Yes this is true. It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much consideration.
Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the experiment. ;-) Peter ----- Original Nachricht ---- Von: Colin Hercus <colinher...@gmail.com> An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations > Hi Peter, > > It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat > dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. > > Colin > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. > > There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: > > > > If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air > > pressure at the other end of the pipe. > > In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. > > > > If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. > > We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. > > So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the > > temperature was measured, could be true. > > Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could > work > > in this case. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Best, > > > > Peter > > > > >
