On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > Nevertheless, this report from Kullander and Essen could be interpreted >> quite in line with what Krivit is claiming: >> >> http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3111124.ece<http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3111124.ece> >> >> The issue would be whether or not this report was an "endorsement." >> > > Ah, that report. It does not sound like an endorsement to me. They are > saying that if the report is real, the discovery is important. Who can argue > with that? Their only endorsement is the report they wrote after they saw > the machine. On Feb 25, you wrote of the interview: "Overall it is quite positive!" And it was. Something positive sounds like an endorsement to me. There are degrees of endorsement, after all. > > > I'm puzzled by something, by the behavior of Kullander, Essen, and Lewen. >> There have been some serious objections to their prior reports, such as the >> apparent assumption that a relative humidity meter can be used to measure >> steam quality, and the neglect of the possibility that water overflow would >> be occurring, could actually be expected -- unless some feedback mechanism >> is operating, which involves varying power to exactly match the allegedly >> constant water flow -- but they have not responded or clarified their >> observations or possible errors. >> > > There are not serious objections. They are nonsense. If the water were > overflowing the temperature would immediately drop. No. *That* is clearly nonsense. If the power exceeds the amount necessary to raise the water to its boiling point, then the temperature could not drop. That would violate the conservation of energy. > Whether you can use humidity meter or not is irrelevant. The heat of > vaporization at 1 atm was measured before such meters were invented, it has > not changed, and it does not vary enough to make any difference to Rossi's > conclusions. The high temperature and the steam coming out of the end of the > hose in Lewan's video prove that the water is being vaporized. No. It proves that the water is heated to boiling, and that *some* water is being vaporized. That's different than all the water being vaporized. > People here who claim that you can produce extremely wet steam at these > temperatures with 20 times less enthalpy than regular steam should prove > that. They will win a Nobel prize and revolutionize chemistry and physics. This is proved in every publication on 2-phase flow I've seen, and none were written by Nobel laureates.
