On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting
you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at
1 atmosphere of pressure.
Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here,
misunderstanding what's being said.
? What point did I miss ?
It's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but it would take
post-generation heating.
Obviously. It boils at 100C, and to make it hotter than that, you need
to heat it some more.
I'm sorry, but I seem to have totally missed the point of what follows.
It appears to be a rehash of all that's been said already regarding
steam. Certainly there's nothing to disagree with in it (save one item
I flagged), but I don't understand what point you were trying to make.
BTW regarding fire walkers, part of the trick may be something Lawrence
was made to say in the film Lawrence of Arabia: "The 'trick' is not
caring that it hurts."
That is, if you are generating steam by boiling water, the steam is
evolved at the boiling point. There is a classic demonstration, used
to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper
cup, over a flame, as I recall. The water in the cup simply cannot go
above the boiling point, and remain water. When it is vaporized it
absorbs, from the state change, a huge amount of heat, thus, in
practice, you can use boiling water to calibrate a thermometer. (And
ice-water, at the other end of the Centigrade scale. Mixed phase in
both situations.)
So to reach higher than 100 C, the steam would have to be further
heated, not through heating of the water, but of the steam directly.
Further, isn't the idea here that there is water in the exhaust, that
the steam is wet? Dry steam hotter than 100 C is definitely possible
(with post-generating heating). But wet steam presents a problem. The
hotter the steam, the more rapidly the water would evaporate, so the
less water there could be, it would be transient. It's hard to imagine
an arrangement in this situation where the water remains cool while
the steam is heated above boiling.
If the water is as fine droplets, forget it. It would vanish almost
immediately if the temperature is higher than the boiling point,
cooling the steam, until the water were entirely vaporized and the
steam dry, or the steam is cooled to the boiling point.
I can understand why boiling water is used as a measure of energy,
it's pretty simple, *if measures are taken to measure the water
content." If the exit path for the steam is directly from the device
into the air, with no water leaving (as with an ordinary teakettle!),
the steam will be dry, so measuring the mass of water evaporated is a
simple and clean demonstration, allowing easy calculation of energy
evolved (aside from other losses, as through radiation or convection
off of the device).
My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be
avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would
spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of steam
to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the water would
be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep the water in
the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the top. But the
E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it would spit isn't
terribly surprising. This might be avoided by simply tipping the thing
a little, so that the exit tube is the highest point inside, and
bubbles of steam rising from anywhere inside would rise directly to
that point, with no place for them to be trapped.
Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the
sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water
coming out at any point.
There is a need, actually. It's generating so much heat (10 kW + ) that
it would rapidly turn the lab into a sauna if it weren't vented
someplace. Stuffing the hose down the sink dumps the heat, not just the
water.
The window would have been OK but the sink was apparently more
convenient (and besides, if it were spitting out the window, passersby
might object).
Does your tea kettle spit water at you? I didn't think so!
The device, as it was powered up, would start to boil water, filling
the output tube with steam. The steam will rapidly transfer heat to
the output tube until it is also at the boiling point, and that
condensed water would drain back into the heating chamber. When the
exit tube reaches the boiling temperature, at that time, true dry
steam would start coming out, which is invisible. Put a whistle on the
thing, with a narrow output opening! You could even calibrate the
whistle to provide an operating measure of energy generation rate.
(Thanks to a pseudoskeptic who was fond of "steampunk" for that
suggestion, Barry Kort.) In any case, if the opening is narrow, you'd
see that the steam is invisible as it comes out, guaranteeing that it
is dry, it would only become visible a short distance from the
opening, as it cools from contact with the air and forms a steam cloud.
Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may
only be at 100 degrees, but it's dangerous, it's carrying a lot of
heat, which it will cheerfully transfer to your skin, in a flash.
Maybe if you are *fast*, you wouldn't get burned, but I wouldn't
advise trying it. I have no problem with touching something at 100
degrees, or quite a bit hotter, if it isn't live steam! It's easy to
be fast enough. If I think it's really hot, I might lick my finger
first! The steam formation will protect my skin, as long as I don't
leave the finger, and the hiss tells me it's above boiling. Hey,
"hiss." Snake!
(I've also watched fire-walkers. Yes, folks, people actually do walk
on hot coals. It probably has to do with a protective layer of water
vapor that forms under the right conditions. And, skeptics, watch out!
Your *attitude* might matter. (I.e., can affect the dryness of your
skin. Dry = ouch!)
