----- Original Nachricht ----
Von: Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]>
An: [email protected]
Datum: 26.09.2011 10:38
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry
> Peter, that is just utterly untrue! In scientific steam experiments all
> that
> is required to measure is the steam pressure, because steam pressure
> correlates with the total enthalpy. Then it is needed only to calibrate
> this
> correlation e.g. with steam sparging tests. Clean, fast, unlimited,
> accurate
> and extremely simple science.
That is what I mean. Steam sparging calibration has not been done, or if then
it is not documented.
Why? If the system is calibrated, they should get better results, because
losses can be compensated.
There are even cases, where no calibration is possible and necessary. However
in these cases poured water must be prevented.
Or the water poured must be measured.
For example they could give a upside down shape of an "U" to the hose and make
it from transparent silicone.
Put this arrangement in a surrounding (Plexi) glass tube and it is thermal
isolated.
This way water overflow should be impossible or it happens it would be visible.
I do not understand the system: They have constant water flow and the energy to
be measured is unknown.
So if the flow is constant then either all water will be vapourized and the
reactor will run dry or if not all is vapourized there will be water overflow
after some time.
How can they do reliable and quick R&D if they use such an obviously unsecure
unconfirmed method of measurement?
>
> I just do not understand why this is so hard concept for people to
> understand.
I understand this very well. This is not too complicated, it requires basic
knowledge, thinking and experince, but at this low pressure and flow rate this
is not rocket science.
Have they ever not seen a boiling water pot that is enclosed by
> lid? (Result is faster cooking!)
>
> I think that steam related science is too daily and thus people are
> ignoring
> it, because they cannot understand that something that is so obvious and
> daily as cooking food, is also a part of _hard_ science. But on the other
> hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating raw
> food? Tastes better?
>
> ?Jouni
> On Sep 26, 2011 8:42 AM, "Peter Heckert" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Am 26.09.2011 05:20, schrieb Harry Veeder:
> >> From: Jed Rothwell<[email protected]>
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:13:05 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I do not understand why they intend to use a heat exchanger. Why not
> simply run water through the thing, the way they did in the 18-hour test in
> February? It may be less efficient but that makes no difference.
> >>>
> >> Rossi is devoting all his time, money and energy to the development of a
> commercially viable technology. I get the impression he decided some time
> ago that the quickest, safest and most reliable way he can achieve his goal
> is through the generation of steam. Therefore he currently believes
> (rightly
> or wrongly) that any form of experimentation that does not involve the
> generation steam is a detour he cannot afford to take.
> > He cannot get scientific evidency by steam measurement if the
> > measurement arrangement is not previously calibrated by a known heat
> > source. There are too much chances of error doing the steam method on a
> > unknown system.
> >
> > Of course you are always faster if you neglect the rules and leave some
> > necessary steps out.....
> >
Believe me, I have experience. Omitting necessary steps give you an early
advantage in time but finally you will loose.
This like a marathon runner that is running too fast to early.
I know this from own experience ;-)
Best,
Peter
