On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Mark Iverson <[email protected]> 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 vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and > the valve letting out steam from the chimney." > > Kullander would NOT have made that statement if there was visible mist... > We don't know that. He didn't describe what he saw. He just said visible checks. There have been plenty of pictures and videos of the device made, but none of this. Why not? There are good reasons not to place much confidence in any of the observers used so far: 1) They are measuring the the temperature every few seconds and logging it in a computer, when during the 8-fold increase in power, no change in the temperature is expected. Yet the steam quality, which changes dramatically over that 8-fold change in power is reported with a visual check, and a measurement of relative humidity. What they saw in the visual check is not reported. The value of the RH is not reported. It is not logged. And above all, the relative humidity does not give the steam quality. That indicates incompetence, regardless of their education and position. 2) The claim that in 3 minutes the power can go from 600W to 5 kW is not credible. You can see the effect of the thermal mass in the startup period. It takes time to warm up the ecat. In order to transfer 8 times the power to the water requires 8 times the temperature difference between the walls of the ecat and the water. - They even claim that the ecat ignites before the bp is reached. If you extrapolate the gradient after ignition to get the temperature required for 5 kW power transfer, it would take at least 30 min, but probably more like an hour (depending on the actual temperature of the ecat when boiling is first reached). - If by some miracle, the ecat increases to 5 kW output power exactly when boiling begins, it would still take more than twice that time to reach the necessary temperature to get a 5 kW power transfer to the water. - The only way to get the necessary gradient to get to 5 kW transfer from 600 W transfer in 3 minutes is if the ecat power was briefly much higher, somewhere in the range of 15 kW. But then when the power transfer approached the necessary 5 kW, the ecat power output would have to decrease back to 5 kW. That would be some trick! 3) Closely related to the last dash point, they accept the idea that no matter what input flow rate Rossi chooses in his various demos, the ecat somehow gives out just the right amount of power to convert all the water to steam, and not a per cent more, because a per cent increase in power would increase the temperature of the steam by something close to 10C. How is that possible? In fact, the demos aren't necessary. You tell me an input flow rate, and I'll tell you the power output. If you believe anything about the secret run, it is clear that not only does he not know exactly what the power output will be, but that it fluctuates considerably, even by as much as a factor of 10. The only way it can be pinned to the bp the way it is is if the steam is very wet indeed. > And Galantini specifically stated several times that the steam exiting the > chimney was transparent... > I missed that statement. Can you tell me where this is reported? why do you think they make a point of it? > The problem is that they don't. They make a point of measuring the temperature over and over. But they don't measure the steam velocity (or volume flow rate) which would indicate how dry it is. They don't make a point of showing the audience what the steam looks like by means of a photo or video. E and K don't even describe the steam qualitatively. They seem to make a point of obscuring the appearance of the chimney output. Because they understand the importance that the steam quality will > have on performance figures being reported (not just by Rossi, but in their > own reports). These people have satisfied to themselves that the steam was > very nearly dry... > Maybe, but they were too easily satisfied. Their satisfaction does not satisfy me. I'd like to see evidence. > Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing... > > "The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above > 100°C. According to the electronic log-book, it remained always between > 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the operation from 10:45 to 16:30 as can be seen > in figure 7. > The "outlet was controlled" is obviously not right... there's nothing to > control at the outlet! This must be more an issue with english not being > his native language. What he means is that the temperature of the steam > exiting the outlet was always maintained between 100.1 and 100.2. > Well, it's a passive statement. Maybe he meant it was controlled by the process. I have little doubt it was controlled by the fact that liquid water was present.
