Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/23/rossi-steam-was-superheated-in-1mw-plant-test/']The discussion about wet and dry steam is one that goes back a long way in the E-Cat story, and there has been discussion here about the quality of the steam used in the 1-year 1MW E-Cat plant test. The question has come up on the Journal of Nuclear Physics recently with people trying to […][/feedquote]
  • The 'superheated steam' comment reminds me of arguments you can read about in the development of steam-powered railway locomotives. In order to improve efficiency and remove erosive and damaging water droplets from the steam before admission to the cylinders it (the steam) was passed through a network of tubes placed directly in the hot gases exhausted from the firebox. This raised its temperature slightly and re-evaporated any remaining water drops. These pipe networks were initially called 'steam dryers' - but when superheating (real superheating) became a fashionable addition to locomotives the term was changed to ''low-level superheating'.


    Your skepticism about the loose use of this term is justified. Dry steam is not superheated steam.

  • Well, to me it looks team Rossi xplaining that the report used conservative values in stead of real
    measurments and team IH interpreted them as real. Would be interesting to hear what the IH side
    counter with. This is like tennis indeed for an outsider with no inside information. Could IH have been
    fooled to focus on the wrong matter? Is there another trick that was masked by sloppy protocol? My view
    is that you do the test and perform it in such a way that both parties of experts agree on the outcome.
    If one part see a problem one redo the test with a fix of it - no need to use harsh words, just make sure
    that science matters and not words.

  • From the ECW article / JONP:



    The ERV ignored the energy to raise the temperature to the boiling point and he also ignored the energy to heat above the boiling point.


    What remains?


    The boiling point (100,1 °C).

  • Heating water by 35 deg C requires 146 joules / gram.


    Evaporating 100 dec C water requires 2285 joules / gram.


    This is why it takes about 15X as much time to simmer away a pot of boiling water than it does to bring that water from room temp to a boil.

  • All this is like playing tennis blindfolded. Is it not much easier to be agnostic and wait until the ERV-report is filed with the court by Rossi or IH, or released? Or if you necessarily need to have an opinion right now, simply trust Rossi or IH according to own taste and liking.

  • To avoid confusion:
    Superheated steam is a steam at a temperature higher than its vaporization (boiling) point at the absolute pressure where the temperature is measured.


    This also means that superheated steam is dry, i.e. Any small remaining droplets of water will evaporate during heating above its vaporization point.


    Question to Rossi:
    "Does this imply that heating was done in stages?
    I mean one core was boiling water and the next was superheating the steam from boiler section?"


    Rossi: " The circuit was complex, but yes, the steam was superheated.




    "

  • Interesting Q&A section on JONP...it is quite entertaining reading such dialogues, sounds like he is talking to himself (just my guess, quite difficult to get who else may come up with such strange details / explanations?) ^^


    Andrea Rossi | 4 hours ago
    Sebastian:
    The 100.1 temperature is just a clownesque invention, nothing else. It simply does not belong to the Report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    Sebastian | 14 hours ago
    Dear Andrea,
    I have a hypothesis for where that whole 100.1 degrees C could come from.
    Given that the ERV only considered vaporisation for the COP , he used a dummy temperature output value of 100.1C. Possibly he used 99.9C as input temperature. Possibly there is an entire column full of 100.1C in the data. The title of the column is probably “output temperature used for COP calculation”. Possibly Penon didn’t remove that value from maintenance days.
    Most likely there is another column of data with the actual output temperature.
    I think some people at IH didn’t read the report closely and, instead of reading with an open mind, they looked for discrepancies.
    The 100.1C column must have looked a bit weird, but it makes perfect sense to me.
    Am I close to the truth?
    Thanks

  • "the steam was superheated"


    What a farce.


    <b>Why does he not simply specify that the (average) steam temperature was measured X °C at a pressure of Y bar.
    </b>
    &quot;Superheated steam&quot; makes me &quot;super sceptical&quot;.


