At 04:51 PM 8/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
A new version is up : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410B.php
I've rewritten it distinguishing FLUID from LIQUID, and replaced Watts by "W".
And I found a new diagram for the Drypout, which is explicitly
scaled to the flow pattern diagram:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110816_steam_0014.png
At 11:05 AM 8/17/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In particular,
<http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3714appendixelectriconly.shtml>Appendix
9: NASA Electrical-Power-Only Steam Analysis reviews the
performance of the eCat in relation to an Temperature-Entropy
diagram, and states that the Steam quality could be any value
between 0 and 1, so that the total output power could be anywhere
between 770 watts (NO excess energy), to slightly above Rossi's
claimed value of 4900 Watts
"0 and 1" is a rough summary. In fact, 1 (i.e, 100% vapor) is
extremely unlikely. Most boilers operate at around 95%, normal
boilers won't go below about 90% worst-case.
I've found specific quotes on that for kettle boilers. And for
tube-boilers nukes it is essential to AVOID dryout, because that
leads to BURNOUT.
That's right. And that's why we assume that with fixed water flow, it
would be set at least a little high.
There are a number of design considerations here, and I have to back
up when I realize that Rossi may not have designed this thing to be
safe, i.e., to avoid generating too much heat, if that isn't
necessary! He might simply have designed an atomizer, and the
atomization might take place internally, *below* the outlet port.
(I mean a device that generates a fine spray that could be carried a
substantial distance by steam flow. It could easily be done.)
However, it's quite possible to design a device that will
essentially atomize the liquid, making as low as 5% or so possible,
and 0% is also possible (but it would be on a knife-edge; like
100%, the "steam" -- hot water at boiling temperature -- would not
be temperature stabilized.
I'll take on your bet that a 5% Dry fully-atomized stream is
possible. One pint of beer/glass of wine ?
I don't drink alcohol. Read the name. And I didn't say "fully
atomized" The droplets only have to be carried out of the port. Just
imagine a fine sprayer! Suppose the water is sprayed into the cooling
chamber with a mister. They make water that floats pretty well with
little wind. The mist hits heating surfaces in the E-cat and some of
it evaporates, carrying the rest out of the device. Or there are
other possible arrangements, the idea would be to create fast enough
steam flow (which 5% evaporation might do), with the rest of the
water being spray carried by it.
Now, this very low quality steam will largely condense and collect in
the outlet hose. But, remember, it's at the boiling point. It might
still be there at the end of the hose, hard to tell. It would be
"steamy," though.
At a specific steam quality a "Dryout" occurs : there is no more
liquid water in the output. Any remaining water will then be
carried as droplets in the water vapour. This "Dryout Point" is
estimated by the author to be between 75% dry and 80% dry.
Seems right to me. That's a misnomer. The steam is not dry at that
point. Rather, liquid water is being carried by the flow as suspended droplets.
I've clarified everything (distinguishing between fluid and drops) :
the Dryout happens when there is no fluid water touch the wall of the tube.
However, just so it's clear: dryout happens before "dry steam." Dry
steam will start to rise in temperature.
Because the measure of wetness is by mass, traditionally, it's
possible for quite wet steam, under some conditions, to be carrying
a lot of water, depending on velocity, turbulence, etc. I've
speculated that one could be making, with the Rossi E-cat design,
steam as low as 5% quality.
One way to describe what the author is calling "dryout" is "fog."
How heavy a fog could be made at the boiling point? In these
devices, if there is high vaporization, the steam velocity is quite
high, and could keep relatively large droplets or relatively dense
fog suspended. Is there experimental data on this? Where?
See above. I've got some leads, but I'm going to finish this part first.
I'll look there.
If the eCat is operating with a steam quality BELOW the dryout
point then liquid water will eventually fill the chimney and flow
out of the outlet hose. If the eCat has steam quality ABOVE the
dryout point, then the chimney will empty, and there will be no
liquid water in the outlet hose.
