Peter, that is just utterly untrue! In scientific steam experiments all that
is required to measure is the steam pressure, because steam pressure
correlates with the total enthalpy. Then it is needed only to calibrate this
correlation e.g. with steam sparging tests. Clean, fast, unlimited, accurate
and extremely simple science.

I just do not understand why this is so hard concept for people to
understand. Have they ever not seen a boiling water pot that is enclosed by
lid? (Result is faster cooking!)

I think that steam related science is too daily and thus people are ignoring
it, because they cannot understand that something that is so obvious and
daily as cooking food, is also a part of _hard_ science. But on the other
hand, how many really knows why do we even cook food instead of eating raw
food? Tastes better?

   —Jouni
On Sep 26, 2011 8:42 AM, "Peter Heckert" <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Am 26.09.2011 05:20, schrieb Harry Veeder:
>> From: Jed Rothwell<jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:13:05 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi steam calorimetry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not understand why they intend to use a heat exchanger. Why not
simply run water through the thing, the way they did in the 18-hour test in
February? It may be less efficient but that makes no difference.
>>>
>> Rossi is devoting all his time, money and energy to the development of a
commercially viable technology. I get the impression he decided some time
ago that the quickest, safest and most reliable way he can achieve his goal
is through the generation of steam. Therefore he currently believes (rightly
or wrongly) that any form of experimentation that does not involve the
generation steam is a detour he cannot afford to take.
> He cannot get scientific evidency by steam measurement if the
> measurement arrangement is not previously calibrated by a known heat
> source. There are too much chances of error doing the steam method on a
> unknown system.
>
> Of course you are always faster if you neglect the rules and leave some
> necessary steps out.....
>

Reply via email to