David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Do you understand why so many of the skeptics of Parkhomov's boiling bucket > system stick to the notion that his test is not valid due to water escaping > along with the steam?
I am not aware that skeptics brought this up. If they did it is because he did not describe the calibrations carefully. As far as I know, he did not describe the shape of the spout and he did not sparge. He should have. It is incumbent upon the experimenter to show there is no problem with the steam. I asked him about the spout, but he did not respond. > With that thought to consider it seems likely that they would complain > about the kettle idea as well. They would be saying that something which has worked for the past 5000 years has stopped working. This would be like claiming a bow cannot shoot an arrow. Anyway, you do not just make it look like a kettle. You prove that it works like one, with simple, foolproof tests. > Bob Cook mentioned that there is a device used to separate water from a > water and steam mixture using centrifugal force. I suppose that only works with kilowatt-scale steam. If you tried doing it with 100 W steam with a machine larger than a thimble the steam would cool and condense. > Does that imply that the original stream contains plenty of water that > must be removed? I suspect that super heated steam would be of nearly 100% > quality, while steam emitted from a pot of atmospheric pressure boiling > water may not be that high. A tiny amount of water can strongly impact the > heat content calculation. > Not really. Try sparging some steam from a kettle or retort and you will see that the steam has nearly all of the expected enthalpy. That is to say, when you weigh the water deficit in the kettle, and the increase in the bucket, you will find that the temperature of the water in the bucket rose by the expected amount for pure steam. Mind you, I have only done this with kilowatt scale steam. I doubt it would work for 10 W. You could not measure that with a bucket. 100 W should work with a small bucket, carefully weighed on a precision scale. Or maybe a large thermos (a Dewar). Put it this way: chemists have been using retorts since the Middle Ages. Everyone knows that is how you make a distillate. That is what retorts are for. Do you think that the physicists are going to tell chemists that a tool which has worked for 1,500 years actually does not work and leaves 10% or 20% of entrained fluid in the distillate? (No doubt it leaves some fraction, which is why they have filters and triple distillation.) > The report that Parkhomov generated implied that his steam quality was > very good since the calibration worked as expected with a known heating > power. Is there reason to believe that the physical arrangement of his > bucket calorimeter is especially good at keeping the steam clean? It is probably no better than any ordinary teapot, which is pretty good. > Perhaps the location of the LENR heated inner container lid tends to > super heat the steam slightly before it exits his device. That is how the spout on a kettle heated over a fire usually works. It sticks out over the side, above the flame. Like this traditional iron Japanese one: http://hojotea.com/img/kunzan_head.jpg Electric kettle spouts do not stick out much. - Jed
