At 05:27 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
At 02:58 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still
pinned to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is*
dry is still absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of
steam at the output is pretty good evidence that most of the liquid
does not change phase.
Not actually. There will be reduction in steam output due to cooling
in the hose. It's to be expected. The question is how much. And I'm
suspicious of all the ad-hoc calculations. The whole point of a
conclusive demo is to make such calculations as simple as possible
Basically, assume 750 W of input power, how much steam would be
expected *at the end of a three meter hose* like that. My sense is,
not a whole lot! My guess is that we might not see anything except a
little mist.
But it's a guess.
If all of the claimed input water were converted to steam, that
would represent 5 kW of power. At least 3 kW, and probably closer to
4 kW would escape that hose as steam enthalpy. It is clear that what
escapes that hose is not even half that, maybe not even a quarter
that. So, that means, as I said above, that most of the liquid does
not change phase. The steam must be very wet. Actually.
This is not clear at all. I don't see any way to reliably estimate
what is escaping from the hose, nor how much heat is being lost by
the hose as radiation and convection and conduction. It seems odd
that the E-Cat would be designed in a way that would make very wet
steam, but, of course, it could be done.
Try to think of a 1.5 kW space heater. Do you really think that 3
1-ft diameter turns of a rubber hose at 100C would throw that much
heat. It's completely implausible.
Heat transfer increases with temperature. I really don't know how
much heat it would throw. You might be right, Joshua. And you might
be wrong. I don't see convincing evidence either way. What I can see
-- and I think we agree on this -- is that collectively the demos are
not convincing, there are too many loose ends, too many unresolved
questions, like how steam quality was measured, or like what is
happening to the input water, what's the basis for stating that it is
all vaporized? How do we know how much unvaporized water is running
down the drain? If the water is all vaporized, and if the power input
is constant, what is matching the input flow and the vaporization
rate? Or are they matched, is water accumulating in the device, or,
worse, is it running out the hose without being vaporized. (This is
more than "wet steam"!)
(We know that some water is going down the drain, but the question is
whether or not this water was initially vapor, condensed in the hose,
or if it was never vaporized.)
It's complex, way too complex. It's as if it was designed to be
ambiguous, which is actually my theory, more or less. I certainly
can't prove that theory!
By the way, does anyone know when they turn the pump on? Is it on
before they start heating? If so, then the E-cat coolant chamber,
will be filling, and water might eventually be running out the hose.
What is the volume of the coolant chamber? I suppose Rossi might
match the coolant inflow with the exact heat to vaporize just that
amount, controlling the heat with the supplemental heat from the
heating element, but it seems strange to be teetering on an edge like
that. It's mysterious.