    Rossi has answered that question of yours:



    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    May 22, 2016 at 6:29 PM
    Hank Mills:
    I cannot disclose data of the report before it is disclosed in Court.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Well, to me it looks team Rossi xplaining that the report used conservative values in stead of real measurments and team IH interpreted them as real. Would be interesting to hear what the IH side counter with. This is like tennis indeed for an outsider with no inside information. Could IH have been fooled to focus on the wrong matter?


    I agree that we need IH's side of this. Let's hope that IH was not using the 101.1 C value to try and fool us into thinking this was a measured value. As an IH Fanboy, that would be disappointing.

  • It's might just be a big misunderstanding between IH and Rossi.


    I think it's possible that both Rossi and IH have been honest, but had a bit of a breakdown.


    IH then reads the report with a bias and decides it's junk by misinterpreting some parts of it.

  • IH has said nary a peep on the matter of the 100.1 C temperature. Perhaps you're referring to Dewey Weaver, who does not speak on behalf of IH.


    Well, yes, it would be nice to get IH's direct position on these matters, of course. Dewey and Jed are the closest we have to IH's position, given that they appear to have been given inside information. Dewey on more than one occasion has claimed to have gone back to "check" with IH on this or that, so it does seem like he has access.

  • Nah, My guess is that team IH will stress that Team Rossi did not account for measurment errors and the whole thing is undecidedable - you need to
    redo the test to really know. heat a basin of water with good measurments calibrated and with good accuracy and be done with it - no need for a customer.
    The extra hazzle is nil compared to what's been done during one year. Why did they have to write in the contract that IH would not be allowed into the customer
    building? There could be some hand waving to argue for that but I find it really fishy, enough for people to get upset. So there is a call to be careful. Also how
    did the intake of air look like, in order to judge the ventilation you need to understand both how air get's out and ait get's in. Also a COP of 5 due to
    measurement error means 100kW. Then the cooling issue is less dramatic and you still have surplus e.g. not a fake and people will not be cooked. In all
    I think one need to be careful as a bystander info is not enough to heat up the feelings to the cooking point.

  • Dewey's information does not seem coherent to me. I'm not saying it is wrong, just that there is too much not known to come to any settled view of what it means. You can believe that IH have found errors that invalidate the test - or not. I don't think you can work out precisely what those errors are.


    That should not surprise anyone, it is really not in IH's interest to give out this information, and while vague leaks are one thing, a precise leak with exact information might be more of a problem for IH. In any case they may not have precise information - who can tell?


    It is not in Rossi's information to give out any information either. He has also not given out much, because as always what he says is subject to considerable interpretation, language issues, etc. (That is a polite way of saying that while it may not strictly be false it can often mean something different from what was expected by those listening).

  • Yep - Fanboyz in overdrive. Where does all the determination and energy come from? Is it an obsession or a mental Tibetan knot? Such a sight to behold but no matter what, it is another important leg in the study of the true "Rossi Effect" when all is said and done. I haven't decided when to send out another nugget. 100.1C has been very effective and appeasr to have kilometers of legs left in the approach.

  • I haven't decided when to send out another nugget. 100.1C has been very effective and appeasr to have kilometers of legs left in the approach.


    The impression that you have made is that this is a measured value. Is that your position?


    The energy of the IH Fanboys is to get to the bottom of the story, and to perhaps solve a few of the worlds most pressing problems. Being driven by altruism can be just as energizing as being driven by a financial stake. Neither is bad, necessarily. But both can energize people to action.

  • "If I where Rossi"


    If I where to develop a boiler producing steam, I would interested to avoid a boiler which produced partly steam and hot water, i.e which coughed and sputtered two phase steam and water.


    If I wanted to make modularized Compact boilers of say 250 KW, I needed to engineer the internals intelligently to secure pure steam from each module.


    To secure pure steam I would be interested to engineer a Solution of internals which results in Gradually heating, Boiling and final superheating to secure evaporate any remaining droplet in steam phase before it left the module.


    Solution: A 250 KW module where heating where done in stages: heating section(s), boiler section(s) and a following superheating section(s). This may be engineered in a number of ways.


    And If Rossi has it, this is likely part of the Solution.