100% vapor is steam that is completely transparent, it is termed 100% quality. The H2O molecules are completely free from each other and not stuck together, it is a gas. see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality 0% steam quality looks like white fog - like the fogging machines or white clouds in they sky. This type of steam is microscopic droplets of water that are liquid - they have condensed and are stuck to each other in a tiny droplets. This is vapor that has *already* given up its heat of vaporization (water = 2257 kJ/kg). If the steam comes out of Rossi's black hose transparent (in the first 1/2" where it comes out) then it is 100% vapor (dry steam). If it comes out as white fog (in the first 1/2 inch of exiting) then it is a mixture of vapor and tiny droplets. No one can visually determine the mass ratio of gaseous vapor to tiny liquid droplets. The *best* way by far is to dump the steam into a 55 gallon water tank and measure the temperature rise of the water. Turn on a kettle and watch the steam as it exits. Right next to the exit, the steam is completely transparent, it is a vapor which is transparent. After 2 or 3 inches of travel, the steam gives up its heat of vaporization and condenses to tiny droplets which makes a white fog. I have not seen any detailed explanation of the opaqueness or transparency of the steam as it left Rossi's hose but I have not read everything so I'm asking if people can find info on this then present it here. The previous tests in january and february used a humidity meter to measure the water vapor to liquid water droplet ratio (i.e steam quality) of 100 degree C steam which is a joke. They did this in at least two tests and probably more. Since they have been so consistently stupid, I have no hesitation claiming they could be frauds. How many more tests are they going to use this "steam vaporizing" method? The more they do it the more I suspect fraud. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:28 AM, noone noone <[email protected]>wrote: > How about no need? > > They can easily examine the steam quality where the tubing is attached. > It's strait forward to tell if it's wet steam or dry steam. If it's dry > steam, there is no need to do the 55 gallon water tank test. > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jones Beene <[email protected]> > > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Mon, May 2, 2011 6:17:36 AM > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:New tests- by Nyteknyk > > What would you prefer? completely incompetent? > > > > Jeff is right-on. Once again, with feeling: > > > > “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?” > > > > Jones > > > > > > *From:* noone noone > > > > Be careful with the fraud word. You may have to live with those words > forever, after the E-Cat technology starts being used all around the world. > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Jeff Driscoll < > > > > 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 > > > > Peter > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > > Cluj, Romania > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/ > > > > > >
