On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course I referred to the temperature. There are other ways to check > the quality besides pressure although that is the usual one. > Pressure can only be used to identify dry steam, if the temperature is above the local boiling point. It can't be used to determine steam quality between 0 and 100%. That's probably why Rossi didn't use it. It would have probably shown that the fluid was at the boiling point, which would be consistent with very low quality steam. The only method they claimed was the use a tee in the conduit to trap liquid, which would be useless for water entrained in a fast moving vapor. No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test >> conditions. >> > > >It's not the measurement of the temperature that is at issue. It's > taking the value of the temperature as evidence of dry steam that is not > plausible. > > Seems like I discussed this earlier. Close the lower steam path valve, > collect any water that flows into the collection vessel, and then see how > dry the steam is. Seems trivial to me (very little water). Do not forget > to open the valve after you have finished collecting the water. > You have got to be kidding. If the ecats are producing dry steam at 675 kg/h = 320 L/s, then considering the ecats are mostly filled with water, the pressure would double in a second or so, and triple in 2 seconds. Long before you can collect any water, you'd blow the ecats apart, or more likely back the pumps up, meaning the fluid content would be meaningless. And you call yourself a technical type? You know that measuring steam quality is a very serious business in the turbine industry, and they don't use a method like this. They use calorimetry, by sparging the steam in a big vat of water. If it was so trivial as you say, why would they go to the trouble? > I personally would agree with you >> that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but >> we need to find out what lead to the measurement. >> > > >They *didn't* measure the increase. They *inferred* it incorrectly from > a temperature measurement. > > Are you stating that temperature can not under any circumstance show a > rapid rise? I suggest you look into the experiment in details before you > can be sure that the results are not possible. Even skeptics can jump to > erroneous conclusions. > Of course temperature can rise rapidly under certain conditions. But we know how fast the ecat temperature rises as a function of power from the warm-up period. With 170 kW input or so, it takes to hours to reach 70 kW power transfer (the onset of boiling). With 470 kW power from the ecat, the power transfer could not change from 70 kW to 470 kW in a few minutes. The thermal inertia, observed in the warmup, would prevent that. >> This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. >> > > >It's not an anomalous happening. It's a claim of dry steam without > evidence. If they proved the steam was dry a few minutes after boiling, > then you could call it an anomalous happening. > > Does the data suggest it is dry? > No. > Is data considered evidence? > Is this a philosophical question? Some data is evidence for some things. Temperature alone is not evidence of dry steam. > I guess it is OK to cherry pick the data that suits our conclusions. > I used all the evidence provided. And I didn't so much use it to reach a conclusion, as show that it doesn't support a claimed conclusion. > Pretty hard to be held to the same standards that the believers are held > to is it not? > > Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to support their claims. Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support the claims, by showing the data is also consistent with another interpretation. If the other interpretation is more plausible, then the claim becomes even more unlikely.
