On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Steven:
Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney,
which may very well
happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have
a much shorter chimney,
but I would
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Good try but you forgot the surface tension. When you boil water in the
kettle then you will get bubbles. Therefore steam can be hotter than actual
boiling point. If you reduce the surface tension or make fine mist
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at
that.
First:
It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the
behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the
reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each
second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
There is a concern that due to the likely rigorous boiling inside, some
(macroscopic) liquid water is being thrown upward and some of it exiting
thru the opening in the side of the chimney...
Depends what you mean by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Josh wrote:
they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney.
No, Kullander specifically states in his report:
The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the
water is completely
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
I did as you suggest and searched for '2-phase flow', and even refined it
by adding steam quality to the search terms... I'm sorry to disappoint
you, but it only took the first two references I looked at to satisfy
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
First, here is my conclusion based on the methodology and resoning below:
If certain conditions are present, one can reduce this to a mass-in, mass
out problem, and you
don't need to measure the volume of steam
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Jeff,
thermometer was calibrated and unlike common belief, boiling point was not
100 degrees, but 99.7°C ± 0.1.
The fact is that steam must be dry if it's temperature is above 100.1 °C ±
0.1 at atmospheric
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:58 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:20:48 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I was talking about running it above boiling, but way below the level
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
wrote:
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
Well it might be if the reactor
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
You stated:
But steam at 100C and 1 atmosphere pressure has a density of 0.6 kg /
m^3. It can't be 10 g/m^3.
I thought it would have been clear by how I worded it, but apparently not,
so let me be perfectly
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
The perfect regulation is a much more reliable indication that the fluid is
at the boiling point than any evidence you can get from a probe that
measures temperature and pressure.
Since the probe is what indicates
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you divide the energy to vaporize 1 g of water (starting at
10 C) by the energy to heat it from 10 C to 100 C (liquid)? Seems
random to me.
Because those are the two extremes of a situation that results in
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Josh:
Your off by a factor of 1000 on the saturation mass of water vapor at 100.1
and 1 atm...
So I'll assume that your calc was in kg/m^3, and you forgot to convert to
grams...
NIST has a really nice website for
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Joshua wtote on Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:49 PM:
Okay, due to my randomly selecting an unrealisticly low flow-rate of
10g/sec, I can see where it
could be confusing. Let me try to clear things up...
10 g/s is
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
The power is noted to be 770 W. If you assume no nuclear reaction then
that is all there is. It should only take minutes to reach equilibrium.
True. Some say it's really 800W (230V), but still only minutes, as you
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
Well it might be if the reactor were at the bottom of a tea pot, and the
output at the top of the pot. But the input and output to the reactor are
both horizontal
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it
radiates from the cell into the surroundings.
The cell is insulated.
It is too hot to touch
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
that it matches evaporation rate.
First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly
the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat,
vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up
calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's
inner volume has to be big enough
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
It is notable that the power input varies depending on the controller
actions, that if the power input (plus any nuclear output heat if any)
should become less than that required to convert all the input water to
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we
speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy.
Considering the temperature of only 100C of the ecat output, the value of
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
I wrote: A couple meters of rubber hose can not radiate away 80% of 12 kW
of heat suggested to be produced in the original runs.
To be more specific, it can be expected the heat flow through the rubber
tube walls
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:
Just to be sure of my position. I am completely convinced that the
data that has been provided is coherent with a power generation of
2.5KW.
But the presented data is also consistent with power equal to the input
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The discussions here about how wet steam might produce a gigantic error
are nonsense. No one has demonstrated such an error with a system like this.
No one here has run a test demonstrating how to make steam with 6
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
This comment is tangled in another long thread. I would like to repeat it,
to draw attention to it.
Joshua Cude wrote:
Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication,
there is nothing
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:
The output temperature and flow output, even visually, are convincing.
They are visually equivalent to putting off a candles by blowing them,
that is 0.2W - 0.4W. But to make it only by heating water and
vaporizing
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
It was replicated several times. But never reliably or convergent,
that is, around 24MeV. The results always turned out values between 20
and 80 MeV.
and were published in conference proceedings or the like...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input flow
rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 100C, the
corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about
However, other people have published similar helium results in the
peer-reviewed literature.
No quantitative correlations were published in peer-reviewed literature.
Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and
they were controversial, and challenged in
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Joshua Cude wrote:
If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature.
How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam
mixture would be at 100C.
