Jones, In making a "black box" test, one cannot readily change the system control of what is inside the black box. One must be prepared to measure the black box as it is designed to work. If that means water in and steam out, then that is what must be measured accurately. MFMP does not want to be in the position of altering the flow rate that is a controlled state variable in Me356's system. If MFMP did not measure XH after having changed something, the reason could be that the system control had been changed causing the device not to work. MFMP must be prepared to accurately measure the performance without relying on measurements of steam quality, pressure, and temperature measurements. Sparging is a good way to go as Jed suggests. Proper setup and use of a heat exchanger with steam will work perfectly fine too - it will underestimate the output heat if anything.
The reason one could never rely on a test made of Rossi's device is not because there was steam, it was because he never allowed a public test with independent well prepared testers using their own equipment for evaluation. The tests Mats Lewan performed were not well prepared through no fault of his own. If you read his book, you would see that he had to improvise the testing at the last minute or there would have been no measurements. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problems with the proposed testing is HUGE and must be changed- as of > now, this is looking like the oldest scam in the book - > wet-steam/dry-steam. Rossi has been successful in making the wet-steam scam > into an art form. To have any credibility - this test must not involve > steam at all. There are good options which do not involve steam. > >
