Ho! I had forgotten about this one -- one of the early issues raised was that 14 kW of steam coming out the end of a hose should be a little like a rocket engine, and it would have been nice if some witness had mentioned that.

Trouble was, there was no video, and witnesses didn't comment on it either way, so no conclusion could be drawn.

Now we've got a video, albeit of a lower power demo -- and it doesn't sound like the plume "visuals" are living up to their billing. Well, well.



On 11-06-20 09:08 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Here is an estimative of the power output of the steam based on the
video. What do you people think? Is it OK? It gives only 16Wats as the
output.

http://disq.us/2bl5a3

*********************************

We, who've actually boiled water on a stove, we who've actually done
any thermodynamics in the lab (or industry).  We can see.

That is a ½ inch (13 mm) copper tube.  Its inside diameter is less
than 10 mm.  Using those dimensions, and a video editor, then
following the turbulent features, I measure the steam maximum velocity
as 14 cm/s.  But hey — the invisible part is undoubtedly faster.
Let's say 25 cm/s

Circular volume is circular area times length of a cylinder (or rate
of flow in cm/s).   ( 14 cm × (3.14 × (($radius = ( 1.0 cm / 2) ↑
2)))) = 11 cubic cm [ML] per second.  Now, as I recall, I was
expecting about 3120 ML/s.   That makes this evolution 11/3120 … 0.35%
of expected for a 4.7 KW unit.  0.35% ( 4700 ) = 16.5 watts.

16 watts Daniel, is nowhere NEAR 4,700 watts.  Sure as the sun rises,
this "demonstration" is bullsnot.  Complete bullsnot.  With that
relatively tiny pipe, I'd expect a roaring plume to come out at 4,700
watts.  Because, lest anyone (and especially you, since you seem kind
of naïve in the ways of boiling-water physics) forget… 4,700 watts of
heat is approximately 2 of the “large” coil standard kitchen range
electric burners.  Even ONE of those gets a remarkable amount of steam
flowing from a hot-water kettle.

Bullsnot.

Thanks for the video.  Unforgettable tripe.

G O A T G U Y

*************************



Reply via email to