Mats said he saw now condensation at the output.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Franco Talari <franco.tal...@gmail.com>wrote: > Another comment: since the pressure at the *reactor exit* is likely to > be significantly higher than 1 atm, then even if there were dry steam at > the reactor exit, the velocity at the *reactor exit* might be > significantly less (perhaps 10 times less) than my previous calculation. > As the steam proceeded down the tube to the tube exit, the speed would be > further reduced if the density increased due to condensation. > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Franco Talari <franco.tal...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Correction: my previous calculation actually assumed a 2 cm diameter >> (1cm radius). Assuming a 1 cm diameter and pure steam give a 4 times >> higher value (132 m/sec). >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Franco Talari >> <franco.tal...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Can someone tell me the diameter of the steam exhaust tube? If I >>> assume a 1 cm diameter, along with 18 g/mole of H2O and 1000 g/liter and >>> 1000 cc/liter for water and 0.5 liter/minute input flow, then assuming the >>> ideal gas law (22.4 liter/mole at STP) as an approximation for steam at >>> atmospheric pressure I get for the output velocity, >>> v = (0.5 l/minute)(1 minute/60 sec) (1000 g/liter) (1 mole/18 g) (22400 >>> cc/mole)/(pi*1cm*1cm) = 3300 cm/sec = 33 m/sec >>> >>> for the exhaust. This seems quite large although the cooling and back >>> pressure may lead to condensation/slowing-down as the steam proceeds >>> further out of the reactor. Note that this calculation of the exit speed >>> does not rely on any knowledge of the "back-pressure" but simply on the >>> input flow (water is incompressible) and the assumption that it is all >>> converted to steam. If instead, it is converted to superheated water >>> droplets (wet steam?) due perhaps to back-pressure which raises the boiling >>> temperature, then the exit speed would be much less, and might be more >>> reasonable. >>> >>> Any comments? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>wrote: >>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *From:* Jed Rothwell **** >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> The claim of testing isotopes to determine that only Ni61 is inactive - >>>> is >>>> IMO clearly fiction. There are others but this is the most blatant. >>>> >>>> This is a company which has been on the verge of financial collapse >>>> until >>>> recently and these isotopes cost at least $20,000 per [gram], and >>>> several >>>> ounces of each [24 grams minimum] would be needed to determine >>>> activity.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Ah, I see your point. **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Other details stand out as a bit fishy, even to supporters of LENR but >>>> in the demo – the half-liter+ per minute of water turning into steam is the >>>> most troubling. And it is not so much from the lack of visual evidence of >>>> steam, as from the lack of sound. This came to mind just now as my teapot >>>> was shrieking-out a deafening reminder of what ~500 watts sounds like.* >>>> *** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Of course the 20+ kilowatts implied by that much water flow (in the DGT >>>> demo) would be fabulous on first blush, but …. think about the sound (or >>>> lack thereof). **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> When you are driving a moderate speed in an average car – about 20 >>>> kilowatts of thermal energy goes out the exhaust pipe - which is typically >>>> 2-2.5 inches diameter in the USA. The DGT reactor supposedly was pushing >>>> over 20 kilowatts of hot gas though a tube which was 10 times narrower >>>> (less diameter) or 100 time less area for the escape of hot gases. **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> The DGT reactor exhaust should have been SCREAMING with an unbearably >>>> loud hiss like the equivalent of about forty teapots on full boil.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Is this criticism “sound” or not?**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>> >>> >> >
