Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Joshua refering to wikipaedia: The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture. [4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. This says that steam quality is referring to _saturated_ steam/water mixture. This _saturated_ mixture however cannot exist in arbitrary proportions in normal pressure and in closed container, but it is always ca. 99-98%. (95% to be in safe side). This is because surface tension and pressure gredients in liquid. However it has been documented up to 5-10% quality steam when they have tested steam quality measuring instruments. Steam quality can be measured e.g. by measuring the speed of sound in saturated steam/water mixture, because it correlates with steam quality. And ultra low quality steam can be produced e.g. by cooling rapidly high pressure/temperature/velocity steam by spraying atomized water into it. (I think that even atomized water is not low quality steam, because it does not form saturated steam/water mixture) It is good also to understand what is written and to pay attention to small words such as saturated. Technically speaking liquid water is not 0% quality steam, because Liquid water should behave like superfluid in order to be called as 0% quality steam. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Joshua refering to wikipaedia: The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture. [4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. This says that steam quality is referring to _saturated_ steam/water mixture. This _saturated_ mixture however cannot exist in arbitrary proportions in normal pressure and in closed container, but it is always ca. 99-98%. (95% to be in safe side). This is because surface tension and pressure gredients in liquid. and a lot of other stuff that didn't make sense, or was wrong. This should be simple. If you pass water through a device that transfers heat to it, then the output must consist of liquid water, steam, or a mixture of the two. After enough time, equilibrium is established, so the output mass flow rate equals the input mass flow rate. Then the ratio of the steam to water is determined completely by the amount of power transferred to the fluid, and the pressure inside the conduit. To the extent that the power of the device can be varied continuously, any ratio of vapor to liquid is possible (at any pressure). For goodness sakes, we all agree that pure water is possible, and everyone is claiming pure steam is possible. You have to get from one to the other. The only constraint is that the mixture has to be at the boiling point for the local pressure (that's what saturated steam means), unless the quality is zero or 100%. I don't care if you don't want to call the ratio of this mixture steam quality, but that's what it's called in the literature. Whether the mixture is single phase liquid, bubbly (low quality), slug, churn, wispy, annular, mist (high quality), or single phase vapor, the ratio of steam mass to total mass is always referred to as the quality, and it varies continuously between 0 and 100% in experiments at all kinds of pressures. Look it up. I gave the reference. So, let's just call it the steam ratio if you prefer. All I'm arguing is that from the measurements presented, we don't know the steam ratio, or the nature of the mixture, and the measurements are consistent with a very low steam ratio, and therefore with power output of 70 kW. Considerations of thermal mass, time, and the coincidence of 107 ecats turning on simultaneously, make 70 kW vastly more likely than 470 kW.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Thanks again to AG for the file. The formula is Kelvin's : I.29 Page 12. There's a critical radius value, below which drops will shrink, above which they'll grow. I don't know if my mis-remembered C-name was Critical, Kelvin or a nearby Clapeyron equation. Anyway , now I can finish reading the book! - Original Message - In small bubbles or small drops, surface tension is dominant. Pressure changes, so the PVT equilibrium can be different. I have a link somewhere for this I'm not sure if I put in my tube boiler analysis. And for the life of me, I can't remember if small drops grow or shrink in a particular PT environment. (There's a named formula).