That's, again, quite misleading and incorrect. The steam cools in
the outlet hose, and liquid water being carried by the steam is
still liquid water. It's just suspended, that's all. And as the
steam cools in the hose, steam will (it must!) condense, and some
of this will amalgamate as water.
There will be some condensation in the hose. I think the cooling
rate was estimated to be 80W/meter (too lazy to scroll back in my inbox).
In the Krivit demo there was some water in the hose, which Rossi
flushed out. In the Lewan case the hose went to a bucket.
April 28 : Duration: 2 hours 58 minutes was steam-producing
Flow Rate: 3.8 L/Hr
That's 11 litres or 3 Gallons. I think he'd have noticed that.
Lewan found about half the water ended up in the bucket. He noticed
it, in other words, he measured it. Unfortunately, he did not examine
it closely enough. It would have been far better if he'd sparged the
steam in a known volume of water and monitored the water temperature.
We don't know if the half the water that was missing actually was
vaporized in the E-Cat and stayed that way, or escaped as later
evaporation. I'll say this: that Lewan measurement, as simple as it
was, is the strongest evidence for excess heat in the demonstrations.
What happened to half the water?
> During the April 28 test, we also checked the steam flow through
the outlet hose regularly. Some steam was reasonably being
condensed back into water in the three-meter-long tube that was
exposed to air and was thus at a slightly lower temperature, and a
small amount of water was observed coming out of the hose.
> The amount of water coming out before boiling was clearly larger,
and this was initially measured.
So the eCat STARTED full and then emptied.
I don't think you understand. You dont' know that the E-cat emptied.
"Small amount of water" is not quantified; all that Lewan really says
here is that when the device was operating, less water came out than
when it wasn't operating and water was only being pumped through.
From weighing, I think that this was roughly 50%. Unclear.
It has been asserted that the chimney was dry, specifically by
Galantini, using "eyeballing." That could be quite misleading.
There is pressure in the chimney, raising the boiling point by
perhaps a degree C. If there is a thin film of water on a probe,
and the probe has been allowed to adjust to the internal
temperature, both the probe and adhering water will be above the
ambient boiling point, i.e, when the probe is withdrawn, the water
would immediately vaporize when the pressure is relieved. There
would be much more definitive ways of ruling out liquid water
overflow, but they were not used.
The bottom line: there is absolutely inadequate data to come to
firm conclusions on the Rossi demonstration results. Because there
are some indications that some level of fraud or deception (or
allowance of mistaken assumptions) has taken place, such as
adjustment of input power without discloser of the changes, the
demonstrations must be taken as *competely unreliable.* That's
unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
That may be so : as Levi said, it's below the level of scientific
proof, but I don't think it's totally invalidated. In particular,
Krivit's #3 doesn't PROVE that it's fake.
We have no "scientific proof" of anything here. What's happened is
that the legal principle of "testimony is presumed true unless
controverted" has been bollixed, because Rossi's credibility has
successfully been impeached. It's not proof, but it is, at this
point, a kind of preponderance of the evidence, i.e, more accuratly,
there is a loss of preponderance of evidence in favor of Rossi's
claims being true.
The author believes that the experiments show that the chimney is
NOT full of water, and that significant amounts of liquid water
are NOT in the outlet stream.
Authors may believe what they like, but we have extremely little
experimental data to rely upon, essentialy anecdotal reports, where
unknown caution was exercised.
I was just clarifying my opinion vs the technical stuff.
Lewan didn't see 11 litres of water, therefore it was not
overflowing, therefore the eCat is running ABOVE the dryout point,
therefore the Steam quality is above (est) 75%, therefore the Total
power is above 4300W
Notice how you based a series of conclusions on what Lewan allegedly
didn't see. Lewan's actual observations indicate only half the water
vaporized, very roughly. (Hard to tell, because steam may have
condensed in the bucket. Steam sparging is done with *cool* water so
that all the steam is condensed. Water coming out the hose would be
at or close to boiling. That is not effective for sparging steam, I
think. So steam will escape, with some mist as well. I think that
sparging is done with something that creates very tiny steam bubbles.
Not just a big hose!)
