Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
Dear Joshua, a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the textile industry. 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about vapore secco based on a measuring instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had vapore umido? Thank you, Peter On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Rich Murray wrote: probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor gets too hot You concede to easily. I don't believe there is any feedback in that system because the wires are all heavy power cables, not control wires, and because when the power was shut down (in test 1), the temperature remained pinned to the boiling point (without any regulation), and because the input power is varied manually (in test 2) over a wide range 1.2 kW - 400 W - 1.5 KW, completely inconsistent with a fine temperature control. But the obsession with the control box is a red herring anyway. Even if it is regulated, my thesis is not weakened. 1. The wetness of the steam is unknown The fact that the temperature is pinned at the boiling point (slightly elevated because of increased pressure in the conduit) means we don't know how much liquid is present in the exiting fluid. If it were substantially above the boiling point, then there would be a case to argue that the steam is dry. No evidence is presented in Levi's report that the steam is dry. He simply states that it is based on an air quality monitor (scare-quotes are his). But the point of a demonstration is to demonstrate, not to pronounce. He doesn't say what physical quantity is measured, nor what the value is, let alone how it changes with time. It would be so easy to allow the temperature to go to 110C to *demonstrate* that the steam is dry, but failing that, if there is some reason that 100C is an optimum temperature, they could have proved dryness by showing the reading on that monitor, and then showing (off-line) what it reads when steam is wet and when it is dry. Dry steam can be produced by boiling water and passing the steam through a conduit heated to 110C (say) in a flame. It would also be useful to see how that measurement evolves after the boiling begins, because the exiting fluid should change gradually from pure liquid to drier and drier steam as the power increases. 2. The power gradients are not believable. It is a simple truth that heating the water to boiling requires about 1.2 kW, and vaporizing all of it requires 10 kW. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water is to heat the conduit to a higher temperature. An 8-fold increase in the power delivered requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the fluid and the heating element (the conduit presumably). But this takes time, and we have an idea of how fast things heat up by looking at the gradient before boiling is reached. By that measure, the power might increase by at most a factor of 2 in 40 minutes; far short of what is needed for complete vaporization. We know it doesn't even increase that much, because in mid plateau, the temperature actually dips below boiling for a few minutes. (The dip seems to correlate with the reduction on the input power to 400W.) The obvious and reasonable interpretation, based on the mid-plateau dip, and the fact that the temperature (in test 2) decreases immediately when the power is shut down, is that the temperature of the heating element(s) is just above that necessary to maintain boiling temperature in the exit fluid. That means that only a small fraction of the fluid is being converted to vapor. The steam is very wet.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
On 02/10/2011 02:23 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Joshua, a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the textile industry. 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about vapore secco based on a measuring instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had vapore umido? Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. If the steam turns out to have been wet, then the dryness measure was botched: A mistake was made, nothing more. Note that there was apparently just one parameter on whose measurement the dryness conclusion was based, so it's not /a priori/ inconceivable that the measurement was done incorrectly. If that measurement turns out to have been done wrong, it won't be the first botched measurement in the history of experimental science, and it also won't be the last. Mistakes happen. This is an example of why replication is so important. If three other researchers tried to replicate this, at least one of them would undoubtedly improve on the steam dryness measurement methodology, and either find a problem with the original measurements or provide additional support for the claim that the original measurements were correct.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
a) It would appear that if the water is just boiling (the expelled fluid is 1% steam), it is already slightly over unity, assuming we can trust the flow rates, and I have some doubts. But slightly over unity would not be difficult to achieve chemically, especially with a 14 kg bottle of hydrogen connected. 3) How dare he not tell us what he is measuring, and what the result of the measurement is? It's supposed to be a demo. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Joshua, a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the textile industry. 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about vapore secco based on a measuring instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had vapore umido? Thank you, Peter On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Rich Murray wrote: probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor gets too hot You concede to easily. I don't believe there is any feedback in that system because the wires are all heavy power cables, not control wires, and because when the power was shut down (in test 1), the temperature remained pinned to the boiling point (without any regulation), and because the input power is varied manually (in test 2) over a wide range 1.2 kW - 400 W - 1.5 KW, completely inconsistent with a fine temperature control. But the obsession with the control box is a red herring anyway. Even if it is regulated, my thesis is not weakened. 1. The wetness of the steam is unknown The fact that the temperature is pinned at the boiling point (slightly elevated because of increased pressure in the conduit) means we don't know how much liquid is present in the exiting fluid. If it were substantially above the boiling point, then there would be a case to argue that the steam is dry. No evidence is presented in Levi's report that the steam is dry. He simply states that it is based on an air quality monitor (scare-quotes are his). But the point of a demonstration is to demonstrate, not to pronounce. He doesn't say what physical quantity is measured, nor what the value is, let alone how it changes with time. It would be so easy to allow the temperature to go to 110C to *demonstrate* that the steam is dry, but failing that, if there is some reason that 100C is an optimum temperature, they could have proved dryness by showing the reading on that monitor, and then showing (off-line) what it reads when steam is wet and when it is dry. Dry steam can be produced by boiling water and passing the steam through a conduit heated to 110C (say) in a flame. It would also be useful to see how that measurement evolves after the boiling begins, because the exiting fluid should change gradually from pure liquid to drier and drier steam as the power increases. 2. The power gradients are not believable. It is a simple truth that heating the water to boiling requires about 1.2 kW, and vaporizing all of it requires 10 kW. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water is to heat the conduit to a higher temperature. An 8-fold increase in the power delivered requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the fluid and the heating element (the conduit presumably). But this takes time, and we have an idea of how fast things heat up by looking at the gradient before boiling is reached. By that measure, the power might increase by at most a factor of 2 in 40 minutes; far short of what is needed for complete vaporization. We know it doesn't even increase that much, because in mid plateau, the temperature actually dips below boiling for a few minutes. (The dip seems to correlate with the reduction on the input power to 400W.) The obvious and reasonable interpretation, based on the mid-plateau dip, and the fact that the temperature (in test 2) decreases immediately when the power is shut down, is that the temperature of the heating element(s) is just above that necessary to maintain boiling temperature in the exit fluid. That means that only a small fraction of the fluid is being converted to vapor. The steam is very wet.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. Peter is Romanian and I am sure he does not intend the term to be ad hominem. Idioms can make idiots of anyone. I remember when Coke tried to translate Coke adds life! to Chinese. Of course, the Chinese were offended when they read it as Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead! T
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
Good point... On 02/10/2011 03:05 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. Peter is Romanian and I am sure he does not intend the term to be ad hominem. Idioms can make idiots of anyone. I remember when Coke tried to translate Coke adds life! to Chinese. Of course, the Chinese were offended when they read it as Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead! T
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation still full of holes
I intended to tell that I think he was convinced that the steam was dry. I have met Focardi several times and he seems a very nice gentleman. His association with Rossi is a very complicated problem (I tell this as a friend of Piantelli, Focardi has worked many years with him.) As regarding logical fallacies as - not the case here- ad hominem attack, appeal to authority and all the other, I study them, but don't practice them. If the Rossi ECat has holes or really works well- you and, hopefully I- will see later this year. I am optimist because I know with certainty that Piantelli's Ni-H cell works reproducibly. Why should Rossi's NOT work? But I don't want to argue. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term dare here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. Peter is Romanian and I am sure he does not intend the term to be ad hominem. Idioms can make idiots of anyone. I remember when Coke tried to translate Coke adds life! to Chinese. Of course, the Chinese were offended when they read it as Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead! T
