of PdD cold fusion. Unexpected. Rossi made a splash, though, because he was claiming not only high levels of heat, but reliability. Reliability is crucial for commercialization. If he doesn't have a reliable reactor, even if it works sometimes, there is a huge problem and he may fail to deliver in October *even if the things actually do work sometimes.* Mats Lewan's E-Cat had highest ratio of excess heat produced where there was around 2kW excess heat. I agree, if by around you mean give or take 2 kW. More like 1 kW give or take 1 kW! Hey, Cude, how about popping over to Wikiversity and helping develop the Cold fusion resource there, making sure that skeptical POV is well-represented? We had Moulton for a while, but he flamed out. Some good things came out of our discussions, even though he was really a pseudoskeptic. He was smart enough to raise some important issues, and they got clarified. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion etc. There is some mention of the Rossi reactor at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Nickel-hydrogen_system, and there is a page on it at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Energy_Catalyzer. I wrote all that and it's really old and naive now. I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway. Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud has happened before. Come to think of it, possibly with Rossi. It's not criminal fraud, as far as I know. He can tell the public any story he wants, it's not illegal to lie to the public. After all, politicians, etc.!
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 03:18 PM 7/30/2011, you wrote: Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. I agree. People seem to have no experience with teapots or steam cleaners. Neither teapots nor steam cleaners are designed like an E-cat. They don't have constant water flow input. They can't have overflow water, it's not possible with their design and operation. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. No he did not. He pointed that the water in the hose would condense the steam. He wrote: The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. Storms assumes that the water is below the boiling point. First of all, the E-cat starts with water flowing through it, through the hose into the drain. All the water. Then it's turned on. Eventually the water entering the hose reaches 100 degrees. The hose has been heated by this water all along, so the hose temperature would be near 100 degrees as well. Yes, it would cool, so the initial effect could be some sparging of the steam. However, if steam is being generated, the steam will transfer its heat to the water rapidly, it will all reach 100 C and the steam will blow it out of the way. As steam velocity over the hose outlet increases, water will be entrained as well. Dr. Storms has no experience with calorimetry like this, nor an experimental setup like this. Nobody did. That's why it took so long for so many to figure this out. Storms' analysis did not consider the sequence, how the hose would end up with dry steam, if it did. Long before the steam was dry, there would be mixed steam and water moving through the hose. A little steam goes a long way. If there were full vaporization, the steam velocity would be *very* high. Far below that, the steam velocity would be quite adequate to carry all the water with it, and the water flowing into the hose would be atomized. Very wet steam. With full vaporization of the input flow, the steam would theoretically be dry. For practical reasons, it would never be completely dry. The only way to make completely dry steam is to superheat it. Evidence of superheating is missing. The claim of dry steam, based on a temperature of 100.5 C, where ambient boiling point was 99.6 C., was based on failure to understand that about 0.4 bar of pressure, which could easily be created by steam generation only having a narrow outlet, would raise the boiling point to explain that temperature. Dr. Storms seems to think of wet steam as abnormal, and that wet steam couldn't have more than a few percent liquid by mass. No, actually, it could be very, very high. If only 10 percent of the water were being vaporized, that would be plenty of steam to atomize the flow, entirely. Very low quality steam, only 10% vapor by mass. Isn't this highschool physics? No, it isn't, but the heat of vaporization of steam is. The problem is not the heat of vaporization. The problem is determining the vapor content of the steam. Jed, you wrote again and again that, of course a humidity meter could be used to measure steam quality. After all, the thing reads in g/m^3! That was a very good example of a newbie mistake. Sure, that humidity meter has that scale. It's a calculated value, based on the mass of the vapor, assuming the measured humidity. The meter doesn't determine liquid water at all. That the meter cannot be used for steam quality measurements has now been confirmed by the manufacturer. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3718appendixc0.shtml for the contacts with the manufacturer and see also http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3719appendixc3.shtml for an Italian engineer's analysis. If, in fact, liquid water is accumulating in the hose, the steam production must be quite low. Lots of people have done calculations of steam velocity. If there is full vaporization, it's a hurricane in there!
