One thing I think we have to admit is even if the steam flow rate is at the
calculated ~10m/sec necessary (which dosen't appear to be the case), at the
outlet of the E-Cat, that this would probably be sufficient to entrain high
quantities of liquid water in the outflow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75%
(above 4300 Watts)
At 02:36 PM 8/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 11:05 AM 8/17/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'll answer your points in detail later. As I said, it's a work in
progress.
But I specifically indicate that the "dryout" is the point at which there
is no liquid water on the tube wall. There IS still liquid water in the
form of droplets in the vapour.
One paper calls the liquid water FLUID water, distinguishing it from
liquid in DROPLETS.
Your "atomization" theory is something totally different, which I'll
address later in my Fakes paper.
It is my expectation that an outlet opening where the internal water level
can reach the outlet, which is what happens with the Rossi reaction, very
likely, with constant input flow, will atomize the water once steam flow
reaches a certain level, which might be quite low. The overflow is slow,
with the opening not filling. Narrow opening constricts the flow, which is
being released into a lower pressure region (the interior of the hose).
Just a little water is being fed, every second, into that rapid steam flow
(at that position, flow is slower in the outlet hose, but may still be
quite rapid). I'd expect it to be broken up. *How* broken up is unclear.
And how long the droplets would remain suspended is not clear. And it's
really impossible to tell, with the Rossi setup. We know that water does
accumulate in the hose. Where did it come from?
Are you aware of any studies of anything like this?
If fluid water, as you call it, does not reach the outlet port, this is
irrelevant. However, that would indicate 100% "vaporization" minus normal
steam wetness. The problem with 100% vaporization would be that, unless
somehow the heat could be exactly matched to the input flow, the cooling
chamber would run dry and temperature stabilization would be lost. There
is no sign of that. The claim that steam was "dry" was inconsistent with
observation, which was of stable temperature in the chimney, at the
boiling point expected from very modest steam pressure.
Not having accurate measurements of chimney temperature over the whole
run, for any run, it's really difficult to judge this for the Rossi
demonstrations.
What was really unusual for the Rossi "boiler," what threw almost everyone
off, was constant water flow. The implications of this were not realized,
because it was something that even experts had probably never seen. And
Galantini was certainly not an expert on steam, he's got no credentials or
qualifications to indicate that.
To Galantini, his steam measurements, made based on a total
misunderstanding of what his meter was indicating, seemed reasonable as
indicating relatively dry steam. He then, with this expectation, looked at
the probe when he removed it. As he removed it, the seal would be broken
and steam would escape from the probe port. (I've seen no description of
this, by the way.) That steam would tend to blow water off the probe,
making it even less likely that water would be seen on it. But the primary
cause of not seeing water there would be that, when removed to atmospheric
pressure, it would be superheated. It would immediately vaporize.
This is just theory and speculation, to be sure. The point is that the
demonstrations don't demonstrate, with any clarity. Physics professors
with no specific knowledge of steam were invited to observe. What did they
look for? They looked for hidden wires. No hidden wires. They looked for
radiation. Useless. They looked for water pouring out the hose, indeed.
However, it's quite possible they saw the hose after it had been emptied,
and Rossi would almost certainly do this every time he showed the hose.
And I figured it would take about 4 minutes to fill the hose to the level
of the drain, giving Rossi plenty of time to wave it about. Meanwhile,
there would be gentle steamy mist rising, as seen in the Krivit video.
It appears that Essen had no idea how much steam to expect from a few
grams per second of vaporized water. So he was satisfied, it's likely,
with just a little steam or mist. It doesn't mean that Essen was
incompetent as a physicist, he was simply outside his expertise.
Nothing I've found, researching this, proves that there is no excess
energy. There may even be substantial excess energy, though probably less
than claimed. But I can say the contrary as well. Nothing I've found
proves that there was excess energy, given all the reasonable possible
objections, which, for Rossi, must even include fraud (or, shall we call
it, careless deception, based on unasked questions. Like, "Mr. Rossi, did
you change the input power during this demonstration?"
And, as a demonstration, would we want to depend on a statement of the
inventor for that? Wouldn't we want to continuously monitor that power?
Etc.!