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
There's also a Clausius-Clapeyron equation. (There's probably a single neuron in my brain recording that C memory. Misfiring.) I don't know if my mis-remembered C-name was Critical, Kelvin or a nearby Clapeyron equation.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Note : They are mainly talking about boilers with much higher pressures than the eCat.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
I dont think this is relevant. Rossi himself has said somewhere in a video or interview, there might be an error of 5% in the steam calculation. If we assume steam was 50% wet, which is physically impossible, then we still get a COP of about 3. 50% wet is rain and not fog or steam. So the only questions remaining is if there are errors with the input energy measurement or if liquid cold or hot water was flushed out or sucked out or all this combined. Am 19.11.2011 21:39, schrieb Alan Fletcher: Boiler Efficiency and Steam Quality: The Challenge of Creating Quality Steam Using Existing Boiler Efficiencies http://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageID=164ID=235 ... *Lower Pressure Increases Entrainment* * * As a steam bubble rises through the water and reaches the surface, it finally breaks through the final layer of water and enters the steam space. This final act of leaving the water causes water entrainment in several ways. Initially, the bursting of the steam bubble or the rupture of the thin layer of water surrounding it produces an initial rush of high-velocity steam that carries a small amount of that thin water layer into the steam space. Then, the loss of the steam bubble from the water surface briefly creates a crater on the water surface. Water rushes in to fill this crater, colliding with water rushing from the other sides of the crater, and produces a tiny splash near the center of the crater. The water droplets from these splashes are then easily entrained in the rising steam. The size of the bubbles is directly related to steam pressure. Low-pressure operation requires a larger volume of steam to carry the required heat energy. This low-pressure operation produces more and larger steam bubbles and creates greater turbulence on the water surface. These bubbles produce more craters and larger craters, as well as more and larger splashes as they leave the water surface. In addition, low-pressure operation results in a higher vapor velocity which, when combined with the high turbulence of low-pressure operation, tends to carry water droplets into the steam systems rather than allowing them to fall out by gravity. The solution is to operate the boiler at its maximum design pressure and use pressure-reducing valves at the point of use where required. ... (Lots of related articles ... eg How to Destroy a Boiler and Anatomy of a catastrophic boiler accident. ) No specific numbers on the range of steam quality from a kettle boiler.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory that the same water always boils at the same _precise_ temperature for a given pressure is an idealisation and an approximation. My conclusion is consistent with Prof. Hasok Chang (Cambridge university) experimental finding that the same water does not always boil at the same precise temperature for a given pressure. In particular he has shown the surface characteristics of a boiler can lower the boiling point by two or three degrees. He also says such anomalous behaviour is well known among people who work with with steam but it has been ignored or dismissed by the academy. Harry On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Boiler Efficiency and Steam Quality: The Challenge of Creating Quality Steam Using Existing Boiler Efficiencies http://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageID=164ID=235 ... Lower Pressure Increases Entrainment As a steam bubble rises through the water and reaches the surface, it finally breaks through the final layer of water and enters the steam space. This final act of leaving the water causes water entrainment in several ways. Initially, the bursting of the steam bubble or the rupture of the thin layer of water surrounding it produces an initial rush of high-velocity steam that carries a small amount of that thin water layer into the steam space. Then, the loss of the steam bubble from the water surface briefly creates a crater on the water surface. Water rushes in to fill this crater, colliding with water rushing from the other sides of the crater, and produces a tiny splash near the center of the crater. The water droplets from these splashes are then easily entrained in the rising steam. The size of the bubbles is directly related to steam pressure. Low-pressure operation requires a larger volume of steam to carry the required heat energy. This low-pressure operation produces more and larger steam bubbles and creates greater turbulence on the water surface. These bubbles produce more craters and larger craters, as well as more and larger splashes as they leave the water surface. In addition, low-pressure operation results in a higher vapor velocity which, when combined with the high turbulence of low-pressure operation, tends to carry water droplets into the steam systems rather than allowing them to fall out by gravity. The solution is to operate the boiler at its maximum design pressure and use pressure-reducing valves at the point of use where required. ... (Lots of related articles ... eg How to Destroy a Boiler and Anatomy of a catastrophic boiler accident. ) No specific numbers on the range of steam quality from a kettle boiler.