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 08:49 AM 7/30/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. That is based on an assumption that the water is below the boiling point. If water is being vaporized, even a low percentage of it, the water will quickly reach boiling, for all the water flowing into the hose from the cooling chamber will be at boiling, and we know this from the chimney temperature. If the water in the hose is below boiling, it will rapidly be heated by sparging steam. Further, it's obvious that water spills out through the outlet, at least part of the time. That's how the reactor starts up! It starts with all the water spilling out. Then what happens? I think it's fascinating that nobody reports having watched the transition. I.e, this thing starts with water flowing out the hose. The E-cat temperature starts to rise. Water is still spilling out, but it's getting hotter. At some point something happens. Watching that transition could provide some very interesting clues. I think this is what would be seen: when the E-cat temperature hits boiling, very rapidly all the standing water in the hose would be blown out of the hose. Yet at this point, only a small percentage of water would be being vaporized, because the E-cat has just reached the boiling point. There would be the *appearance* of steam, it would be at the *temperature* of steam, but it would be wet steam. It would become dryer if heat evolution increases. Does that evolution increase? How would we know? To know, we'd have to know the dryness of the steam. And how would we know that? Jed, I assume you have read the reports that the manufacturer of the humidity meter Galantini used has confirmed that it cannot be used to measure steam quality. Period. You'll need something else, they said. Sorry. I'd come to the same conclusion from reading the specifications, but also from the general nature of a humidity meter. You were highly skeptical of that, dismissive, as if anyone challenging this was challenging all expertise and common sense. Are you going to acknowledge the error? Can you understand how you fell into this? That might be useful. It is possible to notice the taste of one's foot. From that, one might be able to detect foot-in-mouth much more quickly next time.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway. Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud has happened before. Come to think of it, possibly with Rossi. It's not criminal fraud, as far as I know. He can tell the public any story he wants, it's not illegal to lie to the public. Yes it is, if they're potential investors. And if this is a fraud, and if the investors in Defkalion really exist, then somebody's been doing something illegal, that's for sure. (But maybe the laws are different in Greece, and you can tell stockholders anything you want...)
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. Rossi is probably certain that his device will produce miraculous amounts of power, but he needs to get just a few small engineering details right before it does, and he is sure he can do it by October. OK, maybe he faked a few demos. So what? The e-cat will surely be ready in time.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 04:01 PM 8/3/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. He may be finding some excess heat, but his demonstrations and comments amount to fraud anyway. Exaggerating his results is a form of fraud, and that kind of fraud has happened before. Come to think of it, possibly with Rossi. It's not criminal fraud, as far as I know. He can tell the public any story he wants, it's not illegal to lie to the public. Yes it is, if they're potential investors. Nope. Generally, investors and the one receiving the investment will sign a contract, and this contract will typically declare that all representations made outside the contract are null and void. Yes, this means that whatever the used-car salesman tells you about that used car means nothing. All binding representations will be in the contract. I'm amazed how many people don't realize this. Goes to show how poor our educational systems are when it comes to stuff that is actually important, like contract law. Remember studying any contract law in high school? I sure don't! And if this is a fraud, and if the investors in Defkalion really exist, then somebody's been doing something illegal, that's for sure. Nonsense. Defkalion has entered into a contract for the delivery of something that didn't exist at the time of the execution of the contract. I'm quite sure that the contract provides for the contingency of failure to deliver. (But maybe the laws are different in Greece, and you can tell stockholders anything you want...) Defkalion is responsible for what Defkalion tells its stockholders. Rossi is not responsible for that! He's responsible for what he puts in writing in his contract with Defkalion. Rossi has not taken any investment, so it's moot. He's apparently taken some money from Ampenergo, but without knowing what that money was for, and what representations were made to them, it's impossible to judge it. What I'd expect Defkalion to tell its investors is that it has entered into a contract for the purchase of Rossi reactors. They might state that they hope that this will be a lucrative business. If they are right, great. If not, well, they made a mistake. Mistake is not fraud, not usually. Judging whether or not they exercised due diligence (i.e., they could be accused of negligence, of failing to exercise a fiduciary duty) would be awfully difficult without knowing exactly what they've done. And we don't. My sense, though, is that they have spent only a tiny fraction of what has been committed, and they are merely preparing for the hoped-for delivery.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
