Click on my link and read that comment and the following ones. I'm not going to rehash it.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
All IH has to do is prove it happened.
Wrong as usual.
IH is innocent until proven guilty. Rossi is the one making claims and bringing the lawsuit. HE will have to prove everything. IH does not
have to do anything but put up a reasonable and logical defense.
Rossi will have to prove it was a GPT
Rossi will have to prove the flow rate
Rossi will have to prove the temperature
Rossi will have to prove the pressure
Rossi will have to prove that all the fake customer, fake production, fake invoices, fake engineer, wrong meter, no pressure measurement,
no involvement in the taking of data, ERV was doing the job, etc. etc. etc.
If Rossi wants the $89 million, HE will have to do all the proving.
You just will not keep digging that deep hole will you!
Now, when it comes to the counter lawsuit, IH will be responsible for the "proving" and so far, the submitted evidence "score" is "
IH - 10
Rossi - 0 (no, this is a score I devised along the same lines as devising pipe diameters from a different setup in a different country in a different year)
Perhaps a gas powered auger would help digging that hole. Much less work!
-
DN80 would be sufficient. DN100 would be better. DN40 would be entirely inadequate.
Saturated Steam - medium and low pressure - recommended velocity: 30-40m/sec
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ty-steam-pipes-d_386.htmlVelocity for 1500kg/h steam @0 barg in pipe
- DN40 => 480m/sec
- DN50 => 300m/sec
- DN80 => 130m/sec
- DN100 => 77m/sec
- DN150 => 35m/sec
So, a DN150 pipe would be the right choice... which is quite a big size ... and heavy.
-
Saturated Steam - medium and low pressure - recommended velocity: 30-40m/sec
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ty-steam-pipes-d_386.htmlVelocity for 1500kg/h steam @0 barg in pipe
- DN40 => 480m/sec
- DN50 => 300m/sec
- DN80 => 130m/sec
- DN100 => 77m/sec
- DN150 => 35m/sec
So, a DN150 pipe would be the right choice... which is quite a big size ... and heavy.
I guess this 1 MW boiler manufacturer has it all wrong then. DN50 outlet and all. Truth of the matter is, your "recommended velocity" is apparently not followed by the industry.
-
We're talking jet engine dbs and heavy duty mounts for any steam pipe that would have survived even day of Rossi's claimed performance. Neither of those existed. Planet Rossi can't even begin to consider the heat. Going down down down down.
-
So, a DN150 pipe would be the right choice... which is quite a big size ... and heavy.
Thank you! That's 6". That is approximately the size of the steam pipe in the photo I posted above in the New York apartment, that someone was insulating with a rope. (Good idea.) I thought it would take a much bigger pipe for 1 MW of low pressure steam but perhaps not.
As you indicate, I should not think of it as 1 MW but rather some number of kilograms or pounds of steam per hour. That is how the HVAC people think of it.
-
I guess this 1 MW boiler manufacturer has it all wrong then. DN50 outlet and all. Truth of the matter is, your "recommended velocity" is apparently not followed by the industry.
No, that boiler manufacturer doesn't have it wrong, because that's a boiler for 6 to 16 bar steam!
If you don't understand the difference of a 0bar steam and a 6 bar steam, then better shut up, because you just reveal your incompetence. -
-
I guess this 1 MW boiler manufacturer has it all wrong then
IHFB -
Mind plugging in the 200C temperature at say 12-14 bar and see how much flow rate is needed for the 1MW? Hmmm......
They probably did not get it wrong after all!
-
I guess this 1 MW boiler manufacturer has it all wrong then. DN50 outlet and all.
That does say DN50. That is 6 to 16 bar, "Boiler adjustment range." (87 to 232 psi.) Low pressure steam would call for a larger pipe, I think. Perhaps not as heavy duty, but with a larger diameter. Low pressure steam goes slower:
Typical Steam Velocities
- Exhaust steam - 20 to 30 m/s (70 - 100 ft/s)
- Saturated steam - 30 to 40 m/s (100 - 130 ft/s)
- Superheated steam - 40 to 60 m/s (130 -200 ft/s)
-
And is far larger than needed.
Well, that would be an historic first. Imagine an apartment in New York City with equipment larger than necessary, and larger than building codes specify.
