Am 23.09.2011 23:29, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
However, experts skilled in the art have said that
Galantini's methods are correct.
Did Galantini know whats inside the tower?
Did these experts know whats inside?
They say they looked inside it. They saw nothing unexpected or unusual.
Did the experts get true and complete detail informations?
No details are needed. The tower has nothing in it. It is an empty
cylinder.
Did they use enough time and care?
In their opinion, and mine, they did. They were there for a few weeks
in December and January.
Please names of experts and pointers to interviews and documents.
See the LENR-CANR.org library and:
http://www.nyteknik.se/taggar/?tag=Cold+Fusion
http://rossiportal.com/
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3228376.ece
Citation:
Rossi relies on a report by the chemist Dr. Gilberto Galantini
<http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3228358.ece/BINARY/Galantini+steam+report.pdf>
who measured the steam quality and stated that it contained at most 4.73
percent water by mass, which would affect the calculated energy by 2
percent.
*Ny Teknik turned to* Professor Björn Palm
<http://www.kth.se/en/itm/inst/energiteknik/Forskning/ett/personal/bjorn-palm-1.20386>,
Head of the Energy Technology Division at the Royal Institute of
Technology, doing research on heat transfer by evaporation. Based on the
given dimensions and geometry, he gave his assessment of the situation:
"Any air in the tube is driven out of the flowing steam. This means that
at the outlet there is pure steam, possibly with a little water droplets
that come with the flow from the liquid surface. However, I cannot
imagine that this would affect the 'effective' enthalpy of vaporization.
From other cases with evaporation in tubes I would guess that the steam
quality is at least 90%. "
End citation
Professor Palm did not doubt the steam quality. So probably the steam
quality was ok and we dont need to bother if Galantinis measurement
method was correct or not.
The steam was probably ok and Krivits layman speculation about wet
steam is probably nonsense.
However, Professor Palm did not discuss or mention overflowing water.
This does not happen in professional systems, so he did not take this
possibility in account. For him, as a specialist, it is clear that this
must not happen and he was not told that this happened. So he silently
assumed -no overflow- which is probably false.
I did not find anything else from independent experts that are masters
of this art.
