On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a
cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid
droplets
I Wrote It takes only a one foot head of water to raise the boiling point
of water to 101 C.
I forgot to include the observation that liquid water would build-up in the
exit hose. With the hose exist above floor level a head of water would
obtain rendering a 101.1 reading completely meaningless.
: Damon Craig [mailto:decra...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
E-cats Have No Hair
Here is my challenge to the rest of you. I will be looking for evidence myself:-
What evidence exists that water
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
What if the E-Cat is operating with a 98% 'full charge' on the
heat-capacitor? It would still have considerable capacity left to absorb
heat fluctuations without significantly changing steam temperature.
It
At 04:47 AM 7/5/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
BASIC CONCLUSION: None of the plausible
assumptions are consistent with the claim for excess energy being wrong.
These conclusions are an indication of what
passes for evidence for cold fusion advocates.
And are consistent (but much more obviously
At 08:50 PM 7/5/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right...
No evidence at all for excess heat production...
From defective evidence to no evidence is a leap.
I just looked over the Kullander and Essen report, and what I see is
that some assumptions were made.
motives or personal psychology.
Harry
From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:23:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the
following possibilites exist
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
The inconclusive epithet is from roughly twenty years ago, and we can see
this crumbling by the time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where excess heat
evidence was considered conclusive by half the panel, and it's
I have stumbled upon yet another peculiar engineering design choice. This
one I cannot explain as anthing other than a deliberate and
studied inplimentation with the sole intent to defraud.
Whereas the previous choices might be explained by oversight, or ignorance I
see no way to justify this
Joshua,
You may recall, I conjectured:
... how can this newly formed H2O gas be
expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't
have a chance to hang around long enough to
absorb additional heat energy.
...to which you replied:
How can it not?
There lies the little pickle of a situation we
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua,
You may recall, I conjectured:
... how can this newly formed H2O gas be
expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't
have a chance to hang around long enough to
absorb additional
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be
measured with their equipment . . .
It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know
the quality of the steam. It also
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be
measured with their equipment . . .
It said the equipment measures
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
*1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.*
If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed.
Applied power = 745 watt
Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec
Power to heat water to
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . .
You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale?
I
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong.
I don't believe Galantini is an expert in those meters. And anyway,
academics can be wrong.
The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong.
No. They make
All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by
definition. Molecules of water must achieve sufficient kinetic energy
to overcome the intermolecular forces of liquid water. Statistically,
some molecules are able to achieve this at room temperature; so, water
will evaporate.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit:
http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-**
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by
definition.
Where is this definition given? There are very clear, well-defined, concepts
related to steam, dry steam, wet steam, and steam quality. A simple
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong. Steam can be wet.
No sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wrong. Steam can be wet.
No sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam
Yes Sir. From that article:
but such wet-steam conditions have to be
Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam:
steam
[steem]
–noun
1.
water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor.
Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow, this is why wikipedia
talks about machines. Steam is dry.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam:
steam
[steem]
–noun
1.
water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor.
Water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor can have
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow,
No, it can exist under a variety of condtions.
Steam is dry.
Some steam is dry. Some steam is wet. You just admitted steam can be wet
above.
Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean. Either way, both at
horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at 100C and 6m/s, no more
than 15% of the mass can be in the liquid state without at least some kind
of squirting be constantly be pouring out of the house.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous
form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes
the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into
microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of
vaporization)
what thermodynamic point was incorrect?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean.
Why should it change as it leaves the hose?
Either way, both at horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at
100C and 6m/s, no more than 15% of the mass can be
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous
form.
Drop a stone into a pond to prove that
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into
microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of
vaporization)
what thermodynamic point was incorrect?
Many people seem to claim that the
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a
cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets
that are carried into the air by the vapor.
Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method.
Oh, it splashed out of the reactor!!
Why did I not think of that?
No wait! The molecules grew cilia and it walked out of the reactor!
/sarcasm
The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas.
Indeed it will be
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into
microscopic droplets while
giving up latent heat (heat of
vaporization)
what thermodynamic point was incorrect?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method.
The water, in whatever state, is forced through by a pump. That's a
mechanical method.
The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas.
: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into
microscopic droplets while
giving up latent heat (heat
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wrong. Steam can be wet.
No sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam
Ahem.
From the very article you reference,
A gas can only contain a
This is why one should look at the general appearance of a 2 fluid flow to
draw a conclusion.
I was always taught that, technically speaking, steam is an
invisible gas. However, most of us quite naturally tend to only notice
the clouds of water vapor condensing out from the invisible steam as
it cools. We tend to incorrectly associate, in the visual sense, those
tiny suspended condensed
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into
microscopic droplets while giving
.
The water in the black hose would then be distillated water and not
overflow.
Peter van Noorden
- Original Message -
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are
convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny
suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being
From Josh:
I'm arguing that if dry steam were coming out of the ecat
(corresponding to 5 kW total power), that most of it would
survive to the end of the hose, because I don't think more
than a few hundred watts could be radiated by the hose.
And that what comes out of that hose is
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Josh:
This is not
based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the
hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it
does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run,
on
MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right...
No evidence at all for excess heat production...
From Josh,
For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following:
I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that.
Fair enough.
Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to.
Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at
-
From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into
microscopic droplets while
giving up latent heat (heat
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.comwrote:
From Josh,
For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following:
I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that.
Fair enough.
Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.comwrote:
From Josh,
For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following:
I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that.
Fair
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned
to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain.
Levi has a lot to gain monetarily so I don't trust his high flow rate
test (where there
At 10:48 AM 7/3/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote:
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned
to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain.
Or something in between.
Levi has a lot
The analysis of Ed Storm is consistent with the book chapters of 2 phase
flows that I posted here another day. No one bothered to read that with
attention and in case anyone does that will see that the only consistent
solution is that there is at least 3200W of excess energy.
The only way this
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . .
You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? Do you trust that
Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked,
Ed Storms posted:
1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.
If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed.
Applied power = 745 watt
Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec
Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt
Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . .
You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale?
not when
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
Relative Humidity meter (it can't).
Yes, it can.
No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't,
maybe I should repost it.
Experts in those meters such as
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
Relative Humidity meter (it can't).
Yes, it can.
No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to
At 10:06 AM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test
from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination
of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2.
- Jed
Thanks for forwarding this, Jed, and thanks to
Dr. Storms for writing it.
At 06:17 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jeff Driscoll mailto:hcarb...@gmail.comhcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
Relative Humidity meter (it can't).
Yes, it can.
No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a
relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen.
Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he
said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry.
61 matches
Mail list logo