With this flow
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water
to
100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then
only
part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700
times
the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around.
It's gonna push
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
You have to trap most of the steam until all the heat gets
transfered.
I don't know what that means.
And 1% by mass is a very think fog, it won't be dragged
out by the flow.
It's not given a choice. There is a
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Joshua Cude wrote:
You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot).
Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water
to 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
measured boiling
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:
Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the
flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude,
Are you conceding that the Rossi device produces some anomalous excess
heat -- in a fully reproducible setup, capable of explosions, that
would imply important, accessible new physics...
I make no definite
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
While I am also a skeptical, even rough approximation gives a huge
output gain. Above 100 degrees means gas,
A temperature reading within a degree or two of 100C is consistent with a
mixture of gas and liquid.
and
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Joshua Cude wrote:
There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800 W
input.
You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power, any
steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:
Boil some water
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID
On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of
hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. It
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Abd wrote:
Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain
assumptions. Unfortunately, the
assumptions are the very issue here!
I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions.
The instrument does
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power.
That's true, but I've only been arguing that Rossi has not provided the
public with evidence of excess heat. I don't have proof that the
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Joshua, and I think Abd, believe ...steam inside the conduit is always at
100% RH. Regardless of what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At
100C, the vapor pressure is 1 atm, and the steam pressure (also the
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 12:12 PM 6/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone
can provide me a mathematical example refuting that, I will be happy.
*What steam?*
Understand
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Oh well, I'll run the errand tomorrow...
As a start, go read about the gas laws and partial pressure and how
humidity is calculated from partial pressure...
In order to understand how Galantini can ESTIMATE the
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over
minor details, but one of the senior contributors to the Vort collective
calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the water going in was not
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Joshua wrote:
The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor
pressure of water is the relative humidity.
The physics definition for RH is:
%RH = (Pw/Ps)*100
Where Pw is the partial pressure
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote:
The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/-
3.5% above 95% RH from this spec sheet
http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347.
I think you're reading that spec
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting
microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C.
You
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Yes, agreed that at the most fundamental level it is making an electrical
measurement, that being capacitance. However, since relative humidity is a
moving target depending on the temperature, RH is usually
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote:
There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the
pdf.
A number of them are rated to 150C.
Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the
application range for
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to
be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated
than the input electrical power, but
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote:
I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table. The
chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the
%RH than is listed in the common characteristics table.
OK, you
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Joshua Cude wrote:
No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these
tests if there was no anomalous heat.
Sticking to the Krivit demo, no, increasing the water to 100C requires
only 600W
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
such as your held conclusion, my guess, that this thing *must* be bogus,
since LENR is impossible. Right?
Wrong. It's highly unlikely, in my opinion, and so until good evidence is
presented, I will remain
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:
I believe the HP474AC probe actually measures the capacitance of the air,
and converts that to relative humidity.
Not quite. It measures capacitance with a polymer dielectric which absorbs
water from the air in some
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 11:56 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems
to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:03 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua sed:
...
A large number of inconclusive results make them less believable to me,
not more. There are hundreds of thousands of ufo sightings, and that
totality of results does not make
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 02:58 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still pinned
to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* dry is still
absent
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Other such as Piantelli have seen heat from Ni systems.
Even you didn't believe his results a couple of years ago.
I didn't *not* believe either. I wasn't sure.
You seemed pretty sure when you said: As far
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Out of that 9m of hose, at least half is lying flat on the floor. That
results in:
3 m, 9 ft.
1) condensation forming a layer of liquid water that runs the entire length
of that segment of hose,
Water does not
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
I have uploaded hundreds of papers proving that I am right.
And yet, few believe.
Any steam proves that Rossi is right.
No. It doesn't. See earlier post.
Heck, his reactor has run with no input!
So he
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.comwrote:
**
As a side note: tension refers in my book and wikipedia's to : Tension
(physics), a force related to the stretching of an object (the opposite of
compression)
Tension can also mean voltage. According to wikipedia,
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.comwrote:
**
At least in electrical engineering and electronics we use the term
voltage; I've sofar never met any electrical engineer who in discussions
or talks refered to it being electric tension
It is an older term (from
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Why? The world already doesn't believe it. I don't believe it. And finding
other people's mistakes is a mug's game. I don't believe perpetual motion
claims either, but I'm
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Pigs are flying and it's freaking people out!