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Am 19.11.2011 22:56, schrieb Harry Veeder: If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory that the same water always boils at the same _precise_ temperature for a given pressure is an idealisation and an approximation. If a water droplet vaporizes, the local pressure increases and this stops vaporization. Vaporization at air pressure means an 1700 times increase of volume. My conclusion is consistent with Prof. Hasok Chang (Cambridge university) experimental finding that the same water does not always boil at the same precise temperature for a given pressure. In particular he has shown the surface characteristics of a boiler can lower the boiling point by two or three degrees. He also says such anomalous behaviour is well known among people who work with with steam but it has been ignored or dismissed by the academy. In this case there should be steam at lower temperature than the boiling point. If this is possible, then it is an exotic effect, because this is rarely observe. Its an interesting claim, but it should be proven by experiment, before it can been considered true. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: If we assume steam was 50% wet, which is physically impossible, then we still get a COP of about 3. 50% wet is rain and not fog or steam. In 2-phase flow, steam (or vapor) quality is simply the ratio of the mass of steam to the total mass of the fluid, and that can range continuously from 0 to 100%, and experimental plots include data points for 1 % steam quality, so there is no question 50% steam quality is physically possible. When you consider that the volume of steam is about 1700 times that of water for the same mass at atmospheric pressure, 50% quality steam is more than 99.8% gas by volume, so it would not have to look like rain at all. The mist coming out of an ultrasonic mister would be a very low quality vapor. Note that the actual void ratio in 2-phase flow -- the geometrical ratio of steam volume to liquid in the conduit at any instant --also depends on the slip ratio, the ratio of the speed of the gas to that of the liquid. There are well characterized modes of 2-phase flow that depend on the speed and the quality. Low quality steam in the output conduit of the megacat would probably fall in the annular/mist regime, where some liquid flows along the walls of the conduit, and a mist flows in the center. But if a fine mist is formed earlier by some mechanism, it could be largely mist flowing in the pipe. And it could easily be only a few per cent steam by mass.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 19.11.2011 22:56, schrieb Harry Veeder: If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory that the same water always boils at the same _precise_ temperature for a given pressure is an idealisation and an approximation. If a water droplet vaporizes, the local pressure increases and this stops vaporization. Vaporization at air pressure means an 1700 times increase of volume. If that is the real reason, then water in a pot on a stove should never boil at atmospheric pressure because the local pressure increases and stops the boiling. My conclusion is consistent with Prof. Hasok Chang (Cambridge university) experimental finding that the same water does not always boil at the same precise temperature for a given pressure. In particular he has shown the surface characteristics of a boiler can lower the boiling point by two or three degrees. He also says such anomalous behaviour is well known among people who work with with steam but it has been ignored or dismissed by the academy. In this case there should be steam at lower temperature than the boiling point. If this is possible, then it is an exotic effect, because this is rarely observe. Its an interesting claim, but it should be proven by experiment, before it can been considered true. Peter Prof Chang has observed it and he says it is routinely observed but it is just ignored because it doesn't fit theory. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Am 19.11.2011 23:19, schrieb Joshua Cude: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If we assume steam was 50% wet, which is physically impossible, then we still get a COP of about 3. 50% wet is rain and not fog or steam. In 2-phase flow, steam (or vapor) quality is simply the ratio of the mass of steam to the total mass of the fluid, and that can range continuously from 0 to 100%, and experimental plots include data points for 1 % steam quality, so there is no question 50% steam quality is physically possible. When you consider that the volume of steam is about 1700 times that of water for the same mass at atmospheric pressure, 50% quality steam is more than 99.8% gas by volume, so it would not have to look like rain at all. The mist coming out of an ultrasonic mister would be a very low quality vapor. Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and I was in error. But even at steam quality of 0% most of the experiments would give a COP 1, because the input energy measured was not enough to heat the water to 100° and definitely there was boiling and some steam observed. So if the effects where faked, then we must have water flushing out or water sucking out or tricks with input energy. All these effects alternating or combined of course could confuse a gullible observer and if wet steam is added, the confusion is increased of course. Wet steam alone is not sufficient for an explanation. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Am 19.11.2011 23:29, schrieb Harry Veeder: Prof Chang has observed it and he says it is routinely observed but it is just ignored because it doesn't fit theory. Harry I have repeatedly tested Thermoelements over boiling water and have never observed it. When he doesnt accept steam theory why does he accept the display of an thermometer? This is also based on theory. An experiment or demonstration would be interesting and necessary for proof.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
