<mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> ...but you are not actually producing wet steam. You are producing dry > steam > that then condenses to some extent upon contact with the cool air. Also with the sides of the pot. I figured that out after I wrote it. With the flow calorimetry I think it does entrain some unboiled water and splash some out, especially when the water level is high. I did not think to add the tissues to test for that until 2:21 when the water level was down considerably. > "Real" wet steam might be produced in a situation where the flow of steam > was very rapid > and it passed across a wet surface . . . > I figured that out after I wrote it. With the flow calorimetry the water and steam are being pushed out. I can see how this would remove more unboiled water than a pot. However, I do not think it can reduce the amount of power by a factor of 17, and in any case I expect the RH meter does the job. You can see it is close to the site where the reaction occurs, in the upper leg which is wrapped in insulation. I doubt that segment cools down or that water leaves the lower section. Quoting the report: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Levi%20and%20Bianchini%20Reports.pdf "The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measure was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry. During [Test2 ] this measure was done by Dr. Galantini a senior chemist who has used an “air quality monitor” instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with a HP474AC probe." For now I think I trust the judgement of Dr. Galantini more than some anonymous person on the Internet who thinks you can boil a flow of 292 ml/min with 700 W. That is enough to raise it to 47 deg C. As I said before, the probe is intended to measure temperatures up to 150 deg C and RH. The probe measures those two only. What would be the point of doing that except to establish that the steam is dry? What other use would there be? The meter has other applications at other temperatures, but this probe measures only those two parameters. If the thing is not adequate to that task, and if the readings might mean that the enthalpy could be as much as 80% lower, or lower by a factor of 17 according to Dr. Anon Guest, why would anyone purchase that probe? I assume the manufacturer and Dr. G. know how to measure enthalpy. If it turns out they don't, then I am making an appeal to authority logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html (If Dr. G. really is an expert, then I got lucky, and that is not an appeal to authority after all. You never know.) - Jed
