-----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner Thanks for jumping back into the analysis, as tiresome as it has gotten to be (even for this particular audience).
Almost everyone agrees that it would be very easy for Levi and his crew to rectify the wet/dry steam controversy - that his continuing failure to do so, is itself damning. It now seems that the vertical riser (original purpose unclear) was designed (hopefully inadvertently) in such a way as to skew the results in this exact kind of "percolator" scenario. It is silly to think that was a real design goal, but why else is the riser a feature of the device? Your suggestion: "Note that I suggested using a copper coil, for condensation, not merely sparging the steam through a barrel" ... is so obvious, that the failure of the UB team to do it, is either an admission that they do not care very about the validity of the original claim, and the science involved - or more likely - more evidence of gross incompetence. Jones Daniel Rocha wrote: >> 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 cannot 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 copper 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 cannot 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/
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