In small bubbles or small drops, surface tension is dominant. Pressure changes, so the PVT equilibrium can be different. I have a link somewhere for this I'm not sure if I put in my tube boiler analysis. And for the life of me, I can't remember if small drops grow or shrink in a particular PT environment. (There's a named formula). - Original Message - If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory that the same water always boils at the same _precise_ temperature for a given pressure is an idealisation and an approximation.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: But even at steam quality of 0% most of the experiments would give a COP 1, because the input energy measured was not enough to heat the water to 100° and definitely there was boiling and some steam observed. In the EK test the input was too low to reach boiling (60C), but in that case the input power was not monitored, although the flow rate was. So, it would have been possible to increase the flow rate after things got underway. In the Krivit test, the claimed input was enough to exceed boiling. in the two Lewan tests, the input power was enough to get within a few degrees of boiling and the power was not monitored (and Rossi was caught on camera with his hand on the power control). In the January test, with the max flow rate of the pump, the input was enough to exceed boiling, although not with the claimed flow rate of the pump, which was higher than the pump's maximum. So if the effects where faked, then we must have water flushing out or water sucking out or tricks with input energy. I think small misrepresentations of input energy or flow rate can account for all the observations. Rossi does not monitor all the variables all the time. Wet steam alone is not sufficient for an explanation. That's true. But it brings the discrepancy down to much lower value, that could be accounted for by small misrepresentations, or possibly chemical reactions, or energy storage.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
The energy necessary to create a surface big enough to surround all atoms of a liquid is the enthalpy of boiling. This is a recent result and is pretty accurate for a large range of substances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization#Physical_model_for_vaporization . So, at boiling pressures, the bubble will decrease indefinitely since the energy is enough to break surface tension up to atomic scales. If that doesn`t happen, pressure will just increase, so that equilibrium is reached and boiling temperature is raised. 2011/11/19 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com In small bubbles or small drops, surface tension is dominant. Pressure changes, so the PVT equilibrium can be different. I have a link somewhere for this I'm not sure if I put in my tube boiler analysis. And for the life of me, I can't remember if small drops grow or shrink in a particular PT environment. (There's a named formula).
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Am 19.11.2011 23:58, schrieb Alan Fletcher: In small bubbles or small drops, surface tension is dominant. This is true. There is an interesting early scientific work about water electricity from the physicist Lenard who later got the nobel price. He points out that evaporating water is electrically charged. Therefore the droplet is positive charged and the vapor is negative charged. This makes rather strong electrostatic forces in the droplet and is the reason for negative air ions observed in nature at waterfalls. If a droplet becomes to small the repelling electrostatic forces make it explode. So, in microscopic areals and with purified (nonconductive) condensed water there can be indeed anomal behaviour of water and vapour , maybe this is what this professor has observed. It is however not observed with ordinary boilers. Pressure changes, so the PVT equilibrium can be different. I have a link somewhere for this I'm not sure if I put in my tube boiler analysis. And for the life of me, I can't remember if small drops grow or shrink in a particular PT environment. (There's a named formula). - Original Message - If the same water is _theoretically_ supposed to boil at the same precise temperature at a given pressure, I just don't understand how water can _theoreticallly_ survive as a liquid drop while surrounded by steam which is above the boiling point. In other words, the theory that the same water always boils at the same _precise_ temperature for a given pressure is an idealisation and an approximation.