Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote: It is nice to see our views so closely aligned. >
They are indeed. I think running the steam and water through a condensing heat exchanger > works very well, provided *all* the flow and temperature variables are > recorded very frequently - more frequently than a bucket test would allow . > . . > For practical purposes, I do not think it is a good idea to generate steam and water inside the machine. This erodes the pipes and pumps. Defkalion's method is much better. They use fluid that boils at a high temperatures and they leave it in liquid state. You can generate steam in the secondary loop. When evaluating the device, I do not see any reason to measure the temperatures in the primary loop. As I said before, in a test to prove the thing is producing excess energy, I see no reason to generate steam at all. Why not just use hot water even if it is inefficient? Harry Veeder said that Rossi is devoting all of this time to steam tests. Perhaps he is but he can certainly spare a day to have someone do water tests. Since people will be in the lab taking up space and interfering with his work anyway, they might as well do a flowing water test. The principle expense I would expect is in accurate digitally interfaced > flow meters. It is always good to have an independent method to confirm > results and to provide confidence in control run calibrations. > Yes, this is essential. > Difficult to quantify accurately, but not difficult to judge. The 5 kW > steam plume clearly has a much larger diameter, much greater length, has a > higher velocity, and does not require a black background to observe. > Look at videos of steam cleaners and you will see that it is very difficult to determine how much power the device is consuming. I think a lot depends upon the shape of the end of the hose or nozzle. > I think the temperature in such a bucket falls, or at least can fall, > significantly, considering a delta T measurement is being made. The more > accurate the delta T the longer the test and the bigger the delta T, but > then the more error due to heat loss unless the bucket is insulated. Also, > there is not just one calorimetry constant at higher temperatures. There is > a calorimetry function by temperature (vs constant) due to nonlinear losses > due to evaporation and radiation. > This is not difficult to determine. Mizuno and others do it the easy way. You fill the container with hot water at the peak temperature of the experiment. You leave the stirrer running and the data recorder collecting temperatures. Let it cool for an hour or two, until it is close to room temperature again, and you will see how much heat it loses at every temperature along the way. there is probably a complex set of variables controlling the exact rate at each temperature, depending upon stirring and other factors, but you can simply measure it and then plug in the values for each temperature ~5° apart. - Jed
