Hi Jones! As a significant contributor to the 'painful gigabytes of wasted bandwidth' over the steam quality issue, I certainly agree with your comments. You might not have noticed the smiley I put at the end of my comment about sending the test kit to Levi -- it was mostly just an attempt at humor! However, I hope someone here will at least send Rossi and Levi and Galantini a link to that website... I'm just too busy right now to bother.
Better yet, perhaps the company would be willing to donate a test kit since, if results turn out in the E-Cat's favor, it would be the best possible ROI that the company ever made in its advertising/marketing budget! Just think of the tag lines... "Our test kit helped usher in the next revolution in energy production technologies!" or "Our test kit helped end the reign of Big Oil!" Heck, even if things didn't go well, they could say they helped debunk a massive scam... Either way, it's a win-win for them! [ 0.5 * :-) ] -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Steam Test Kit Mark, Why measure steam quality at all? If there is one lesson we all should have learned from the many painful gigabytes of wasted bandwidth on Vortex about steam quality, it is that you simply cannot satisfy everyone this way. Too many variables. But there is a simpler and more accurate way which Horace and others have alluded-to since the beginning. Condense the steam from the start in a closed-cycle ! Doh ! AFAIK there is no good reason not to condense the steam into a (known) mass of water using and measure the temp gain in the water. It is almost fool-proof. You can cross-check this number, which is very important - by simply datalogging the flow rate or the return water x Delta-T. That way, there can be little doubt since you have an independent cross-check already to operated with an easily calibrated system. Importantly, if one chooses the insulated domestic or commercial electric water heater, and the best size is in the 80 gallon range, then one already has this built-in means of correctly sized calibration plus an ideal run-time for a monitored experiment or the Rossi type. As it turns out, these mass-produced systems are sized precisely to heat up (to below boiling) in about two hours using 5-10 KWhr of electricity. Most of them have internal circulation system to stabilize the temperature so you can use you lowest reading instead of average. But mainly there is no steam quality issue by adding a small commercial heat exchanger to the plumbing - or even condense the E-Cat output using an internal coil of copper pipe (the moonshiners method). The tank is already insulated but you can add more, and the plumbing connectors are standard. No excuses, no whining. Essentially, you get a free 100,000 man-hours of engineering with your domesticated calorimeter. It is such a perfect setup for the 5-10 kW range - and the results of testing should be so precise and idiot-proof without high cost, that it can be considered suspicious NOT to go this route IMHO. Jones -----Original Message----- From: Mark Iverson Perhaps we should all contribute a few bucks, buy one and have it shipped to Professor Levi at the U of B! :-) -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Michele Comitini Here it is: http://www.steamquality.co.uk/Steam_Test_Kit.htm http://www.steamquality.co.uk/steam%20pdf/SQTK_&_Accessories_Brochure.pdf mmmh i see a temperature probe with datalogger... mic