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and I was in error.» No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his explanation would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers would be impossible, because all water would escape from tea pots as low quality steam when water starts boiling. That is because cutting forces that form low quality steam are several orders of magnitude stronger in tea pot than in ecat. Therefore it is impossible that ecat would produce less quality steam than 99-98%, because low quality steam cannot be produced in low pressures and it cannot exist in closed container where velocity is not ultra high (pressure difference counted in megapascals). Therefore also Galantini's and Kullander's attempt to measure steam quality was silly, because we knew a priori that steam quality was ca. 98.8%. But of course steam quality does not tell us anything how much steam was formed and how much water was overflown and percolated as hot water. —Jouni Ps. What Joshua is mixing that he does not understand that hot water is not 0% quality steam, but it is, well, hot water.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Am 20.11.2011 00:37, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and I was in error.» No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his explanation would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers would be impossible, because all water would escape from tea pots as low quality steam when water starts boiling. That is because cutting forces that form low quality steam are several orders of magnitude stronger in tea pot than in ecat. I think he pointed out, that a special mechanism is needed for low quality steam. I think all experts agree that a normal boiler produces pretty good steam quality. We do, however not know, whats inside Rossis boiler tower. Had he vaporized the water visibly in an open boiler outside into free air, then I would happily accept the steam calculations. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Peter, I do not see how it would be possible, because if water is atomized (it would cause also loud sound instead of observed gentle boiling sound), it cannot climb the chimney, because atomized water quickly returns into liquid in the closed container if velocity is low. This is also the reason why water traps are working. And if there is low quality steam, then steam velocity cannot be high because water mass flow was low, few gramms per second. So no matter how you look it, low quality steam is physical impossibility with ecat. In different ecats 40-80% of input water was vaporized. This can be calculated from steam pressure, that naturally correlates with amount of steam produced. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Peter wrote: » Thank you for pointing this out, it is probably correct and I was in error.» No, what Joshua said does not even resemble physics. If his explanation would be even remotely truthful, kettle boilers would be impossible, because all water would escape from tea pots as low quality steam when water starts boiling. Only if the input flow rate to the boiler or tea pot exceeded the rate of steam formation. That's not what happens in boilers though, but if the ecat power were less than 470 kW, then that would *have* to happen. Therefore it is impossible that ecat would produce less quality steam than 99-98%, because low quality steam cannot be produced in low pressures and it cannot exist in closed container where velocity is not ultra high (pressure difference counted in megapascals). This again. Please explain what would happen if the flow rate was 675 kg/L, and a power of say 235 kW was delivered to the ecats (electrically, or whatever). In that case, there is only enough power to vaporize half the incoming water. So, the other half has to leave as liquid. That means the fluid in the pipe is half liquid and half vapor (by mass) but 99.8% vapor (by volume). Therefore also Galantini's and Kullander's attempt to measure steam quality was silly, because we knew a priori that steam quality was ca. 98.8%. But of course steam quality does not tell us anything how much steam was formed and how much water was overflown and percolated as hot water. In the 2-phase literature, this mixture of percolated hot water and steam is still called low-quality steam. Ps. What Joshua is mixing that he does not understand that hot water is not 0% quality steam, but it is, well, hot water. Actually hot water is 0% quality steam by definition.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: And if there is low quality steam, then steam velocity cannot be high because water mass flow was low, few gramms per second. So no matter how you look it, low quality steam is physical impossibility with ecat. Defined as a mixture of liquid and gas in a conduit, low quality steam is not only possible, but *necessary* if the power is far below what is necessary to vaporize all the water. I the extreme case, before the onset of boiling, the output is all liquid, which by definition is 0% quality steam, Any quality between that and 100% steam is possible (necessary) depending on the power produced in the ecat.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
That means that part does not leave. 2011/11/19 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com This again. Please explain what would happen if the flow rate was 675 kg/L, and a power of say 235 kW was delivered to the ecats (electrically, or whatever). In that case, there is only enough power to vaporize half the incoming water. So, the other half has to leave as liquid. That means the fluid in the pipe is half liquid and half vapor (by mass) but 99.8% vapor (by volume).
