On 11-06-17 01:36 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
OK, Everyone appears to be angry at Krivit but to be fair to the guy his line of questioning did seem to get back directly to the point where we left it on Vortex - My recollection was that we decided the steam measurement was an unreliable calculation but that the experiment with only a 5 degree increase in water temperature proved there was real thermal gain. Was this difference between mass and volumetric methods of measuring steam energy already resolved? Levi and Rossi are reacting like this was already abundantly clear but I really don't recall this issue as ever have been put to bed. Did I miss something?
Don't think so. AFAIK there has never been a clear statement of the exact method used to measure the dryness of the steam, nor any disclosure of the raw data on which the "dry steam" conclusion was based.
Rossi's defense was pure "appeal to authority" -- an expert made measurements and said it was dry, so it's dry, and please stop asking about it. No data on which the conclusion was based has ever been forthcoming.
IMHO, based on a careful perusal of the one clear effluent temperature graph which I've seen, the steam was about as dry as the River Charles. But that's just a humble opinion from a non-expert, and in any case I haven't got the time to post the reasoning which leads to it. (It's largely visual and documenting it would require drawing pictures, which I haven't done.)
