I don't know what it is about this, but Jed seems to have lost his
ability to read and understand.... Of course, it could be me, I
suppose. Aren't we always the last to know?
At 02:45 PM 7/14/2011, Jed Rothwell 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
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
I read that original report as more positive than that, they stated
certain things as if they were fact, but without attributing them to
the source, i.e., Rossi. As I wrote, it's possible to differ on this,
but obviously Krivit read it as an endorsement, and so have some others.
What I see is Kullander and Essen believing what they were told,
and reporting it as fact.
In their technical report? Surely not.
Not the technical report. In the original report, before they had
seen the E-Cat, which I linked.
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.
According to Jed Rothwell. All of these things are nonsense?
Have there been serious objections? I see these objections coming
from many knowledgeable people. But "serious" is a subjective term,
I'll grant. Still, so is "nonsense."
If the water were overflowing the temperature would immediately
drop. Whether you can use humidity meter or not is irrelevant.
1. No, water can easily be overflowing without temperature dropping.
Consider the situation where water is flowing at exactly the
vaporization rate, exactly so that as it vaporizes, it is replaced.
Now increase the water flow rate a little, just a little. Will the
temperature decrease? No, rather the same amount of water will be
vaporized as before, and this is boiling water, it all sits at the
boiling point. Because there is more water flowing in than is
vaporized, water will build up until it overflows out the hose. Only
if the flow rate is very substantially increased, so the point that
the applied heat is no longer able to raise that flow of water to
boiling, will the temperature start to drop. There is a range of flow
rates for which output temperature is constant at boiling.
This is elementary, Jed, I'm shocked you don't get this. You must be
having a bad day or something.
2. If it is irrelevant whether or not you can use a humidity meter,
fine. But it was claimed by Kullander and Essen that they measured
steam quality with a humidity meter. So it's relevant as a stated
"objection to the report."
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.
Sure. The question is how much water is being vaporized. Do you know?
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.
The temperature in the chimney and steam coming out the end show that
*some* water is being vaporized. They do not show that "the" water --
i.e., all the water -- is 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.
You are responding to a question I did not raise. I have not claimed
"extremely wet steam," whatever that means, and I stated that I
thought the steam quality issue, per se, was a red herring.
Jed, you aren't reading carefully. Seriously. Stop and think, please.
The silence of Kullander and Essen is then used by Rossi, who is
claiming that these "university professors" have validated his work.
Are they being silent? Or have I just missed more recent comments?
I have not heard anything from them, but I doubt that they are aware
of the comments here. If I were them, or Rossi, I would not respond
to such nonsense.
These objections are being repeated by many. Is Mats Lewan paying
attention? The questions and objections are being repeated on the
CMNS mailing list. Jed, you are behaving like the flip side of
"pseudoskeptic" here.
There is no collected data showing how much of what is coming out of
that hose is liquid water and how much is steam. None. What I see in
the Kullander and Essen report is two assumptions: that if there is
steam at the steam relief valve, there must be only steam going into
the hose, and that this is confirmed by using a relative humidity
meter to measure g/m^3. A relative humidity meter, if calibrated for
steam temperatures, and using that setting, will show the mass of
water per cubic meter only for the vapor fraction, it has no means of
determining liquid water presence, even.
And this has been said to you many times, Jed, and you keep repeating
that this is "nonsense."
