At 04:19 PM 6/22/2011, Michele Comitini wrote:
2011/6/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>:
> The problem with this is that water would condense on the probe. You would
> always see 100% liquid water, if this is how
it's being detected, unless you
> preheated the probe. Tricky. There are descriptions on-line of how to
> measure steam quality, and this approach is not mentioned at all.
Condense on the probe? What is the temperature
of the probe? > 100° C or less?
Galantini would not make such a mistake...
What make syou think that? What's Galantini's expertise?
The probe would enter the chimney, presumably in
the port provided. It would be below 100 C and
would take time to heat up. Meanwhile, it would
get wet because steam would condense on it (this
would heat it rapidly). If the steam is wet, the
condensation would stay, but I don't think that
dry steam would quickly remove the water; only if
the RH is below 100% would water be quickly
removed, if I understand this correctly.
If the probe were preheated, and the steam is
dry, no water would condense on the probe, unless
it somehow cooled (through its body, perhaps). If
the steam is wet, though, the surface would
become wet, I'd expect. I don't see how such a
probe can measure the total water content of the steam.
So we should think Galantini setup instruments picking up the first
probe without understanding how it works.
Or he always makes this kind of mesures just to fool people?
We do not know how many measurements of this kind
Galantini has ever made. We don't know if it's
his meter or he borrowed it or checked it out
from the university equipment stores.
I have no reason to think that Galantini set out
to fool anyone, but it is possible that he made a mistake.
This is not a mistake that someone who routinely
makes steam quality measurements would make. Is
there any evidence that Galantini (a chemist!)
routinely makes such measurements? It would not
be expected, particularly. He was presented as an
"expert chemist," not an expert steam quality engineer!
> Do you see his actual measured values anywhere? Seems to me I saw something
> somewhere.
>
I recall that something is on JONP... no time to search in that mess.
mic
I've searched and can't find it, but you know how
that goes. I expect someone will find it if it is
there. What I do see is that lots of people are
referring to non-reports, without any specific
information, as if they were definitive reports,
the BS factor is huge here. On all sides.
