Had Galantini submitted this report a long time ago, it could have saved alot
of net bandwidth...
It is also very similar reasoning to what I tried to explain many months ago,
then on 8/4, and again
recently with Jeff Driscoll off-list.
1) It is NOT necessary to have AIR (i.e., N2 and O2) present to get a valid
relative humidity
measurement from the sensor.
Note this statement from the Wikipedia page on Relative Humidity:
"In fact, an air-less volume can contain water vapor and therefore the humidity
of this volume can
be readily determined."
RH is a function of the partial vapor pressure of water, which is NOT
dependent on any other
molecules being present (i.e., N2 and O2).
Note this statement from Dr. Steven Babin's website:
Senior Meteorologist/Physician/Engineer
Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University
<http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~stevenb/vapor/>
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~stevenb/vapor/
"The presence of the air is not relevant to the vapor pressure and could be
replaced by a
vacuum."
The issue of the need for AIR for the RH to work was discussed on vortex-l
shortly after the
January demo and I think the conclusion then was what I am stating here... that
it is NOT necessary.
2) Liquid water WOULD cause the sensor to "peg the needle" at either 0% or
100%. I tested my
capacitive membrane RH sensor here over a pot of boiling water and it went to
0% when there was
visible liquid condensation on the outside of the probe.
3) IF the RH probe is rated for temperatures above 100C (and this one was at
least rated for 150C),
then all one has to do is leave the probe in the steam long enough so that the
probe itself comes up
to same temperature as the steam which will cause any condensation on the
sensor to evaporate, and
then the sensor will give you a valid RH measurement.
4) Galantini verifies that he did remove the probe from the chimney several
times and observed that
is was DRY.
"...I extracted many times the probe from the chimney of the reactor, and it
was dry."
Thus, the RH measurement from the probe was very likely accurate. It is from
that measurement of RH
that he obtained the mass of water (as VAPOR), and from that, he could
calculate an estimate of how
much liquid content there was in the steam. It is NOT a direct measurement of
steam quality, but he
feels the instruments he used were accurate enough for him to INDIRECTLY
measure it.
-Mark
_____
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 11:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Galantini report rules out overflow hypothesis in the tests he
observed
The Galantini report has been discussed this morning. The link to it is here:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3228358.ece/BINARY/Galantini+steam+report.pdf
Item 12 rules out the possibility that unboiled water was flowing out of the
cell in the tests that
Galantini observed. It says:
12- An empirical confirmation, not rigorous though, is the fact that I
extracted many times the
probe from the chimney of the reactor, and it was "ictu oculi" dry: being the
chimney a small
vertical cylinder, due to the gravity in short time it would be filled by
water, if significant
amount of water shouldn't evaporate, with two consequences: i) the temperature
could not be 101.1
Celsius and ii) the probe would have been wet.
("ictu oculi" means "in the blink of an eye" in Latin. Not sure what it means
in this context.)
- Jed
