The "by mass" and the "by volume" jargon that has evolved here--or where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.
In each case a volume is examined and "by mass" and "by volume" are both unitless values. "by mass" units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 "by volume" units: dx^3/dX^3. In no manner will there ever be 97% "by mass" steam in Rossi's device that exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets. On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig <<mailto:[email protected]> >> de**[email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen >> floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? >> > > I'll answer that, I've never seen anything floating in any kind of steam, > except for water droplets, which I see as mist. > > > I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence >> in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even >> styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any >> solids with lower density than that. >> > > Joshua is very correct, here, high percentage steam, by mass, is still far > lower percentage by volume, and therefore remains low-density. > > Arrggh. I just realized that I've seen *very* high percentage steam, and, > yes, things float in it. It's called "boiling water," and it contains > bubbles of water vapor. > > With continuous agitation, one could make any percentage "steam" one wants. > When it becomes dense enough, it will merely fall quickly to the bottom of > any vessel, leaving dryer steam at the top and less foamy water at the > bottom.... > > As to plausibility for the e-cat, extremely high percentage liquid by mass > seems implausible to me except as a fraud mode. Could be, and probably > isn't. > > >