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That means that part does not leave. That could work for a while, but eventually the ecat would fill up. Anyway, Rossi always uses the input flow rate to calculate the output power, so he is assuming it is coming out. If it's not, then his calculations are wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Joshua wrote: »In the 2-phase literature, this mixture of percolated hot water and steam is still called low-quality steam.» Outside Krivit-inspired Rossi discussion I have never heard this kind of definition for steam quality. Also wikipaedia does not recognize such definition. Coffee makers do not produce low quality steam, but concept is just silly. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Am 20.11.2011 01:01, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: Peter, I do not see how it would be possible, because if water is atomized (it would cause also loud sound instead of observed gentle boiling sound), it cannot climb the chimney, because atomized water quickly returns into liquid in the closed container if velocity is low. This is also the reason why water traps are working. And if there is low quality steam, then steam velocity cannot be high because water mass flow was low, few gramms per second. So no matter how you look it, low quality steam is physical impossibility with ecat. So lets do Rossi a favour and lets assume this as true. I am anyway tired about the steam discussion. Its waste of time. Rossi says he has heated a room and he intends to sell the ecat for heating applications. So why doesnt he simply demonstrate this? The waterflow and delta_t is easily measured at the radiators. This is the energy that the customer finally gets and everything else can be ignored. He can install the radiators at open air or open all windows in the room and then he can easily dissipate 10 kW 24/7. This satifies the customer and satisfies the scientists, so far the energy production is under question. Then all questions about energy production are answered and only the energy consumption has to be examined. Peter In different ecats 40-80% of input water was vaporized. This can be calculated from steam pressure, that naturally correlates with amount of steam produced. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Not if the output is actually much higher than the input! 2011/11/19 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That means that part does not leave. That could work for a while, but eventually the ecat would fill up. Anyway, Rossi always uses the input flow rate to calculate the output power, so he is assuming it is coming out. If it's not, then his calculations are wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Am 20.11.2011 01:38, schrieb Daniel Rocha: Not if the output is actually much higher than the input! He doesnt measure the output mass flow. He always assumes this equals the input mass flow and it is all vaporized. From this assumption he calculates the output energy. If this assumption is wrong, then the calculation is wrong. Peter 2011/11/19 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That means that part does not leave. That could work for a while, but eventually the ecat would fill up. Anyway, Rossi always uses the input flow rate to calculate the output power, so he is assuming it is coming out. If it's not, then his calculations are wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
It is correct because otherwise, it would leave the pipe without bubbling! :) 2011/11/19 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de Am 20.11.2011 01:38, schrieb Daniel Rocha: Not if the output is actually much higher than the input! He doesnt measure the output mass flow. He always assumes this equals the input mass flow and it is all vaporized. From this assumption he calculates the output energy. If this assumption is wrong, then the calculation is wrong. Peter 2011/11/19 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: That means that part does not leave. That could work for a while, but eventually the ecat would fill up. Anyway, Rossi always uses the input flow rate to calculate the output power, so he is assuming it is coming out. If it's not, then his calculations are wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: Am 20.11.2011 01:01, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: Rossi says he has heated a room and he intends to sell the ecat for heating applications. So why doesnt he simply demonstrate this? The waterflow and delta_t is easily measured at the radiators. This is the energy that the customer finally gets and everything else can be ignored. He can install the radiators at open air or open all windows in the room and then he can easily dissipate 10 kW 24/7. That's what I've been asking. Jed Rothwell says he has proof that Rossi had a 35 kW heater that ran continuously as a heater -- several people saw it. But he won't provide the slightest documentation that this is true. Here's the amazing part of the whole story: Rossi never had to bother with making E-cats or Ottoman cats or a megawatt plant to prove his device works. All he had to do was to take the scientists and reporters with some minimal meausring instruments to the factory and let them talk to whoever worked there the whole year the device was heating the plant. And then he could have let them test the thing -- 35 kW is a lot! That sort of output should be very obvious. But somehow Rossi never did it and Jed isn't allowed to provide the evidence. Strange, isn't it?
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Jed says people who he trusts saw it. If there is still people talking about LENR, well, thats part of his efforts, so he knows more people and has more contacts than Rossi can controls. Or do you think he is lying? -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Date: 2011/11/19 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler To: vortex-l@eskimo.com That's what I've been asking. Jed Rothwell says he has proof that Rossi had a 35 kW heater that ran continuously as a heater -- several people saw it. But he won't provide the slightest documentation that this is true.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Here's the amazing part of the whole story: Rossi never had to bother with making E-cats or Ottoman cats or a megawatt plant to prove his device works. All he had to do was to take the scientists and reporters with some minimal meausring instruments to the factory and let them talk to whoever worked there the whole year the device was heating the plant. And then he could have let them test the thing -- 35 kW is a lot! That sort of output should be very obvious. But somehow Rossi never did it and Jed isn't allowed to provide the evidence. Strange, isn't it? It may seem so; but, do you remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell Dr. Patterson had a sweetheart deal from Motorola to fund the development of his product; but, he didn't want just a piece of the action. He demanded too large a piece of the pie. AAMoF, he actually wanted to marginalize his results so that it would not look too great awaiting a funding angel that would be happy with 5% or so. Ironic thing is, he lost the ability to create the miracle beads that made his cell work. Then he died. Now *that* is strange! Fortunately, Ahern claims he can now replicate what Patterson did. Maybe we will know . . . SOON. T
