At 05:42 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see
if it will float over a boiling pot of water.
Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it,
because it won't float, because the steam coming off a pot of
boiling water will probably be well under 5% wet.
But the steam has upward momentum. Enough power in the pot with the
steam going through a small enough hole, and you could float
styrofoam. You can float a ping pong ball with a hair drier, and it
is more dense than air. (It doesn't even have to be vertical, thanks
to Bernoulli.) [And no, I'm not saying the principle only existed
after he identified it.]
Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam
easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small.
And the question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support
a whole person with air flow, all you have to do is get the air flow
running at roughly 90 mph, i.e., "terminal velocity." So?
Craig seems to think that I consider wet steam a big problem here. I
don't. I think the steam is probably no more than a few percent wet,
by mass percentage, it's a huge red herring,
You've said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why
can't the steam be wet;
The steam is wet. that's why the question is a red herring! It's wet,
but *probably* not "very wet," i.e., enough to have a major impact on
energy calculations.
i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor?
Wet steam is the norm, unless special measures are employed to stop
that. It's not necessarily easy, and Rossi had no motive to even try.
Your idea of a filled chimney with water "overflowing" makes no
sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous
and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily
bubbling through would not cut it.
Okay, Joshua, apparently I need to explain this to you, too.
The E-cat starts with water running through, the entire pumped flow
is running out the hose. It's turned on and the water starts to heat.
What happens? First of all, what's happening before boiling starts?
Here is my thinking: water is at the level of the opening to the
outlet hose, so it is spilling into the hose. There is air above the
water, initially. The opening to the hose never fills entirely with
water. Rather water runs out in a trickle matching the pump rate,
runs down into the hose, and accumulates there until it reaches the
drain level, and then it runs out the drain. If siphoning doesn't
occur, this will be, steady state, water running down into the hose,
and the same rate of water flowing out the drain. There is air space
remaining, all the way down into the hose to the level of the drain.
Below that there is water.
When steam generation starts, pressure will develop in the E-cat and
the hose, steam will start to flow out above the water. This pressure
will force the water in the hose out. Steam will be cooled in the
hose, though, and the water accumulated in the hose may be a bit
cooler than boiling. Some amount of steam, however, will bubble up
through water in the end of the hose at the drain. The exact balance
is very difficult to predict, the exact behavior.
However, what we will have at the E-Cat end is quite simple, as long
as the flow rate isn't so low that the E-Cat boils away more than is coming in.
Water will continue to flow out the drain as before, reduced in
volume by whatever water has boiled. The water vapor from boiling
will be ordinary steam. If it's frothy, that's from turbulence
inside. I rather doubt it's frothy, as such. Rather, this is steam
bubbling up from the cooling chamber through water to the level of
the outlet hose opening. It then escapes above the flowing liquid
water. The water level will drop below the outlet opening only if the
input flow is below the steam generation rate.
The steam is "wet" because steam generated from boiling like this is
practically always wet unless special devices are used to separate
the water from the vapor. So there are three outflows: liquid water,
as a mass of water, flowing as water, water vapor, and entrained
liquid water as mist.
All of these are at the same temperature as they leave the E-Cat.
That's the characteristic temperature of boiling water, at the
pressure present inside.
At any point here, once boiling is established, open the steam valve
at the top of the chimney, and what do you see? You see steam, quite
possibly "live" as to what it looks like. (That is, very low mist
content, so it's quite invisible until it cools from air contact.)
If you drain the hose and look at the end, held up, you will see mist
and maybe some live steam coming out, depending on the cooling that's
taking place in the host itself. It will be weaker steam than you'd
see at the chimney vent, that's practically certain, so the arguments
based on steam quantity at the end of the hose are also, at least to
a degree, red herrings as well. Jed wants to look at the steam,
sparging it close to the E-Cat, because he knows that this is far
cleaner, because the cooling in the hose could mask a lot of heat!
Unless you observe the end of the hose for some time, at least, I'd
say, about six minutes if Rossi lifts the hose in the middle to empty
it, you will not see any flowing water. If you sparge the steam in a
bucket, as Lewan apparently did (but without using a specific sparger
device that creates small steam bubbles that will be totally absorbed
by the water), you will be able to tell how much water is running
out, but you won't know how much of this was from overflow and how
much was condensed due to cooling in the hose.
Because Lewan noted that the volume of water in the bucket did not
match the inflow, we might infer that there is some vaporized water.
The problem is determining how much, and Lewan did not report
quantitative measurements.
Nobody seems to have realized and addressed, in observing the demos,
the possibility of overflow water.
I do not know if this was a deliberate deception on Rossi's part. If
it was, it was brilliant! He didn't have to say a word about it. He
let all the experts fumble about with wimpy explanations. Given his
history, I'd imagine -- if he understood the issues, and he might, I
have no reason to believe he's stupid, and he's had a lot more time
to think about this stuff than about anyone else -- he was having a
blast. Look what idiots they are!
Note: what I've come up with doesn't explain all the heat, it could
simply explain some major part of it. There might be something
else,some other artifact. Or not, and Rossi is seeing significant
heat, up to almost what he's been reporting. My conclusion is that
there is very likely *some* overflow water, but it might be small. I
have no way of telling how much there is, the demonstrations were not
set up to make it possible to tell.
It's kind of funny. There was one fraud scenario that was quite
simple, an internal hose that bypasses the cooling chamber, mostly,
so cool water runs into the hose. The water remaining in the cooling
chamber, being much lower volume, could easily be boiled. That steam
would, as with what I've described above, run out above the cooler
water below. The temperature sensor in the chimney would measure the
temperature of the boiling water and steam. Steam would be seen at
the steam relief valve. It is even possible that if the hose were
emptied, one might see some steam coming out of the hose end for a
little while.
However, my point here is not to assert fraud, but that the real
thing that is happening, quite likely, is not entirely different:
unboiled water running out the outlet hose. The question is how much.
Only a little, the energy calculations are only off by a little. A
lot, the energy calculations are way off.
It would be practically trivial to determine the matter. But about
the time that the community gets wise to this overflow issue, what
does Rossi do? Well, so many "snakes and clowns," and too little
time. So no more demonstrations until October!
And it even makes sense. Why should he do demonstrations? He gains
nothing, nothing at all.
