Here is some private conversation that I think, deserves to see the daylight at the Vortex.
Although I still disagree wit Abd ul-Rahman, about the definition of very wet steam and it is more or less impossible to produce very wet steam in low pressures, such as are present in E-Cat, but of course there is not much practical and physical difference whether liquid water is overflowing or just escaping as very wet steam. Anyways I thank him for giving mathematical clothes for my argument that real heating power of E-Cat can be calculated surprisingly accurately, only if 1) inflow of water is know, 2) the temperature of steam is known and finally if 3) the inner diameter for orifice, where the hose is attached, is know. These values are really all that is necessary to measure when E-Cat demonstrations were done. Here Abd ul-Rahman, estimated that inner diameter for the outlet beak was 5 mm. It is pretty much certain that it is less than 10 mm, but as with 5 mm the final result was 70% of claimed total input power, it is not too far off the mark, although there is of course countless other potential error sources. So, I think that we finally have found someone who was able to really calculate the real output power for E-Cat! For refreshing memory, here are again measured rather steady boiling point temperature and water inflow rates (I did not check Jan and Dec water inflow rates, but i took them from my memory) December (101.6°C / 13 kg/h) January (101.2°C / 13 kg/h) March (100.2°C / 6.47 kg/h) April (100.6°C / 4.15 kg/h) June (100.1°C / 7 kg/h) (notice, that here water inflow rate was not measured, might also be something like 2 kg/h) - Jouni ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> Date: 2011/8/7 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless To: Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]> At 12:48 PM 8/6/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > I do not know who was that crack pot who first introduced this concept > of "very wet steam". In steam industry, they pay lots of attention to > steam quality, because any water in the steam increases corrosion in > turbines and naturally this is bad thing. But there is no such thing > as water boilers that produces very wet steam! Nonsense. I could easily design one. Very wet steam, because it carries so much less heat, but is at the same temperature as dryer steam, will more easily fully condense. You'd never allow this in real boilers. And that, my friend, is why real boilers don't use constant feed for the water. Rather, they adjust feed to match the water taken away by the steam, both kinds of water. If the Rossi reactors used gravity feed, they would function more like a regular boiler, probably. If they were to be fed from the tap or a pump, there might be a float valve or there might be a level sensor, but, in any case, overflow water would be prevented. Overflow water, with the Rossi design, is what can make extremely wet steam. And it doesn't matter if it makes wet steam or it simply flows out the hose. With very wet steam, pretty much, the droplets may coalesce and fail to be suspended all the way to the end of a 3 or 4 meter hose. What we might see at the end would be some mist. After all, this is water at the boiling point, hot. It would "steam," in the ordinary language. Some will vaporize, cooling it, but that vapor would immediately condense as it hits cooler air, so we see mist above very hot water. Right? > > The bottom line is that steam quality is such a complex issue that basing > > calorimetry on supposed vaporization of an entire water flow is fraught with > > major hazards. Rather, what's needed is to measure the enthalpy of the > > entire outflow (water and steam). That's best done directly. Jed Rothwell > > proposed a method, and that could be refined, possible, but would certainly > > give decent approximate results, probably understated, in fact. > > > > You can calculate amount of steam directly from the pressure that is > caused by steam inside E-Cat and that can be calculated by measuring > the temperature of boiling water. We can indeed calculate the pressure from the temperature, and that's been done. I used various figures before, but I'm seeing other estimates from others. For a test, I'm going to assume 99.6 boiling point at ambient pressure, and 100.5 degrees in the chimney. I'm going to assume an inner diameter of the outlet fitting of 5 mm. This could be pretty far off, but I have no data. > For rough approximation, only thing > what you need to do is to examine the inner diameter for the beak, > where the hose is attached. Therefore complex calorimetry is not > necessary. I agree that this could give an estimate, but we don't have enough information for anything accurate. Nevertheless, I'll see where the numbers fall. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html 99.6 C. -> 0.999 bar. 100.5 C -> 1.032 bar. overpressure: 0.033 bar. 3.8 kg/hr was the reported flow rate in the Mats Lewan April 28 test: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf There is a chart for calculating flow through an orifice at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html 3.8 kg/hr -> 8.38 lb/hr 5 mm -> 3/16 inch it's off the chart, but I'd estimate, from the chart, 1 psig overpressure, which is 0.069 bar. Now, as a seat of the pants estimate, the pressure in the E-cat is too low for the flow rate reported. 0.033 bar -> ~0.5 psig I get roughly 6 lbs/hr. extrapolating off the chart. That would point to 70% vaporization. This is extremely rough. The steam quality would be 70%, i.e., 30% liquid water. (or there would be liquid water flow, same difference.) I'd feel a lot better with charts that cover the range involved, or formulae, and the diameter of the steam orifice is unknown. 5 mm is a guess. Now, the biggest problem with the Mats Lewan demo was that input power may have been manipulated. Mats Lewan made a blatant error, explicitly stating it: > > The temperature probe was initially checked submerged in a pot with boiling > water. The measured value was 99.6 °C. All values above this should indicate > that the probe is not submerged in water. Lewan is assuming that the steam, the place where the probe is placed, is at the same pressure, and it will not be at the same pressure. As steam being generated in a cavity with a small outlet, there will be overpressure, and therefore the boiling point of water will be higher. If the probe were placed in a short hose outside the chimney, with substantially larger ID, as would be normal for a hose that will go over the fitting, it would be true. (We may also wonder if Lewan knew how to do an accurate measure of boiling point. I've never done this where high accuracy is needed, and I understand there are pitfalls that someone who hasn't done it many times might fall into. But for the moment I'm simply accepting his figure. It's quite reasonable given the accuracy of the temperature probe.) Because the temperature plot is relatively flat once the E-cat begins boiling water, we must assume that this is wet steam, i.e, saturated, with some at least small quantity of liquid water. Mats Lewan, as well as some other observers, clearly did not understand this. Dry steam is very difficult to make with only a boiler, because of the bubbling. When water is boiling, the steam and the water have the same temperature, so a probe immersed fully in the steam (no mixed cooler air) will show the same temperature as a probe immersed fully in the water. In wet steam, the liquid and the vapor are at the same temperature. As temperature is not measured to high accuracy, as ambient pressure or E-cat pressure was not measured, etc., etc., we are left with too little data. I have done no error analysis on the above calculations.
