| 
					 
			 		  			 		    ⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents —  Next Article ⇒ 
New Energy Times home page 
  
		Rönnblom Analysis of Outlet Hose in Rossi Experiment 
				Appendix 5 to New Energy Times Report #3 
By Johan Rönnblom  
I looked at New Energy Times Editor Steven B.  Krivit's video from Andrea Rossi's demonstration of his E-cat apparatus. Here  are some observations I made. 				
When Rossi displays the  steam (actually, mist) at 11:30, we can see that the mist does not move at any  great speed. If there is steam in addition to the mist, it will, of course,  move with the same velocity at the opening of the hose. 
				The density of water vapor  is 0.804 grams per liter. Rossi claims a flow of 7 kg per hour, mostly steam.  At 13:10, the text on the hose is visible, and googling this returns http://www.parkerstore-malz.de/img/industrialhose.pdf,  where this hose is found at Page E6.  
				This means that Rossi's  claim that the hose is a high-temperature hose is incorrect. This hose is rated  for 80 degrees (which of course does not rule out that 100-degree water and/or  vapor can pass through it; this probably only degrades the lifespan of the  hose, rather than destroying it immediately). 
				There is a high-temperature  version of the hose on Page F6, but it is marked TERMOPRESS rather than PRESS,  and the lowest diameter is 20.5 mm. Also, this hose is rated at 120 degrees,  not 180. At 10:11, we can see Rossi holding his hand behind the hose, and we  can see that the diameter is less than his little finger. I therefore conclude  that the hose has a diameter of 15 or 17 mm, which, according to the data  sheet, means that the inner diameter is 8-12 mm. My guess is 17 mm outside and  10 mm inside, but let's calculate for 12 mm. 
				Using Rossi's claim, the  volume per second is (7/0.000804)/3600 l/s = 2.42 l/s = 0.00242 m2/s. With 1.2  cm diameter and 75% steam, the velocity would then be  0.00242*0.75/((0.015/2)^2*pi) = 16.0 m/s. 
				This does not seem  consistent with the observation, and therefore I conclude that either the  throughput is lower or a significant mass part exits the hose as water and/or  mist rather than steam — or a combination of these. 
				For the case in which we  assume that the water enters the hose as vapor but a significant mass part  condenses inside the hose, the hose must absorb somewhere on the order of  several kW heat. This does not appear probable. 
				  
				Brief  Biography of Johan Rönnblom (Stockholm,   Sweden) 
				  Johan Rönnblom has a  master’s degree in mechanical engineering and has studied steam mechanics. He  works as a software engineer. 
				  
						  ⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents —  Next Article ⇒ 
         
		
	
 |