RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

__ From: Damon Craig [mailto:decra...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms E-cats Have No Hair Here is my challenge to the rest of you. I will be looking for evidence myself:- What evidence e

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

I Wrote "It takes only a one foot head of water to raise the boiling point of water to 101 C." I forgot to include the observation that liquid water would build-up in the exit hose. With the hose exist above floor level a head of water would obtain rendering a 101.1 reading completely meaningless.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a > > cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid > droplets > > that are carried into the ai

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

E-cats Have No Hair Here is my challenge to the rest of you. I will be looking for evidence myself:- * * *What evidence exists that water does not rise in the chimney and weep or splatter into the exit tube?* So far we seem to only have the assurance of our intrepid Phd's operating outside

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joshua, > > You may recall, I conjectured: > > > ... how can this newly formed H2O gas be > > expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't > > have a chance to hang around long enough to > > absorb

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Joshua, You may recall, I conjectured: > ... how can this newly formed H2O gas be > expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't > have a chance to hang around long enough to > absorb additional heat energy. ...to which you replied: > How can it not? There lies the little pickle of a situatio

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

I have stumbled upon yet another peculiar engineering design choice. This one I cannot explain as anthing other than a deliberate and studied inplimentation with the sole intent to defraud. Whereas the previous choices might be explained by oversight, or ignorance I see no way to justify this one.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > The "inconclusive" epithet is from roughly twenty years ago, and we can see > this crumbling by the time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where "excess heat" > evidence was considered "conclusive" by half the panel, and it's clear that > t

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

genuine heat combined with economic motives or personal psychology. Harry From: Jeff Driscoll To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:23:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following poss

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

At 08:50 PM 7/5/2011, Rich Murray wrote: MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right... No evidence at all for excess heat production... From "defective evidence" to "no evidence" is a leap. I just looked over the Kullander and Essen report, and what I see is that some assumptions were mad

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

At 04:47 AM 7/5/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: BASIC CONCLUSION: None of the plausible assumptions are consistent with the claim for excess energy being wrong. These conclusions are an indication of what passes for evidence for cold fusion advocates. And are consistent (but much more obviously so)

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: > ** > > What if the E-Cat is operating with a 98% 'full charge' on the > heat-capacitor? It would still have considerable capacity left to absorb > heat fluctuations without significantly changing steam temperature. > It would be able to ab

RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: >From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: > I don&#

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com>wrote: >From Josh, > > For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: > > > I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. > > Fair enough. > > > Take a look at figure 2.2.3 o

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

The Kirvit video *might* be explained in terms of the Tarallo Water Diversion Fake: http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.php   Harry From: Jeff Driscoll >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:23:01 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Sto

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

>From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: > I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. Fair enough. > Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. > Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at >

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right... No evidence at all for excess heat production...

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > From Josh: > > This is not > > based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the > > hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it > > does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

>From Josh: > I'm arguing that if dry steam were coming out of the ecat > (corresponding to 5 kW total power), that most of it would > survive to the end of the hose, because I don't think more > than a few hundred watts could be radiated by the hose. > And that what comes out of that hose is comp

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are > convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny > suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being ex

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

. The water in the black hose would then be distillated water and not overflow. Peter van Noorden - Original Message - From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms I was always t

RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

and where does that released latent heat GO? > > -Mark > > > -Original Message- > From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms > > it leaves t

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

I was always taught that, technically speaking, "steam" is an invisible gas. However, most of us quite naturally tend to only notice the clouds of water vapor condensing out from the invisible "steam" as it cools. We tend to incorrectly associate, in the visual sense, those tiny suspended condensed

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

This is why one should look at the general appearance of a 2 fluid flow to draw a conclusion.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude > wrote: > > > Wrong. Steam can be wet. > > No sir. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam > > Ahem. >From the very article you reference, "A gas can only contain a certain amount of steam (the

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

-Original Message- > From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms > > it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into >

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method. > The water, in whatever state, is forced through by a pump. That's a mechanical method. > > The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas. > Or it leaves as

RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Ter

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method. Oh, it splashed out of the reactor!! Why did I not think of that? No wait! The molecules grew cilia and it walked out of the reactor! The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas. Indeed it will be condensed an

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a > cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets > that are carried into the air by the vapor. > Steam can be wet. Live with it. OMG Cude! You

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Driscoll wrote: > it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into > microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of > vaporization) > > what thermodynamic point was incorrect? Many people seem to claim that the water was not tur

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > Steam can be wet. Live with it. > > Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous > form. Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a co

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean. Why should it change as it leaves the hose? > Either way, both at horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at > 100C and 6m/s, no more than 15% of the mass can be in the liquid stat

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > >> St

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean. Either way, both at horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at 100C and 6m/s, no more than 15% of the mass can be in the liquid state without at least some kind of squirting be constantly be pouring out of the house.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow, No, it can exist under a variety of condtions. > Steam is dry. Some steam is dry. Some steam is wet. You just admitted steam can be wet above.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > Steam can be wet. Live with it. > > Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam: > > steam > [steem] > –noun > 1. > water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor. > > Water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor can have droplets sus

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow, this is why wikipedia talks about machines. Steam is dry.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

> Steam can be wet. Live with it. Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam: steam [steem] –noun 1. water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor.

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude > wrote: > > > Wrong. Steam can be wet. > > No sir. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam > > Yes Sir. From that article: "but such wet-steam conditions have to be limited to avoid excessive tu

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by > definition. Where is this definition given? There are very clear, well-defined, concepts related to steam, dry steam, wet steam, and steam quality. A simple google search will

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit: > http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-** > sends-e-mail-about-rossi-**steam-measurements-today/

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by definition. Molecules of water must achieve sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the intermolecular forces of liquid water. Statistically, some molecules are able to achieve this at room temperature; so, water will evaporate. Immedia

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. > I don't believe Galantini is an expert in those meters. And anyway, academics can be wrong. > The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. > No. They make no claim about

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jeff Driscoll wrote: > > Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input >> mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . > > > You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? > I don't trust that he would report i

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > *1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.* > > > > If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. > > > > Applied power = 745 watt > > Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec > > Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <a**b...@lomaxdesign.com> >> wrote: >> >> Galantini has never said that "steam quality can be measured with a >> relative humidity meter

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> >> >>> Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be >>> measured with their equipment . . . >> >> >> It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do t

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: Galantini has never said that "steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter." Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >> Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be >> measured with their equipment . . . > > > It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know > the quality of the steam. It also said that t

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

> >> >> Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be >> measured with their equipment . . . > > It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know > the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, > not volume. > - Jed >

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Galantini has never said that "steam quality can be measured with a > relative humidity meter." Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry. That's the whole so

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

At 06:17 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jeff Driscoll <hcarb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a >> Relative Humidity meter (it can't). > > Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

At 10:06 AM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2. - Jed Thanks for forwarding this, Jed, and thanks to Dr. Storms for writing it. I

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jeff Driscoll wrote: > >> >> >> 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a >> >> Relative Humidity meter (it can't). >> > >> > Yes, it can. >> >> No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, >> ma

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Jeff Driscoll wrote: > >> 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a > >> Relative Humidity meter (it can't). > > > > Yes, it can. > > No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, > maybe I should repost it. > Experts in those meters such as Galant

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jeff Driscoll wrote: >> >> Rossi has not done a definitive test.  I don't trust him on his input >> mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . > > You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? not when I look at all the circumstanti

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Ed Storms posted: 1. Not all of the water is turned to steam. If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Jeff Driscoll wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input > mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have re

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

The analysis of Ed Storm is consistent with the book chapters of 2 phase flows that I posted here another day. No one bothered to read that with attention and in case anyone does that will see that the only consistent solution is that there is at least 3200W of excess energy. The only way this cou

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

At 10:48 AM 7/3/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. Or something in between. Levi has a lot

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms

Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. Levi has a lot to gain monetarily so I don't trust his high flow rate test (where there w