At 04:12 PM 8/3/2011, vorl bek wrote: On 11-08-02 06:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I now conclude that Rossi is a fraud. Rossi is probably certain that his device will produce miraculous amounts of power, but he needs to get just a few small engineering details right before it does, and he is sure he can do it by October. OK, maybe he faked a few demos. So what? The e-cat will surely be ready in time. Yeah, this is more or less my idea of what's going on. He may even have some basis for thinking this. However, it's not enough to get some demonstration of miraculous amounts of power. That's happened with cold fusion. Much more often, though, the experiments show a significant power, well above noise, but still way below levels necessary for practical applications. And the reliability sucks. I.e., for no apparent reason, one experiment will show much more power than another. This should be made clear: that kind of phenomenon doesn't mean that the effect is not real. It means that the conditions are poorly understood or not controllable. I was myself convinced regarding cold fusion by a very consistent experimental result: helium is produced, measured blind, in Pons-Fleischmann type cells, in amounts correlated with the excess heat, within experimental error at the value for deuterium fusion (which is the same value, due to fuel/ash mass difference, no matter what the mechanism, and the mechanism is probably not what we'd think of as d-d fusion.) In those experiments, the dead cells, the ones that don't produce excess heat, become excellent controls, otherwise as identical as they could be made! But the unreliability is fatal to commercial application. Rossi may have seen some truly spectacular amounts of heat. That doesn't mean that he's necessarily ready for a commercial product, and, indeed, he might be running on that belief: It's almost ready now!
RE: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
From Abd: This should be made clear: that kind of phenomenon doesn't mean that the effect is not real. It means that the conditions are poorly understood or not controllable. ... But the unreliability is fatal to commercial application. Rossi may have seen some truly spectacular amounts of heat. That doesn't mean that he's necessarily ready for a commercial product, and, indeed, he might be running on that belief: It's almost ready now! Pretty close to my thoughts on the matter as well. If anything, Rossi is a showman. Abd can correct me if I error here, but where I may disagree with him might be on the matter concerning the data generated from the 18 hour test. The figures recorded may be perfectly valid, just as Jed has been saying for the umpteenth time. Perhaps Rossi was having a good day and his testy eCats were cooperating. In fact, maybe Rossi's eCats really do cooperate MOST of the time, but not enough to warrant (er... risk) obliging pesky reporters with a continuous string demonstrations simply to put their suspicions at ease. Lately, I tend to suspect that while Rossi's eCats might not necessarily be reliable enough for prime-time commercialization, the contraptions may be VERY close to being fully predictable, and that's what Ross sees: The perception (the VISION) that they are almost there. For Rossi: Surely by October I'll have it in the can. We should hope. In terms of developing brand new software for prime time and with a deadline looming over one's head, it's been my experience that the final chapter of a project can take the longest period of time to complete. You know everything works as advertised. You've tested it over and over... but damnit! ...why does the application still have a random tendency to crash between 7:30 and 8:00 on Sunday evening when hardly anyone is using it! What the hell is clobbering it! Yada...yada... And then when it's finally is placed into production, that's when you REALLY find the errors! Don't worry. Your customers will describe all of its faults in meticulous detail... and why had you not tested for such-and-such a contingency. Surely you must have realized that such-and-such was bound to happen! I'm not at all surprised that Rossi claims he has been working 18 hours-a-day. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
Jed Rothwell wrote Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Newtonian physics is generally not a part of everyday life experiences. It is an abstract generalisation deduced from some idealised situations. Good point. That's why these physics were not discovered until Newton, and why it took a genius like Newton to discover them. He provided the mechanical philosophy of nature with its first comprehensive mathematical formulation. If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. -- Issac Newton Harry
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: All that work, and you didn't come up with an answer? On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: All that work, and you didn't come up with an answer? I think im not interested in this sort of challenge anymore. I've had enough of this sort of thing from Lomax, or whoever he really is. Does it really matter, though? This is the right question to me. Good question. Very good question. Objectively, for a technically savvy and an audience informed on this topic, it makes no difference. The audience is not savvy.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. I agree. People seem to have no experience with teapots or steam cleaners. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. No he did not. He pointed that the water in the hose would condense the steam. He wrote: The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. Good work. This is what I recall Storm posted. His confused account is priceless. It was to me, in any case. It propelled my to ask what was really happening in the hose. Thanks Eddie!