(The photo caption said that was in N.Y. City.)
-
I'm not going to rehash it.
I don' see anything backing up your point, but I do see me making the point.
So maybe you should re-hash it so I understand what you mean.
-
Again, if you would look at an actual low pressure steam pipe used to convey ~20 to ~50 kW in an apartment or factory, you will see that it is much larger than DN80. A 1 MW pipe carrying 20 times that would either be 1' or 2', or it would explode.
Velocity for 1500kg/h steam @0 barg in pipe
DN40 => 480m/sec
DN50 => 300m/sec
DN80 => 130m/secWe're talking jet engine dbs and heavy duty mounts for any steam pipe that would have survived even day of Rossi's claimed performance. Neither of those existed. Planet Rossi can't even begin to consider the heat. Going down down down down.
A sinn of all older Italians is (was??), that they exaggerate their capabilities by some small factors. (I guess, woman know this...)
I believe that "4" would be a good guess. Thus DN80 with 250kwh and some nice headphones for visitors. (COP 5 instead of 20.. and so on)
-
IHFB -
Mind plugging in the 200C temperature at say 12-14 bar and see how much flow rate is needed for the 1MW? Hmmm......
They probably did not get it wrong after all!
Not sure where you got 12-14 bar. The linked-to boiler has an adjustment range of 6-16 bar with an optional 10 bar pressure reducer. That is a wide operating range, all using a DN50 pipe.
-
I guess this 1 MW boiler manufacturer has it all wrong then. DN50 outlet and all.
The steam is at a much higher pressure in your link than an ecat boiler unit could handle.
Funnily enough DN40 is about right for a 60kW steam pipe though.
And I looked that up in a textbook, easier than hunting for an in-situ pipe...
-
@IHFB: And seeing as we're working in the real world, as opposed to waving our hands ferociously, you could probably have some fun with the results of this calculator, if so inclined.
http://www.engineersedge.com/f…lpipeflow_calculation.htm
Leave the roughness as is, and put a more realistic pipe fall gradient in (0.01). Its funny how fast water actually flows through a quarter-full gravity-fed pipe... It would have some interesting effects on the flow meters impeller...
A 1 MW pipe carrying 20 times that would either be 1' or 2', or it would explode.
And sorry Jed, but I call BS on this as well. Let's see your hoop stress calcs!
-
Not sure where you got 12-14 bar. The linked-to boiler has an adjustment range of 6-16 bar with an optional 10 bar pressure reducer. That is a wide operating range, all using a DN50 pipe.
I got it from the very link, did you not read all of it? Also, you have not addressed the 200 C temperature! One must not pick and choose here. This temp has more than a doubling effect of the 103 C (or whatever) So you brought up the linked plant as proof that DN50 was plenty big, you need to confirm the effect of the high pressure and very high temp.
Must compare Apple's to Apple's here and as you stated, you provided the example!
-
I got it from the very link, did you not read all of it? Also, you have not addressed the 200 C temperature! One must not pick and choose here. This temp has more than a doubling effect of the 103 C (or whatever) So you brought up the linked plant as proof that DN50 was plenty big, you need to confirm the effect of the high pressure and very high temp.
Must compare Apple's to Apple's here and as you stated, you provided the example!
The doubling of the temperature doesn't significantly affect pipe sizing. The pressure does matter. There are "recommended" velocities that are associated with varying pressures and pipe sizes, but you can't artificially limit a pipe size based solely on those "recommendations." The conventional boiler that I linked to has a wide operating pressure range with a DN50 pipe. I've shown that Rossi likely used DN80 with past plants. There is no reason why he would drop that down on the current plant. I'm about 95% certain that the DN40 claim is bunk.
Edit: I don't see 12-14 bar anywhere in what I linked to.
-
ele,
No need to know anything about condensed matter physics.
Only electric power, fluid power, heat transfer, steam systems, power and energy measurement, the 1st and last being key,
Jed is capable here.
-
IHFB doesn't have any facts - everything provided by Rossi now deserves to be should be treated as fiction as it comes from a self-confessed liar who didn't know when to stop and get off the merry-go-round.
Now he is dragging all of his proselytes around with him.
Better to be a proselyte than a prophylactic like you.
