On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.* > > > > If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. > > > > Applied power = 745 watt > > Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec > > Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt > > Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt > > Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % > of water flow. > > > > The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. > Someone should inform Storms that at atmospheric pressure, steam is much less dense than water, so that 3.4% of water by mass corresponds to 98 % steam by volume. If steam takes up 98% of the volume, it doesn't seem likely that the chimney would fill with water, and the steam would bubble through it. Maybe Krivit would be willing to help Storms understand the difference between the mass fraction and the volume fraction. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. > As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly > condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that > would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. > > > > CONCLUSION: No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not > consistent with observation. > Condensation of the steam in the hose would of course require dissipating the heat through the hose. Regardless of what may be happening in the chimney, I'm inclined to agree that if the flow rate is 1.9 mL/s, and if the power is 750 or 800W, there would be very little, if any, steam visible at the end of the hose, because it seems reasonable that the hose could dissipate 150W to 200 W. However, the small amount of steam that is visible does not need a nuclear reaction to explain it. A small amount of chemical heat in the ecat, or an easily plausible factor of two misrepresentation in the power or the flow rate could easily account for what is observed. > > > *2. The steam contains water droplets, i.e, was not dry.* > > > > Power to heat water to 100° = 592 watt > > Power to vaporize all water = 1.94 * 2270 = 4404 watt > > Total = 4997 watt if all water is vaporized > > Excess power = 4249 watt > > > > The only way steam is wet is when water drops are present. If too many > drops are present, they fall as rain (precipitate). It is simply impossible > to have a large number of drops present. A 5% figure is chosen as an > example here ( > http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html) because > this is a plausible amount. > The 5% figure was chosen because that is typical of boilers, where the water is heated directly, and the mist is formed from the bubbling water. It is not by any stretch an indication of the maximum amount of mist that is possible in steam. The situation in the ecat is very different. The water is forced through at a fixed rate, and so when some steam forms, it moves through the conduit along with the flowing water, but at a much higher speed, depending on the tube diameter. Imagine 98 or 99% of the volume occupied by gas, and 1% by liquid as it flows through. A picture of falling rain doesn't really fit with that. For small tubes, this sort of 2-phase flow may result in annular flow, where a thin film of liquid flows along the walls, and the steam flows along the center. For smaller tubes, you get an annular/mist flow, and this can happen when the steam makes up as little as 1 or 2% of the water by mass (Inoue et al., "Influence of two-phase flow characteristics on critical heat flux in low pressure", Exp. Thermal and Fluid Science 19 (1999) 172.) We don't know what's in that chimney. It could be a kind of nozzle, that sprays the remaining liquid into the chimney as a mist, which is then carried by the much more voluminous steam through the hose. Or it could simply be a coiled tube with a small diameter to promote the formation of mist. Or there might even be an ultrasonic nebulizer in there. It doesn't really matter. The simple point is that what comes out of that hose is completely inconsistent with Rossi's claim of 5 kW (4.2 from the ecat), but is not inconsistent with a mixture of steam and mist corresponding to a lower flow rate, or higher power input. You know, if the steam were dry, there would have to be a transition from liquid water flowing out of the hose to dry steam, in which the steam quality would go continuously from 0% to 100% dry. And this transition should take quite long; on the order of tens of minutes. If Rossi were confident of his results, he would show this transition, so we could all see what the intermediate situations look like, and how they differ from dry steam. And he wouldn't get so nervous holding the hose up to keep water from coming out. Nevertheless, the conclusion would be the same even if 20% water drops were > present. > But not if the the fluid consisted of 98% liquid drops, or 95% or even 90% liquid drops (by mass). > > > Power to vaporize 95% of water = 4183 watt > > Excess power = 3736 watt > > > > CONCLUSION: Significant excess power is being made regardless of how dry > the steam may be. > Power to heat and vaporize 10% of water = 1 kW Excess power = 200W Conclusion: If the steam is very wet (quality <~ 10%), significant excess power is not being made. > > > > *4. The flow rate is wrong by a factor of 2.* > > > > Power to heat water to 100° = 296 watt > > Power to vaporize all water = 2204 watt > > Total = 2500 watt if all water is vaporized > > Excess power = 1752 watt > > > > CONCLUSION: Excess power is being generated even if the flow rate is > misrepresented by a factor of 2. > This again assumes the steam is dry, but doesn't work if the steam is wet: Power to heat water to boiling = 300W Power to vaporize 24% of the water = 500 W Total = 800W if 24% of water is vaporized Excess power = zero Conclusion: If the flow rate is misrepresented by a factor of 2, there is no evidence for excess power. > > > *BASIC CONCLUSION: None of the plausible assumptions are consistent with > the claim for excess energy being wrong.* > > > These conclusions are an indication of what passes for evidence for cold fusion advocates. And are consistent (but much more obviously so) with the sort of definite conclusions drawn about other CF experiments, which are explicitly considered inconclusive (at best) by mainstream science.
