On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a**b...@lomaxdesign.com<a...@lomaxdesign.com>> >> 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/<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? > Stop looking behind the curtain. You're upsetting folks ;)
