I wrote too quickly without thinking when I wrote 537 times more energy, It takes about 537 times more energy to vaporize 1 gram of water than to raise that same gram of water by 1 degree C, but this is not that relevant. What is more relevant is that it takes 1 unit of energy to raise the temperature of water from 10 C to 100 C and then 6 units of energy to completely vaporize that water.
Knowing how much was vaporized is extremely important and ca not be left to a Relative Humidity meter that withstands 300 C but was not built to measure steam quality. If you can, go back and ask those experts again regarding this RH meter. I'm guessing they might not be so sure that the probe is appropriate. I'm absolutely certain that the RH probe is not giving *any* useful information on the steam quality. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
