At 01:47 PM 8/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen
<<mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com>jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote:
And if we look Rossi's presentation when he did "calculations" he
treated Krivit's audience like he would assume that Krivit was doing
journalism to some tabloid news paper(!).
That is nonsense. The calculations were perfectly correct. They were
straight from any chemistry or physics textbook. There was nothing
odd about them. They were not simplified, if that is what you mean.
There are two problems I know of with those calculations: the
assumption of full vaporization, which is almost certainly off by
about 5% and which could be off by much more. And he used the wrong
voltage. Standard is 230 V, not 220. Really, it should have been measured.
I do not know why you put the word "calculations" in quotes, as if
this is somehow incorrect. You could include more terms to compute
the heat balance with more precision, but the method Rossi used was
a good first approximation. There has been a lot of speculation here
that you have to include a measurement to ensure the steam is dry,
but according to every expert and every textbook, that is incorrect.
No such term is needed; it is safe to assume no more than 10% wetness.
Normally. Overflow water completely whacks that assumption. I'm also
willing to bet that one could design a boiler that would produce very
wet steam. I'd think 50% would be easy to reach, and probably over 95% wet.
