At 06:56 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
It would be possible, just from the experiments performed, to
determine if the RH probe were of any use. If the RH readings were
*monitored* on a continuos basis, like the temperature, and
*reported*, we could see if the reading ever actually changes.
Presumably the steam must begin wet and then become drier as the
power transfer increases.
Not necessarily. Indeed, the steam may be wetter with higher power,
because of higher turbulence inside the device.
If the steam were wetter, then it would remove less power from the
reactor, and if the reactor is producing more power, where does the energy go?
More steam, of course. I.e., if there is constant power, and the
steam is wetter, and the steam is the only cooling mode, there must
be more of it.
The reactor would have to get hotter, and then of course it would
heat the water faster, boil it more quickly, and produce more steam,
and it would be drier.
No. That does not follow. Steam from water boiling more turbulently
is wetter, silly.
Higher power transfer means drier steam, if energy is to be conserved.
If the water flow rate is truly constant, over time, sure. There are
some problems with the water flow rate.
There are two very simple ways to prove the steam is dry: (1)
Measure the output flow rate (velocity); if it is steam, it should
be 1700 times higher than the input flow rate;
Yeah, but it's not so simple to determine that rate. Could be done, though.
It's not hard to measure the flow rate of dry steam to 1 or 2%
accuracy. There are commercial devices that advertise exactly that.
If the steam were dry, it would be easy to prove it this way.
Those devices were not available and nobody wants to buy them. There
are simpler ways to address the issue, as I assume you would recognize.
(2) Reduce the input flow rate so the steam temperature exceeds
boiling by more than a few degrees -- say 120C or so. That these
two methods are not used suggests the steam is not dry.
Not really. It suggests that measures have not been taken to prove
that it's dry.
Reducing the input flow rate could be dangerous with this device, possibly.
The same device has been operated with several different flow rates,
and always the temperature at the output is 100C. If the steam were
dry, a modest decrease in the flow rate would give a significant
increase in the steam temperature. It would have to in order to
remove the same amount of heat from the reactor.
Or the reactor runs out of water.
There are a number of interacting variables here, and we simply don't
have a handle on them. The biggest defect I can see is that we don't
know, actually, what is coming out that hose. We know there is *some*
water, that's a certainty, because there would be water condensing in
the hose even if the E-Cat steam is dry. We also know that Rossi has
acknowledged that the E-Cats did not produce dry steam, that he's
supposedly fixed this now.
What does that tell us about the demonstrations?
The only demonstration that was really, on the face, conclusive, was
the one only Rossi and Levi witnessed. Which is then a private
experiment, not a public demonstration.
And, of course, there is the fraud possibility, which is impossible
to address fully, consistently with a reasonable need for industrial secrecy.
I'm firmly in the camp of "we can't tell" at this point. There is
evidence this and evidence that, and depending on whom you trust and
what assumptions you make, you can come up with wildly differing conclusions.
Instead, we need to do what Rossi actually suggests we do: wait.
Except that I know that competing researchers are not waiting, they
are plowing ahead with work to find Rossi's catalyst, or ... maybe
something better. That would be an interesting outcome, eh?