The game's afoot! Should be fun, the next few months
There was and interesting description of
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
It's flowing water, not a kettle. So the input power can only heat it so
much.
Depends on the flow rate, eh? Look, from the output temperature readings,
water is being raised to the boiling point, it's highly
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
If all of the claimed input water were converted to steam, that would
represent 5 kW of power. At least 3 kW, and probably closer to 4 kW would
escape that hose as steam enthalpy. It is clear that what escapes
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
At the flow rates and input power of most runs, the water cannot get any
hotter than 60 deg C. That's impossible.
*One* run. Not most of the runs. Only the EK run. In both Lewan runs, the
input power was enough to
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Joshua, you could try writing a paper with your critique of the heat/helium
evidence and see if you could get it past peer review.
Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication,
there
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 06:04 PM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I think (?) you may have commented about the supposed lack of HAD in this
experiment. I'm not sure what HAD has to do with much, because the
experimental conditions of
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Joshua, you could try writing a paper with your critique of the
heat/helium evidence and see if you could get it past peer review
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity
--
A common misconception
[...]
--
Reading this makes me think Galantini used the probe correctly.
Harry
That probe uses a capacitance
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
The instrument DOES provide a (calculated) value for the mass of water
which is in the form of
vapor...
No. It certainly doesn't do that. And that means your simple algebra is all
wet.
The device gives the mass of
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Many people have asserted that the two meters used in these studies do not
measure by mass, or that they cannot combine this measurement with the
temperature to measure
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
Galantini used the wrong instrument
So you say, but Galantini and the manufacturers say differently.
The
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Driscoll wrote:
no it doesn't give the mass of water as vapor because it only works
for measuring the mass of water of vapor in AIR.
NOT in a mixture of vapor and microscopic water DROPLETS
All air has
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
THE INSTRUMENT DOES PROVIDE MASS OF WATER AS VAPOR, AND SUBTRACTING THAT
FROM THE MASS OF WATER
GOING IN WILL GIVE YOU THE MASS OF LIQUID WATER THAT IS COMING
OUT!!
No. It determines the mass of water vapor
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Even if it gave the mass of water vapor per unit volume of steam, you'd
need to know the volume to get the mass. For that you'd need a flowmeter.
But if you had a flowmeter to measure the flow rate
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Joshua Cude wrote:
If they did not measure the weight of the water, you would be right. The
RH meter reading alone is not sufficient.
The RH meter reading is not enough even with the input flow rate. You
need
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Joshua Cude wrote:
Nope. All you have to know is how dry the steam is, what the temperature
is, and what the total mass of the steam is. You can derive the steam flow
rate from that.
Right. But how do you
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
It would be possible, just from the experiments performed, to determine if
the RH probe were of any use. If the RH readings were *monitored* on a
continuos basis, like the temperature, and *reported*, we could
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
If the meter is giving mass per unit volume of the output, you need to
know the *volume* of the output to get the mass of the steam.
Ah. Here is what you overlooked. It also says that it gives
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
**
Joshua:
STOP THINKING ABOUT VOLUME! Yes, you're right in that the extreme volume
change complicates the measurements, and thats why I and others including
Krivit, are focused on MASS. Think in terms of mass.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
So, what specifically do you think that g/kg means in the context of a
2-phase mixture of steam and water?
What do you use for the denominator to calculate the total mass
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 03:21 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
This looks like ~2 kW, used to clean an automobile interior:
What is your point? That thing produces steam at several times the rate of
the ecat in the Krivit video
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 06:56 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:
a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
It would be possible, just from
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote:
If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric
constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be
very different and yield very different readings.
From what I
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Yes, as I've been trying to explain all along, once you get to 100%RH, all
remaining water will be
in the form of liquid water because at the given temperature and pressure
it is now saturated and
can no longer
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large
crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed
affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles
in
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
Rothwell The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death,
and other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all
cells do this.
Cude It's not a demand. It's an identification of an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the
heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse
out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua,
based on our constructive discussions re
testing the E-cat I have sent the sketch of a protiocol for this experiment
to Vortex.but you have not noticed it and have not commented it any way-
even not I ma not
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Cude 2 - I think the impact would be far more dramatic without any input,
regardless of how carefully it's measured. As I've said, this not only makes
the effect more obvious, but in practice, a device that needs input is
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other
do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do
this.
It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
should be possible but are absent
701 - 800 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
