Mattia yor math is correct. I did an error in my excel sheet. Anyway it's still a good steam volume
2011/5/2 Mattia Rizzi <[email protected]> > I agree. But my math give me around 1.8/1.9 liter per seconds. (depending > if you use 1600 or 1700 times multiplier). > > *From:* Andrea Selva <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, May 02, 2011 2:27 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk > > With a 4,1 Liter per hour of input water I calculated that the output flow > of the steam should be around 5,4 Liter per second. (Dry steam volume > increase of 1700 times) > Observing the video, the output of black hose looks like a shiny baby fart > instead of a robust steam flow. > IMHO A 1KW vapor steam cleaner make a more ecffective job > > 2011/5/2 Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> > >> So they are again using a crappy temperature probe to figure out steam >> quality (dry versus wet steam)? >> >> This is so bogus. >> >> If the boiling water has a back pressure of 0.6 psi, the temperature will >> be raised by 1 degree C >> see here: >> http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html >> >> Is this the third time they have done this stupid method of measuring >> evaporation of steam? Or is more than 3 times. Does anyone have the correct >> count of times they have done this? >> >> Why don't they feed the steam into a 55 gallon water tank and then measure >> the temperature rise of the water as *everyone* has been suggesting? They >> probably don't and won't because they are frauds. >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> see please: >>> >>> http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece >>> >>> <http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece> >>> Peter >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >>> >> >
