On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
This test shows your true colors. It indicates that you actually
expect the steam power to be on the order of 100 watts, not 10,000
watts or even 1,000 watts. If you put a wand issuing 10,000 watts
steam power into the bucket you will get a notion of what I mean.
I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose
producing 75 kW at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results
were close to the expected amount from that heater.
What inner diameter was the hose?
Was that the Griggs device?
Beyond that, this "bucket method" works only for a brief snapshot
of power. It does nothing to accomplish an overall energy balance
for a test.
It proves that the steam is dry.
How does it prove the steam is dry? It provides a rough measure of
momentary thermal output. That is indeed useful, but not a direct
measure of steam dryness.
For the rest of the test, you can depend on temperatures. It does
not get wet one minute and dry the next. If you think it
"percolates" just hold the hose out for 10 minutes.
Rossi held out the hose for seconds and water came spurting out.
Jed, I provided numbers that prove, for various pubic tests, provided
conservation of energy is in effect, that either water is coming out
of the Rossi device in operation. The steam temperature is not
elevated thus dryout has not occurred, water temperature is at
boiling, so the water is being heated to boiling . This brackets
the power that is being supplied. If power in that bracket is being
supplied, then all the water is *not* ebing converted to steam.
If he controllers are actually controlling anything then the input
power varies, and no momentary output power measurement is valid for
the whole run.
If the steam really were dry then the device would be operating at
dryout conditions, and the exit temperature would be well above
boiling point. This is necessarily true if energy is conserved -
unless of course you believe the device can operate *exactly* at
dryout point for an entire run. .
A much better test would involve a much larger reservoir.
Not too big, or the change in temperature will be small. You can't
prolong it because the heat will radiate from the container.
That is why the container should be insulated and a temperature decay
curve taken, as I noted earlier, and as Jouni noted, except he
suggested (or whoever he was quoting) recommended a brief time,
which which limits operation to to high bucket water temperatures.
It is obviously more useful to be able to use a range of bucket
temperatures, but this requires obtaining a complete decline curve.
- Jed
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
