On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Damon Craig <decra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In order to resolve the disagreement between the wet steam hyposesis and > the water spill-though hypothesis it's reasonable to ask how much energy it > takes to break water into droplets and lift these a few inches before > sending them out the exit of the rossi device. > > > All that work, and you didn't come up with an answer? Anyway, you could have saved yourself the trouble by looking up cool mist humidifiers. Some advertise 15 times less energy consumption than thermal humidifiers, and that fits with the specs on power consumption and mist creation rate. So, it works out to about 150 J to produce a mist of sub-micron droplets from a gram of water, and launch them into the room. (To be compared to 2200 J required to vaporize them.) That doesn't account for losses in the piezo-electric device, and the fact that the Rossi device has fast moving steam to entrain the droplets, so they don't need to be anywhere near that small to be carried out the hose in the ecat. That means the energy needed to produce the mist is not significant, and you can forget about it. It's not clear what the alternative to a mist really is. Even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is vaporized, it's clear the steam will occupy by far the majority of the volume in the ecat, so the liquid will either creep up the walls, or rise in the form of a mist. Does it really matter, though? The consensus is now pretty widespread, even among LENR fans, that Rossi's ecat is converting only a fraction of the water to vapor, and that his demonstrations don't actually demonstrate anything. There are still holdouts, but not for long... And when it's all over, the fiasco will serve to demonstrate the gullibility of the lenr community.
