At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Galantini has never said that "steam quality can
be measured with a relative humidity meter." Not that I've seen.
Of course he did! He gave the model number and
the type of probe, and he said that he used it
to determine that the steam is dry. That's the
whole source of the dispute. Where have you been?
Reading all this crap.
Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/
Good morning, on the request made to me today,
as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many
people have requested in the past, I repeat
that all the measurements I did, during tens of
tests done to measure the amount of not
evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present
in the steam produced by E-Cat generators,
always was made providing results in % of
mass, since the used device indicates the grams
of water by cubic meter of steam.
I confirm that the measured temperature always
was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured
pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure.
The instrument used during the tests performed
in the presence of Swedish teachers was as
follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 .
Now, you may certainly claim that this *implies*
that the device he used can be used to "indicate
the grams of water by cubic meter of steam." But
is that "steam quality"? He doesn't state that
the device is a "relative humidity meter." So he
definitely does not state that "steam quality can
be measured with a relative humidity meter."
He shows no sign of understanding the issue.
Therefore using his comment as if Galantini had
said that "you are wrong," which is what you claimed, isn't being careful.
Further, from his lack of understanding of the
issue, presenting him as an expert is very shaky.
There is no evidence I could find, other than
bluster from Rossi, that Galantini would be any
kind of expert in this field. He's a chemist.
He does not state, there, that the steam is dry.
He does not state what the meter read. He does
not state what the ambient pressure was, which is
critical for determining the boiling point.
Note: "grams of water per cubic meter of steam"
is, in fact, a calculated function of the meter
he uses. It will display g/m^3. However, this is
calculated from the RH and the temperature, and
the meter isn't rated to make this calculation
for live steam, it seems. No matter what probe.
Jed, something has gone off the edge for you, with this.
Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that
steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . .
It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You
can't do that unless you know the quality of the
steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume.
You are deriving conclusions outside the scope of
the basic purpose and utility of the instrument.
The device really only measures several
parameters: relative humidity, and temperature
(and, I think, pressure). Everything else is
calculated. "Steam quality" is a complex and
difficult-to-measure value, and the meter is not
sold for it. There is no accuracy rating of the
device, as to RH, at the boiling point.
It *calculates* enthalpy assuming that this is
air, at RH below 100% and temperatures below boiling, it appears.
Where does the brochure state that it "measures"
enthalpy? Again, Jed, I've been over this
material and have quoted from these brochures
many times. You simply make statements. Where
does the brochure state that it will measure the "enthalpy ... of steam"?
I've looked, extensively. Methods for measuring
steam quality are very complex, compared to using
an RH meter. It appears that if we have steam,
any steam, high or low quality, at the boiling
point, the meter will say the same value, which
is the mass of water vapor per cubic meter, if it
still works, which is not guaranteed. That is
what it will display below that temperature.
The device simply is not displaying liquid water
that might be present, it has no way to measure
it, it would require very complex sensors, certainly not what an RH meter uses.
Here is what Galantini may have done: he used the
meter and displayed the g/m^3 of water. He then
compared this with the value for dry steam, and,
amazing! They were close or the same! So he proclaimed that the steam was dry.
It looks like Kullander and Essen may have done
the same, but they came up with some (small)
level of wetness. That might merely have been the
measurement error of the meter!
Krivit did speak with Kullander and Essen but
obviously didn't understand the issue, so he
didn't ask the necessary questions. What's a bit
surprising to me at this point is that we haven't
heard from Kullander and Essen on this, independently. What's Mats Lewan up to?