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
It propelled my to ask 'what was really happening in the hose?' This in turn led me to ask about Lewan's remark in his April 19th report where he deduces that steam must reside in the chimney. This is now understandable as a false claim upon the phsical evidence. Thanks for the Leg work, Rothwell. It saved me tracking it down.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I've had enough of this sort of thing from Lomax, or whoever he really is. Lomax is a real, breathing person; whereas, Cude is a sceptiBot created by the CSICOP. T
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
The viability of a system cannot be determined from an examination of just
one of its components.
Rossi plans to string a number of cat-e's together in series to convert
water to dry steam.
The steam exiting the first cat-e in series may well be wet. The function of
the second... n-th stages may well be to increase the temperature of the wet
steam to the required level called for in the reactor system performance
specification.
Speculating about the details of what happens to the steam in the hose has
no bearing on the future performance of the 1 megawatt {thermal} Rossi
reactor, IMHO. The hose is just a development tool to keep the room
temperature and humidity in the space that houses the cat-e during the unit
test to a bearable level.
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Newtonian physics is generally not a part of everyday life experiences.
It is an abstract generalisation deduced from some idealised situations.
Good point. That's why these physics were not discovered until Newton, and
why it took a genius like Newton to discover them.
An interesting example is Newton's first law. The classic demonstration was
a pool table (billiards). I do not know how widespread pool tables were in
the 17th century, but I do not think that ordinary people had much
opportunity to experience one. Smooth roads and other low friction surfaces
are more widespread in modern life. We even have some sense of what is like
in zero gravity and how spacecraft work, from video games and NASA footage.
Such things were unimaginable to people in ancient times.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. However you wish to hold fast the assurtion (am I correct in this?) that this does not happen, but that liquid water exits as suspended droplets and maybe a little sloshing---I don't know how you have exactly formulated your concept. Unless I am mistaken, I don't see that you have commented on the lack of controls to ensure that water does not overflow out of the exit, or that the 'reaction zone' runs dry under steady state operation. As your theory requires (if my asessment of your stance is correct) then water will not overflow but can run dry so that all steam evolution over the long term will be generated within the horizontal section of Rossi's gizmo. If so, upon what evidence would you claim it will run dry? On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Does it really matter, though?
