On Jun 23, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
2011/6/23 Horace Heffner <[email protected]>:
Liquid Liquid Gas
Portion Portion Portion
by Volume by Mass by Mass
--------- ------- -----------
0.000 0.0000 100.00
0.001 0.6252 0.3747
I will just concentrate in the second entry. Are you suggesting that a
gas can carry twice of its weight in a liquid form?
I did not intend to get sucked into a conversation, but this is an
excellent point that I think deserves a response.
If you look at the E-cat design you can see that it has the potential
to act similar to a coffee percolator. See:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VIn_mQi1H-M/TZ1ZIpKD4-I/AAAAAAAALAE/
xo1T4ZRm41o/s1600/ECAT_explained.jpg
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444
It is a boiling chamber followed by a vertical tube and elevated
ejection port. A relative humidity sensor will max out at 100%, and
would not be capable of detecting a percolator style of operation.
It is merely a polymer or metal oxide thin film protected by a porous
metal electrode. It can not measure steam quality. There is no
reason to expect that water on the surface of the protecting porous
metal electrode will have a significant effect on an already 100% RH
reading.
A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by volume
of gas. The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by
controlling the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat
applied to the chamber. Active controllers exist in the Rossi device.
Water has been seen coming out of the hose. Unless careful
measurements are taken it is not known the quantity of water vs gas.
It is far easier to do calorimetry. Flow calorimetry of a gas-liquid
regime is difficult at best. This is why I suggest the use of a
copper oil to obtain an all liquid flow, i.e. to extract the heat
from the steam by condensation, or to use ice calorimetry. This in
effect provides dual calorimetry methods, an (integrating)
isoperibolic method combined with a flow method.
What my table demonstrates is that a very small error in liquid
volume measurement results in a very large calorimetry error.
Note that I suggested using a coper coil, for condensation, not
merely sparging the steam through a barrel. I suggested that this
method can be applied periodically as a check. It only needs to be
designed to handle about twice the total input energy for the
duration applied to prove something extraordinary is going on.
A couple meters of rubber hose can not radiate away 80% of 12 kW of
heat suggested to be produced in the original runs. Condensation in
the hose can therefore not explain away a mere 1.4% by volume flow of
water from the hose while the device is supposedly producing 12 kW
heat flow. Rossi himself said it was dangerous to hold the rubber
tube vertically for an extended period. The reason for this is
obvious - if water flow production is occurring then the holder of
the tube is likely to eventually get scalded.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
