Very good response by Andrea. We see that those "movie clowns" have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. One thing also what must be considered, but what was ignored by pseudoskeptics was that the room temperature was over 30 degrees. This makes steam less visible than in 20°C.
I wonder if people finally understand how utterly silly was that steam dryness discussion. Here in Vortex, but especially by Steven and Peter who made themself a clown and fine target for public ridicule. But interesting indeed was the reaction by people in general, although understanding this required no more engineering skill than boiling water in the kettle. —Jouni Ps. Mysterious AND measured boiling point of water was 99.7±0.1°C. Therefore if steam temperature is above 100.1±0.1°C, then the steam is dry, because water cannot remain in liquid phase in normal atmospheric pressure when temperature is significantly above boiling point. Therefore it is completely ridiculous and lack of imagination to stick in this silly misconception. On Jun 29, 2011 4:54 PM, "Stephen A. Lawrence" <sa...@pobox.com> wrote: > More bizarreness. > > Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, > nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated > the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative > to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so we can't > compute the boiling point from it), and we've got anger and offended > dignity and insults hurled at those who dare to question him, but we > haven't got a number which indicates a measurement was done which would > show the steam was dry. > > We saw much the same thing from Galantini earlier in blog posts, albeit > with less of the offended dignity business that Rossi's giving us. > > Am I the only one who sees this behavior as a big red flag? > > > On 11-06-29 02:06 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: >> Peter Ekstrom's analysis: >> “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. >> http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf >> >> >> >> Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: >> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments >> >> Andrea Rossi >> June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM >> Dear Michael Cox: >> The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic I answer that I am very much impressed. >> The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it,therefore : >> 1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way. >> 2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. >> 3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid. >> I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors” >> Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie! >> By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants. >> …and I have a surprise…but it will come in October. >> Warm regards, >> A.R. >> >> >
