On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < [email protected]> wrote:
> From Josh: > > This is not > > based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the > > hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it > > does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, > > on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under > > water (not much). > > You give technical reasons for why you have arrived at your > conclusions, but I don't feel you have answered the specifics of my > original question. I will therefore rephrase it: > > Do you know if the gas being expelled from the black hose showed any > signs of having started to condense into water droplets PRIOR to > exiting the end of the hose? > I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. I don't think the water droplets are formed by condensation; I think they are formed by turbulence in the ecat or the chimney. I think only a small mass fraction of the water ever changes phase. If the expelled steam is invisible at the end of the hose, there is still far too little of it to account for 2 g/s flow rate. There must be liquid somewhere. I don't think it is invisible, but if it is, then maybe the mist settles out before it reaches the end of the hose, and flows out slowly (without filling the hose to block the steam). It's only a couple of mL per second. With the hose vertical, maybe only the steam comes out. That may be why Rossi gets nervous; he realizes that water is collecting in the hose, and after some time it will start to block the steam, and then there will be sputtering. > The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication > > that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature > > of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling > > point. > > This particular issue has been argued excessively in the Vortex Forum. > I gather not everyone agrees with your interpretation. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. > As for me, I > remember my own high school chemistry labs. I recall heating solutions > of unspecified liquids in order to convert them into gas. As various > solutions transformed into a gas they would immediately leave the > boiling flask. What was interesting about this experiment was the fact > that the temperature of the remaining liquid ALWAYS remained > consistent or at the same level of the respective boiling point. > Obviously, the liquid that had just been converted into a gas and had > immediately left couldn't possibly be any hotter that the respective > temperature of the remaining liquid, especially if it was not > contained like in a pressure cooker. > Yes, and to repeat, these experiments all heat the liquid directly, not the gas. In the ecat, if all the water is converted to steam in the ecat, then the steam would be heated directly, and as shown in that figure, there is nothing stopping it from getting hotter. > It's my understanding that Rossi's e-cat is not designed to retain > water under pressure as if it is a pressure cooker. The expelled water > is going to be pretty darn close to 100 C no matter how hot the Rossi > reaction might be. No. This was Rothwell's problem for a long time too. You don't need elevated pressure to heat steam above the boiling point. Air is at atmospheric pressure and it is about 200C above its boiling point. And when you pass air past hot elements in your furnace, it gets hotter still. Gas can be heated at constant (atmospheric) pressure. No problem. This misconception is an indication that our education system is failing us. And if you don't like the figure I mentioned, look at any phase diagram to see that gas can exist above the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. > The only difference would be that the hotter the > Rossi Reaction might get, the quicker the various solutions will > convert to gas based on their respective boiling points. If the liquid is converted to gas quicker, that means earlier in the ecat, then the gas will have to pass the heated walls of the ecat, and will therefore get hotter. But it won't > make the water turned into a gas any hotter. It will just increase the > volume of liquid begin converted into a gas. > If it is *all* being converted into a gas, how can it increase the volume that is converted? It can't, and the only way energy can be conserved is for the gas to get hotter (or for more heat to radiate through the insulation).