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Jul 30, 2011 3:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. That is very true, it requires lots of steam to rise boiling point temperature by one degree of celsius. Mats Lewan's E-Cat had highest ratio of excess heat produced where there was around 2kW excess heat. That is absolutely huge amount and for January and December E-Cat, they were far from failures, like in March and June. Therefore demonstrations have been big success stories and considering that October's E-Cat will not require input power at all. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. I have not seen this evidence. There is a mixture of liquid water and mist/steam at the end of the hose. That's all we know. However you wish to hold fast the assurtion (am I correct in this?) that this does not happen, but that liquid water exits as suspended droplets and maybe a little sloshing---I don't know how you have exactly formulated your concept. Unless I am mistaken, I don't see that you have commented on the lack of controls to ensure that water does not overflow out of the exit, My comments are not based on the lack of controls. Obviously, water can flow out of the exit since it does so before the boiling point is reached. The suggestion (not assertion) that the water leaves as a mist is simply because (1) it seems plausible for a mixture that is more than 90% vapor by volume, because it's hard to reconcile that with an image of water sloshing or splashing; if you look at the literature for 2-phase flow, the possibilities are a mist, or annular flow (with water flowing along the walls), or a mixture of the two, and (2) because it is clearly in Rossi's interest to generate a mist that can easily be mistaken for steam (especially if the fluid is examined at the chimney exit as E K did), and it would be easy to design the chimney to generate a mist using a small diameter conduit or a nozzle of some sort. The important thing, however, is not the exact form of the fluid in the ecat or chimney, but that there is no evidence presented that more than a fraction of the water changes phase. or that the 'reaction zone' runs dry under steady state operation. I have never suggested this, and indeed the flat temperature is compelling evidence that it never runs dry; that what leaves the reaction zone is a mixture of liquid and vapor, and therefore is wet. As your theory requires (if my asessment of your stance is correct) then water will not overflow but can run dry so that all steam evolution over the long term will be generated within the horizontal section of Rossi's gizmo. All the steam generation that happens happens in the horizontal ecat, yes. But it doesn't run dry. Wet steam is just that: wet. The liquid content can be more than 90% by mass. Mist is wet, not dry. If so, upon what evidence would you claim it will run dry? None. The evidence indicates it runs wet. Probably very wet.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. It's a shame pointing things out doesn't make them true, or we'd all be driving cold fusion powered cars by now. Neither you nor Storms have defended these claims with anything that makes sense, suggesting that you are both almost certainly completely wrong. Oh well.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. That is very true, it requires lots of steam to rise boiling point temperature by one degree of celsius. How much is lots? If 2% of the liquid vaporizes, that makes lots of steam. Mats Lewan's E-Cat had highest ratio of excess heat produced where there was around 2kW excess heat. I agree, if by around you mean give or take 2 kW.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. Isn't this highschool physics? On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. I agree. People seem to have no experience with teapots or steam cleaners. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. No he did not. He pointed that the water in the hose would condense the steam. He wrote: The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. Isn't this highschool physics? No, it isn't, but the heat of vaporization of steam is. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
Newtonian physics is generally not a part of everyday life experiences. It is an abstract generalisation deduced from some idealised situations. Harry From: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:57:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. Isn't this highschool physics? On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Newtonian physics is generally not a part of everyday life experiences. It is an abstract generalisation deduced from some idealised situations. Good point. That's why these physics were not discovered until Newton, and why it took a genius like Newton to discover them. An interesting example is Newton's first law. The classic demonstration was a pool table (billiards). I do not know how widespread pool tables were in the 17th century, but I do not think that ordinary people had much opportunity to experience one. Smooth roads and other low friction surfaces are more widespread in modern life. We even have some sense of what is like in zero gravity and how spacecraft work, from video games and NASA footage. Such things were unimaginable to people in ancient times. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: In order to resolve the disagreement between the wet steam hyposesis and the water spill-though hypothesis it's reasonable to ask how much energy it takes to break water into droplets and lift these a few inches before sending them out the exit of the rossi device. All that work, and you didn't come up with an answer? Anyway, you could have saved yourself the trouble by looking up cool mist humidifiers. Some advertise 15 times less energy consumption than thermal humidifiers, and that fits with the specs on power consumption and mist creation rate. So, it works out to about 150 J to produce a mist of sub-micron droplets from a gram of water, and launch them into the room. (To be compared to 2200 J required to vaporize them.) That doesn't account for losses in the piezo-electric device, and the fact that the Rossi device has fast moving steam to entrain the droplets, so they don't need to be anywhere near that small to be carried out the hose in the ecat. That means the energy needed to produce the mist is not significant, and you can forget about it. It's not clear what the alternative to a mist really is. Even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is vaporized, it's clear the steam will occupy by far the majority of the volume in the ecat, so the liquid will either creep up the walls, or rise in the form of a mist. Does it really matter, though? The consensus is now pretty widespread, even among LENR fans, that Rossi's ecat is converting only a fraction of the water to vapor, and that his demonstrations don't actually demonstrate anything. There are still holdouts, but not for long... And when it's all over, the fiasco will serve to demonstrate the gullibility of the lenr community.
