Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> wrote: Gaseous water vapor has 537 times more energy than liquid water droplets on > a gram for gram comparison (you wrote 20 times) >
Various people have come up with different numbers. I think I recall 20 times. > Jed, you wrote "If he had used the RH meter used previously, the skeptics > would not have believed him any case, even though various experts has said > that meter is fine for this purpose. " > > Can you explain this better as to what you meant so that I can zero in on > the important facts? > Sorry, I do not know. A couple of people who seem to know a lot about meters contacted me and said that this probe is intended to work with steam up to a high temperature (I think it was 300°C) and the purpose of it is to determine how wet the steam is. Apparently, Prof. Galantini knows what he is doing. In the E&K report they cite a simple equation showing that if 2% if the steam is wet, the other 98% is dry, so you take the enthalpy as 98% of the rated value. That same equation is shown in various on-line reference books about steam. So I assume it is right. > Relative Humidity meters do *not* tell you the quality of the steam. > Apparently they do have a mode for that, but I do not know the details. Anyway, there is plenty of other evidence that the machine produces the level of heat the steam tests indicate, especially the flowing water test of Feb. 10. Various skeptics here have claimed it might be wrong, but they have not shown how any of the 4 parameters might be significantly wrong, so I do not think they have made their case. A 55-gallon tank would not be needed for this volume of steam. The bucket they used would suffice, since you can only do the test for 5 or 10 minutes. At hydrodynamics they do it for about 15 minutes as I recall. That machine produces a huge volume of steam. - Jed
