a) It would appear that if the water is just boiling (the expelled fluid is <1% steam), it is already slightly over unity, assuming we can trust the flow rates, and I have some doubts. But slightly over unity would not be difficult to achieve chemically, especially with a 14 kg bottle of hydrogen connected.
3) How dare he not tell us what he is measuring, and what the result of the measurement is? It's supposed to be a demo. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Joshua, > > a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate > the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? > > b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a > generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the textile > industry. > > 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about "vapore secco" based on a measuring > instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had "vapore umido?" > > Thank you, > Peter > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Rich Murray wrote: >> >> >> >> "probably, the Rossi demos have a complex control box with thermal >> controls that lower the electric input heater power when the reactor gets >> too hot" >> >> >> >> You concede to easily. >> >> >> >> I don't believe there is any feedback in that system because the wires are >> all heavy power cables, not control wires, and because when the power was >> shut down (in test 1), the temperature remained pinned to the boiling point >> (without any regulation), and because the input power is varied manually (in >> test 2) over a wide range 1.2 kW -> 400 W -> 1.5 KW, completely inconsistent >> with a fine temperature control. >> >> >> >> But the obsession with the control box is a red herring anyway. Even if it >> is regulated, my thesis is not weakened. >> >> >> >> 1. The wetness of the steam is unknown >> >> >> >> The fact that the temperature is pinned at the boiling point (slightly >> elevated because of increased pressure in the conduit) means we don't know >> how much liquid is present in the exiting fluid. If it were substantially >> above the boiling point, then there would be a case to argue that the steam >> is dry. >> >> >> >> No evidence is presented in Levi's report that the steam is dry. He simply >> states that it is based on an "air quality monitor" (scare-quotes are his). >> But the point of a demonstration is to demonstrate, not to pronounce. He >> doesn't say what physical quantity is measured, nor what the value is, let >> alone how it changes with time. >> >> >> >> It would be so easy to allow the temperature to go to 110C to >> *demonstrate* that the steam is dry, but failing that, if there is some >> reason that 100C is an optimum temperature, they could have proved dryness >> by showing the reading on that monitor, and then showing (off-line) what it >> reads when steam is wet and when it is dry. Dry steam can be produced by >> boiling water and passing the steam through a conduit heated to 110C (say) >> in a flame. It would also be useful to see how that measurement evolves >> after the boiling begins, because the exiting fluid should change gradually >> from pure liquid to drier and drier steam as the power increases. >> >> >> >> 2. The power gradients are not believable. >> >> >> >> It is a simple truth that heating the water to boiling requires about 1.2 >> kW, and vaporizing all of it requires > 10 kW. The only way to increase the >> power delivered to the water is to heat the conduit to a higher temperature. >> An 8-fold increase in the power delivered requires an 8-fold increase in the >> temperature difference between the fluid and the heating element (the >> conduit presumably). But this takes time, and we have an idea of how fast >> things heat up by looking at the gradient before boiling is reached. By that >> measure, the power might increase by at most a factor of 2 in 40 minutes; >> far short of what is needed for complete vaporization. >> >> >> >> We know it doesn't even increase that much, because in mid plateau, the >> temperature actually dips below boiling for a few minutes. (The dip seems to >> correlate with the reduction on the input power to 400W.) >> >> >> >> The obvious and reasonable interpretation, based on the mid-plateau dip, >> and the fact that the temperature (in test 2) decreases immediately when the >> power is shut down, is that the temperature of the heating element(s) is >> just above that necessary to maintain boiling temperature in the exit fluid. >> That means that only a small fraction of the fluid is being converted to >> vapor. The steam is very wet. >> >> >> > >
