On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
Of course Rossi has "perfect control" operating in the range
chosen. All he has to do is provide enough sustained power to heat
the water flow to boiling temperature, call it Pb, or a enogh above
that for a momentary "steam" demonstration.
It isn't momentary. The steam lasts indefinitely.
Well, yes of course the steam lasts indefinitely, if the power
provided is above Pb, which is my assumption. However, my point
here is if the long term operating power is Po, Pb < Po<Pb, but Po
does not give an interesting steam demonstration, it is merely
necessary to raise Po to Pd, the demonstration power, Pb<Pd<Pb, to
show very good steam production, and yet for the overall run have the
appearance of a good COP (coefficient of power, the ratio of power in
to power out. Chimney temperature will remain at all times at the
boiling point. Rossi does not have to manually raise Po to Pd,
because the controllers have the capability to vary the power, and do
vary the power if they are of any use at all. If the power variation
occurs in long enough time segments, then it is possible to know when
to demonstrate steam at the higher power Pd by merely knowing from
the sound of the device whether it is operating at Po or Pd power.
However, in all cases, if the output thermal power produced remains
in the range Pb to Pd, then pure water is coming out of the device,
not just droplets in the steam. This is not condensation in the hose.
It is coming directly out of the steam exit port. The "steam quality"
indicated by the relative humidity probe will remain at all times at
100%. If one keeps his head in the sand and does not do calorimetry
on the output, or even take the hose off and see what is happening,
and assumes all water is converted to steam , then greatly inflated
estimates of thermal output will result. These can be off by roughly
an order of magnitude. They prove nothing at all. The device could
produce some nuclear heat, or none at all.
The steam can not be dry in equilibrium operation in this power
range, Pb to Pd, even if a significant amount of power comes from a
nuclear reaction. If operating in this power range water is
obviously coming out and the "calorimetry" method used is worthless.
Not according to experts in steam such as Bjorn Palm, Head of the
Energy Technology Division at the Royal Institute of Technology,
quoted here:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3228376.ece
It is possible you know more about these systems than they do, but
I doubt it.
- Jed
You have not interpreted Palm's remarks in a valid manner. The
problem is therefore yours and not Palm's. Palm's credentials
therefore are irrelevant.
Quote from referenced article:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Ny Teknik turned to Professor Björn Palm, Head of the Energy
Technology Division at the Royal Institute of Technology, doing
research on heat transfer by evaporation. Based on the given
dimensions and geometry, he gave his assessment of the situation:
“Any air in the tube is driven out of the flowing steam. This means
that at the outlet there is pure steam, possibly with a little water
droplets that come with the flow from the liquid surface. However, I
cannot imagine that this would affect the 'effective' enthalpy of
vaporization. From other cases with evaporation in tubes I would
guess that the steam quality is at least 90%. “
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
"I cannot imagine" is *not* an analysis of the data. It is an
offhand remark. It is a "guess" as to how much heat can be carried
away in droplets entrained in steam, and even based on other cases at
that. My points, regarding the flow of pure water, and the
percolator effect, have nothing to do at all with how much heat can
be carried by water droplets suspended in the steam. Palm's comments
have nothing to do with my points at all. His comments are
irrelevant to the points I have made.
I believe the analysis I have made is numerically accurate. It is
based on conservation of energy. It does not show one way or
another whether nuclear heat is or is not being produced. It is
entirely possible nuclear heat is being produced in addition to power
in, yet Po = (nuclear thermal power) plus (electric heating power) is
still in the range Pb<Po<Pd, and thus boiling temperature water is
being ejected from the exit port, thus completely invalidating the
"calorimetry" used.
The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods
used are so flawed.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
