Anyway i searched all possible reference of text written on the internet by Galantini about the e-cat measurements and he does not mention steam tables nor Mollier diagrams but psychrometric tables which i do not understand how to use with steam... does anyone have a clue?
mic Il giorno 05/ago/2011 22:55, "Michele Comitini" <michele.comit...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >> >> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html shows a > Mollier diagram, but I see no way to use this diagram to determine steam > quality. >> > Dear Abd, > > I use like this: > Take the isobaric curve; > Find intersection with temperature. > Now you can read the steam quality using the closest red curve. > If you need more precision you can read the enthalpy on the left and you can > find the mass of vapour and water in a unit of volume by algebraic > calculation. > > As for the steam tables they are everywhere. If you want to play with steam > go here : > http://www.steamtablesonline.com/ > > mic > > Il giorno 05/ago/2011 19:59, "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com> ha > scritto: >> >> At 01:43 PM 8/4/2011, Michele Comitini wrote: >> >>> I cannot find where Galantini declared that he used the RH reading on the > datalogger. Did he declare that? >> >> >> He used the g/m^3 reading, which is a calculated reading. I believe that > this reading does consider pressure, if the information is available. >> >> >>> Maybe he used the probe because it measures T in the correct range up > to 150°C. >> >> >> Sure. However, that rating doesn't mean that it provides accurate readings > all through that range. >> http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3717appendixc1.shtml >> >> >>> If he knew the pressure at the point where the probe was then with steam > tables or Mollier diagram the quality of steam is derived. >>> Why that probe with RH sensor then? Maybe it just comes bundled with the > datalogger. >> >> >> The reading for g/m^3 requires the humidity sensor. >> >>> The Essen report points to a probe for temperature only. Did they use a > different way to find steam quality? >> >> >> Essen and Kullander also report relying upon the g/m^3 display. >> >> Michele, you have not pointed to a specific "steam table" that allows the > derivation of quality of steam. Derived from what? >> >> For saturated steam, which is obviously the condition in the E-Cats, the > pressure and temperature are nailed to each other, and it is independent of > quality of the steam. Only if the temperature rises above the saturated > steam temperature for the pressure will the quality of the steam be > determinable. >> >> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html shows a > Mollier diagram, but I see no way to use this diagram to determine steam > quality. >> >> The question of how to use the Testo device to measure steam quality has > been asked many times. The manufacturer and many others have stated it > cannot be done. Nobody who claims it can be done has shown the procedure. >> >> Galantini provided no data as readings from the meter, and no description > of determination. >> http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3717appendixc1.shtml >> >> However, he states: >> >>> I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100.1°C > and that the measured pressure in the chimney always was equal to the > ambient pressure. >> >> >> It appears that Galantini thinks that the temperature of 100.1 C and > "pressure at ambient" -- which he does not state -- is adequate to determine > that the steam is dry. However, he's totally neglected that pressure inside > the E-Cat *must* be greater than ambient, or steam would not flow out. The > measured temperature of 100.5 in the Marwan report for April indicates a > pressure of, as I recall, 1.03 bar for saturated steam. >> >> Some of us have done the calculations for expected steam velocity and > pressure if all the water were being vaporized. Galantini, if he did measure > the pressure in the E-cat and found it to be "ambient," was making an > approximation. >> >> That the temperature is very stable indicates that the steam is saturated, > which means it is at least somewhat wet. >> >> All appearances are that Galantini made a major mistake, and he's not > responded with actual data, nor with a description of his procedure. >> >> Bottom line, then, his testimony means nothing. He is not an expert on > steam, he's a chemist, he happens to own a company which does environmental > testing, so he had the Testo data logger, I'd assume, in stock and he > offered to help, having no understanding of the issues. >> >> About the device: > http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 >> >> With the HP474AC probe, the device will measure temperature up to 150 C., > with an accuracy of +/- 0.3 C, and humidity up to 100% with an accuracy, > over 95%, of +/- 3.5%. It measures atmospheric pressure, but the sensor is > not in the probe, it appears. It's in the device. >> >> So we have a new mystery: how did Galantini determine that pressure in the > E-cat was "ambient." Did he simply read the pressure display and assume this > was from the probe? I can imagine someone unfamiliar with the instrument > making that mistake. >> >> Rather, we have a very strong indicator of the pressure: it was at > saturated steam pressure for the temperature. The evidence for this is the > stable temperature observed, without a major excursion above a stable > temperature. Once the steam is completely dry, the temperature can and very > likely will rise. >> >> The appearance is very strong from the demonstration reports that a > temperature above 100 C was assumed to indicate saturated steam, which is a > blatant error. There will be pressure in the E-cat if any steam is being > generated. >>
