At 02:36 PM 8/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 11:05 AM 8/17/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'll answer your points in detail later. As I said, it's a work in progress.
But I specifically indicate that the "dryout" is the point at which
there is no liquid water on the tube wall. There IS still liquid
water in the form of droplets in the vapour.
One paper calls the liquid water FLUID water, distinguishing it from
liquid in DROPLETS.
Your "atomization" theory is something totally different, which I'll
address later in my Fakes paper.
It is my expectation that an outlet opening where the internal water
level can reach the outlet, which is what happens with the Rossi
reaction, very likely, with constant input flow, will atomize the
water once steam flow reaches a certain level, which might be quite
low. The overflow is slow, with the opening not filling. Narrow
opening constricts the flow, which is being released into a lower
pressure region (the interior of the hose). Just a little water is
being fed, every second, into that rapid steam flow (at that
position, flow is slower in the outlet hose, but may still be quite
rapid). I'd expect it to be broken up. *How* broken up is unclear.
And how long the droplets would remain suspended is not clear. And
it's really impossible to tell, with the Rossi setup. We know that
water does accumulate in the hose. Where did it come from?
Are you aware of any studies of anything like this?
If fluid water, as you call it, does not reach the outlet port, this
is irrelevant. However, that would indicate 100% "vaporization" minus
normal steam wetness. The problem with 100% vaporization would be
that, unless somehow the heat could be exactly matched to the input
flow, the cooling chamber would run dry and temperature stabilization
would be lost. There is no sign of that. The claim that steam was
"dry" was inconsistent with observation, which was of stable
temperature in the chimney, at the boiling point expected from very
modest steam pressure.
Not having accurate measurements of chimney temperature over the
whole run, for any run, it's really difficult to judge this for the
Rossi demonstrations.
What was really unusual for the Rossi "boiler," what threw almost
everyone off, was constant water flow. The implications of this were
not realized, because it was something that even experts had probably
never seen. And Galantini was certainly not an expert on steam, he's
got no credentials or qualifications to indicate that.
To Galantini, his steam measurements, made based on a total
misunderstanding of what his meter was indicating, seemed reasonable
as indicating relatively dry steam. He then, with this expectation,
looked at the probe when he removed it. As he removed it, the seal
would be broken and steam would escape from the probe port. (I've
seen no description of this, by the way.) That steam would tend to
blow water off the probe, making it even less likely that water would
be seen on it. But the primary cause of not seeing water there would
be that, when removed to atmospheric pressure, it would be
superheated. It would immediately vaporize.
This is just theory and speculation, to be sure. The point is that
the demonstrations don't demonstrate, with any clarity. Physics
professors with no specific knowledge of steam were invited to
observe. What did they look for? They looked for hidden wires. No
hidden wires. They looked for radiation. Useless. They looked for
water pouring out the hose, indeed. However, it's quite possible they
saw the hose after it had been emptied, and Rossi would almost
certainly do this every time he showed the hose. And I figured it
would take about 4 minutes to fill the hose to the level of the
drain, giving Rossi plenty of time to wave it about. Meanwhile, there
would be gentle steamy mist rising, as seen in the Krivit video.
It appears that Essen had no idea how much steam to expect from a few
grams per second of vaporized water. So he was satisfied, it's
likely, with just a little steam or mist. It doesn't mean that Essen
was incompetent as a physicist, he was simply outside his expertise.
Nothing I've found, researching this, proves that there is no excess
energy. There may even be substantial excess energy, though probably
less than claimed. But I can say the contrary as well. Nothing I've
found proves that there was excess energy, given all the reasonable
possible objections, which, for Rossi, must even include fraud (or,
shall we call it, careless deception, based on unasked questions.
Like, "Mr. Rossi, did you change the input power during this demonstration?"
And, as a demonstration, would we want to depend on a statement of
the inventor for that? Wouldn't we want to continuously monitor that power?
Etc.!