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed says people who he trusts saw it. If there is still people talking about LENR, well, thats part of his efforts, so he knows more people and has more contacts than Rossi can controls. Or do you think he is lying? Do I think who is lying? Jed? Probably not. He may be misperceiving or being overly optimistic. I know he interprets information totally differently from the way I do. I don't know what he was told and won't say so I have no way at all to evaluate it. It's no better than Rossi said. There's no information content worth considering about that 35 kW heater. Yet showing the 35 kW heater that worked for a year could have saved Rossi 9 months of demonstrations, each followed by intense criticism and skepticism. So why did he not simply show the darn thing instead of making smaller ones, different ones, huge ones? BTW, that's a typical scammer tactic too-- they can never show you their last successful device because they took it apart to reuse the components or they're working on a better model or they sold it to someone except you can't interview the buyer. Sounds familiar? It's inconceivable that there was such a powerful and effective device and it was somehow buried, destroyed, dismantled and disregarded. It makes no sense at all. Please think about that.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Yeah, yeah, I know all that. Please, you dont need to say that all the time. 2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com BTW, that's a typical scammer tactic too-- they can never show you their last successful device because they took it apart to reuse the components or they're working on a better model or they sold it to someone except you can't interview the buyer. Sounds familiar? It's inconceivable that there was such a powerful and effective device and it was somehow buried, destroyed, dismantled and disregarded. It makes no sense at all. Please think about that.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed says people who he trusts saw it. If there is still people talking about LENR, well, thats part of his efforts, so he knows more people and has more contacts than Rossi can controls. Or do you think he is lying? Do I think who is lying? Jed? Probably not. He will upload the slides when/if he gets permission. T
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Good news : I found the link.Legacy Image - Scan to PDF http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710004292_1971004292.pdf Bad news ... the file's corrupted, and only shows about a quarter of the document on one of my systems (not this one!). Download fails, and adobe says file corrupted, can't repair. The formula was phonetically similar to Cronin .. - Original Message - I have a link somewhere for this (There's a named formula).
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Downloaded the document ok. All there. AG On 11/20/2011 1:57 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Good news : I found the link.Legacy Image - Scan to PDF http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710004292_1971004292.pdf Bad news ... the file's corrupted, and only shows about a quarter of the document on one of my systems (not this one!). Download fails, and adobe says file corrupted, can't repair. The formula was phonetically similar to Cronin .. - Original Message - I have a link somewhere for this (There's a named formula).
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Weird ... can you search for surface tension/drops (It's probably to big to email ... but could you give it a try. This address) - Original Message - Downloaded the document ok. All there.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
It is 11.8 MBs. Sending in the next email. AG On 11/20/2011 2:10 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Weird ... can you search for surface tension/drops (It's probably to big to email ... but could you give it a try. This address) - Original Message - Downloaded the document ok. All there.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Sent. Shall I also send to your direct email? AG On 11/20/2011 2:10 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Weird ... can you search for surface tension/drops (It's probably to big to email ... but could you give it a try. This address) - Original Message - Downloaded the document ok. All there.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Send to Vortex failed. Sending directly to your email. AG On 11/20/2011 2:10 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Weird ... can you search for surface tension/drops (It's probably to big to email ... but could you give it a try. This address) - Original Message - Downloaded the document ok. All there.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Send to Vortex failed. Sending directly to your email. Vortex is limited to a 40 kByte file size. Yahoo will allow 10 Mbyte attachments or larger if you use their new mailer. You can load it up to your documents file on Google docs.google.com and send a link. T
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Thanks for that tip. It is done: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B__Wi_DF2CjJM2Y2Mjc4YTQtNjliNC00OGMxLWI5NTAtNWY0NzUyNWU1MTQ5 AG On 11/20/2011 2:37 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Send to Vortex failed. Sending directly to your email. Vortex is limited to a 40 kByte file size. Yahoo will allow 10 Mbyte attachments or larger if you use their new mailer. You can load it up to your documents file on Google docs.google.com and send a link. T
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that tip. It is done: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B__Wi_DF2CjJM2Y2Mjc4YTQtNjliNC00OGMxLWI5NTAtNWY0NzUyNWU1MTQ5 That worked great. You can shorten the URL using goo.gl which keeps a record of your URLs. T
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Joshua wrote: »In the 2-phase literature, this mixture of percolated hot
water and steam is still called low-quality steam.»
