Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: 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. No I understand what is being said, but I am not at the point of accepting it. I'm sorry if my wiki citation rubbed you the way. BTW here is another reference from HyperPhysics which also speaks about RH misconceptions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ There is actually a lot of theory in play here. In the time since your response, Joshua and Mark had this exchange about RH. - joshua:The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity. mark:The physics definition for RH is: %RH = (Pw/Ps)*100 Where Pw is the partial pressure of the water vapor and Ps is the saturation pressure of water vapor... What's the 'vapor pressure of water'... sound like you're making this shit up. joshua: Nope. Vapor pressure or equilibrium vapor pressure is the pressure of a vapor in thermodynamic equilibrium with its condensed phases in a closed system. -- In this context we are not dealing with a closed system. Yet there seems to be two kinds of relative humdidity. One which speaks of saturation and one which does not. If saturation pressure pertains to an open system then there are two definitions of RH which aren't equivalent. Harry
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
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
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]: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
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]: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]: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]: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]: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]: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]: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]: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]: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
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]: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]:relative humidity
At 06:56 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: 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? More steam, of course. I.e., if there is constant power, and the steam is wetter, and the steam is the only cooling mode, there must be more of it. 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. No. That does not follow. Steam from water boiling more turbulently is wetter, silly. Higher power transfer means drier steam, if energy is to be conserved. If the water flow rate is truly constant, over time, sure. There are some problems with the water flow rate. 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. Those devices were not available and nobody wants to buy them. There are simpler ways to address the issue, as I assume you would recognize. (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. Or the reactor runs out of water. There are a number of interacting variables here, and we simply don't have a handle on them. The biggest defect I can see is that we don't know, actually, what is coming out that hose. We know there is *some* water, that's a certainty, because there would be water condensing in the hose even if the E-Cat steam is dry. We also know that Rossi has acknowledged that the E-Cats did not produce dry steam, that he's supposedly fixed this now. What does that tell us about the demonstrations? The only demonstration that was really, on the face, conclusive, was the one only Rossi and Levi witnessed. Which is then a private experiment, not a public demonstration. And, of course, there is the fraud possibility, which is impossible to address fully, consistently with a reasonable need for industrial secrecy. I'm firmly in the camp of we can't tell at this point. There is evidence this and evidence that, and depending on whom you trust and what assumptions you make, you can come up with wildly differing conclusions. Instead, we need to do what Rossi actually suggests we do: wait. Except that I know that competing researchers are not waiting, they are plowing ahead with work to find Rossi's catalyst, or ... maybe something better. That would be an interesting outcome, eh?
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 06:56 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: 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? More steam, of course. I.e., if there is constant power, and the steam is wetter, and the steam is the only cooling mode, there must be more of it. But more steam and wetter steam requires more water. Where does the extra water come from. The pump gives a constant flow rate. 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. No. That does not follow. Steam from water boiling more turbulently is wetter, silly. Of course it follows. If the reactor is hotter, the water boils earlier as it passes the reactor. It will be turbulent of course, but the mist still has to pass by the rest of the reactor, and that will convert the mist to steam. Higher power transfer means drier steam, if energy is to be conserved. If the water flow rate is truly constant, over time, sure. There are some problems with the water flow rate. With that pump, the constant flow rate is probably the most certain thing about the demo (barring surreptitious changes to it of course). Anyway, we agree then, that if the flow rate is constant, it follows that the steam will be drier at lower flow rate or higher power transfer. It's not silly. 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. Those devices were not available and nobody wants to buy them. There are simpler ways to address the issue, as I assume you would recognize. Not producing steam is simpler. But buying a flow meter is not exactly difficult. (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. Or the reactor runs out of water. I don't know what you mean by this. Once the reactor has converted all the water into steam, any additional power would go into heating the steam. Where else can the energy go?
Re: [Vo]:relative humidity
Well, maybe Rossi has spent 2 or 3 years with a setup that really generates gross excess heat energy from LENR, but is explosively unstable -- as the temperature is raised to the level that initiates LENR, the resulting gross nuclear energy release, naturally, immediately rises so steeply as to overwhelm such control parameters as H2 pressure, H2O flow, heat input from electric heater -- finally, he finds a setup that generates 6 to 12 times more energy than input heat, BUT -- 1. he started assuming complete boiling of the water flow into dry steam, whereas actually only a small fraction of the water is ever boiled in his stable runs, so that, 2. the claimed output heat is exaggerated by 6 to 12 times input electric heater power, 3. and, highly motivated to finally have a complete success as an inventor who contributes hugely to humanity and gains praise and wealth and opportunity to continue inventing on a grand scale, he very humanly falls into unconscious habitual resistance about actually double checking the reality of completely dry steam output flow, 4. so that close associates fall into this unconscious blindness, evolving a resiliant group think dynamic that presents a series of confusing demos that finally draw enough scrutiny for the possibility of the error to be discussed by many, 5. whereupon Rossi, a good, honest and forthright man, will quickly do a simple check, verify the error, and share the discovery immediately and openly, 6. and, since he lacks the expertise and resources to engineer how to stabilize the reaction (even if he understands it correctly...), he also immediately discloses every detail of the setup, so that the world as a whole can properly explore this crucial breakthrough for the benefit of all. Rich Murray, MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology, BS MIT 1964, history and physics, 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 505-819-7388 rmfor...@gmail.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AstroDeep/messages http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 118 members, 1,625 posts in a public archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages group with 1226 members, 24,342 posts in a public archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/messages