Outside Krivit-inspired Rossi discussion I have never heard this kind of
definition for steam quality.
This doesn't mean very much unless we know what you've read, which clearly
doesn't include literature on 2-phase flow. There are lots of articles on
it, and I think I gave you a reference before. But a while ago, someone
here gave a link to an on-line text book on heat transfer that might help
broaden your experience outside Rossi discussion. Go to
http://www.wlv.com/products/thermal-management-databooks.html, and click on
Wolverine Heat Transfer Engineering Data Book III, and go to chapter 12.
If the link doesn't work, you can go directly to
http://www.wlv.com/products/databook/db3/data/db3ch12.pdf. In that chapter
you will find all kinds of pictures and plots of different flow regimes for
different vapor qualities from zero to 100% quality. Near zero, the flow is
mostly liquid with bubbles in it. Vapor quality is simply defined as the
ratio of the mass of vapor to the total mass, regardless of how they are
mixed.
Also wikipaedia does not recognize such definition.
Really? I found this under vapor quality:
The quality of a fluid is the percentage of
masshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass that
is vapor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor;[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality#cite_note-boles-0
i.e.
saturated vapor has a quality of 100%, and saturated liquid has a
quality of 0%.
And also this:
Quality χ can be calculated by dividing the mass of the vapor by the mass
of the total mixture:
[image: \chi = \frac{m_{vapor}}{m_{total}}]
where *m* indicates mass.
Nothing specified about the nature of the mixture.
Also this in the same article:
The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by *steam quality* (steam
dryness), the proportion
ofsaturatedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(chemistry)
steam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam in a saturated water/steam
mixture.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality#cite_note-3 i.e.,
a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or
100%) indicates 100% steam.
Steam quality zero indicates 100% water.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Not if the output is actually much higher than the input! If only half the water is vaporized, and the output is higher than the input, then the output must contain more than half liquid water, which was the point to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Lol, wut? 2011/11/20 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Not if the output is actually much higher than the input! If only half the water is vaporized, and the output is higher than the input, then the output must contain more than half liquid water, which was the point to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
Daniel, I think that the poster believes that the ECATs are full of water in Rossi's 1 MW test. His argument is totally dependant upon having the ECATs full so that water is forced out with the vapor. Under those conditions, plenty of water would indeed be expelled. Unfortunately, the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. The HVAC engineer made measurements of the water contained within the output stream and found little. You are correct in your beliefs. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler Lol, wut? 2011/11/20 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Not if the output is actually much higher than the input! If only half the water is vaporized, and the output is higher than the input, then the output must contain more than half liquid water, which was the point to begin with.
Re: [Vo]:Steam Quality Revisted -- Kettle Boiler
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Daniel, I think that the poster believes that the ECATs are full of water in Rossi's 1 MW test. Well, full of water and steam. The steam takes up most of the volume and so it moves much faster entraining water droplets in it. As Heffner described it, a kind of percolation phenomenon. His argument is totally dependant upon having the ECATs full so that water is forced out with the vapor. Since the ecats start full when boiling begins, if the rate of vaporization is less than the flow rate, you will get a mixture of water and steam coming out. No way to avoid that. When the steam moves fast through the conduit, it will likely flow in an annular/mist regime, and depending on the design, could be in a pure mist regime. It would have been in Rossi's interest to design the conduit in such a way to generate a mist. Under those conditions, plenty of water would indeed be expelled. Unfortunately, the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. The HVAC engineer made measurements of the water contained within the output stream and found little. This evidence is anything but clear. The device used was wholly inadequate for the purpose, and would have been completely useless if the water was entrained as a mist. Moreover, evidence indicates that the valve to this device was closed during the run, even though Rossi claims they collected the liquid throughout the run. You are correct in your beliefs. Such certainty is the sign of a closed mind.
