Galantini stated a fact from manual: «4- The thermometers have a margin of error of +/- 0,05 Celsius»
Lomax replied with speculation: «This depends on the probe. However, from other data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.) the probe has an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly overstated the accuracy, it seems, and that is crucial here. The *resolution* is 0.1 C., and I think he munges that into +/- 0.05.» Thermometer must be calibrated in respect of boiling point of water (or other known temperature that is relevant for what is measured) before it can be used for accurate measurements. Without calibration, it's accuracy is just ±0.4°C. But thermometer reproducibility is ±0.05°C and this means that thermometer gives same reading with this accuracy in two consecutive measurements. As Mats Lewan calibrated the thermometer that boiling point was 99.6°C, altough real boiling point in Bologna in that particular day was 99.9°C. This is what it meas that thermometer accuracy is ±0.4. But relative accuracy or precision or reproducibility is always higher in thermometer than the resolution of display. In this case digits are by one decimal, hence ±0.05°C accuracy. I have said this before, but it seems that you are not familiar with this calibration issue. But it was from Galantine vulgar mistake to think that reproducibility or resolution (±0.05) is the same thing as absolute accuracy without calibration (±0.4). But, no other negative comments on your Galantini critique. It was quite accurate up to precision of ±0.05. —Jouni On Aug 11, 2011 3:27 AM, "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]> wrote: > What did Galantini actually say? We finally have > a detailed report from him after so many months, > but it leaves many, many questions unanswered. It > should be remembered that Galantini does not > appear to have qualifications as a steam expert. > He's a chemist and he has a company that provides > environmental analyses, and probably just > happened to have the Testo meter on hand. > > >> Report of the measurements of the steam >> qualità generated by means of the E-Cats made by Leonardo Corporation. >>1- The probes which have been utilized and the >>connected elaborators measure the quantity of >>evaporated water in grams/cubic meter, with a margin of error of +/- 12 grams > > http://www.testo.de/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf > > The Testo meter does not measure "the quantity of > evaporated water," rather obviously. It actually > measures humidity, using a capacitative sensor, > and is insensitive to the wetness of steam. It > will display a calculated value from the sensor, > which is a poymer dielectric which changes > capacitance with water vapor vs. air. The meter > is less accurate close to 100% humidity; in any > case, humidity is what it measures, which is > derived from evaporated water, but the meter > provides no indication of what liquid water is > present. The humidity probe has a rated accuracy > of +/3.5% at humidity greater than 95%. In any > case, what the meter reads is just the relative > humidity translated into absolute humidity based on temperature and pressure. > >>2- We chosen as a parameter the temperature of >>101.1 Celsius, at which at atmospheric pressure >>at sea level (100 kPa) in 1 cubic meter must be >>contained 585 grams of vaporized water, if the >>steam is saturated, as well known > > The pressure in the E-cat will be different from > atmospheric pressure. On the one hand, the device > is not operating at sea level, which would lower > the ambient pressure, and thus the boiling point, > but if steam is being evolved inside the E-cat, > there must be elevated pressure. Because we can > assume that the steam is saturated and at least > somewhat wet, the temperature will correspond exactly to the pressure. > >>3- The pressure in the system has been regulated >>balancing the induced aspiration of the chimney >>after the sink with the pressure drop along the >>pipe, until we reached the atmospheric pressure >>in the chimney and the pipe of the system. The >>pressure has been measured with a deprimometer >>with an error margin of +/- 0,5 Pa, which is an >>error irrelevant to the boiling point of the water > > The first sentence makes no sense to me. The > pressure at the end of the hose must be ambient. > There is some pressure drop along the hose, > though it is likely small. The largest pressure > drop will take place as steam flows and then > expands through the outlet port. The inner > dimension of that port is a critical dimension, > it will produce a given flow rate from a given > pressure of steam. If accurate data were > collected, then it could actually be possible to > estimate the evaporation rate. It wasn't > collected. One would need to know the temperature > more accurately, to get a better measure of the pressure inside the E-Cat. > > What pressure was measured? If he means "the > pressure in the system," where in the system? > How, physically, did he measure it? He says a > "deprimometer," which appears to be an Italian > term for a pressure meter. The Testo 650 does > take a pressure probe. 1 Pa is 10-5 bar. He's > claiming pressure accuracy of 0.5 Pa, but the > pressure probe for the Testo 650 has an accuracy > of 0.1% or 0.2% of full scale, it depends on the > specific probe. Full scale is 2000 hPa. (2 bar) > So the accuracy would be +/- 200 to 400 Pa. Not > 0.5. But this should still be accurate. But he > doesn't say what pressure was measured,he doesn't > give the reading. So what's the point of saying that he measured the pressure? > >>4- The thermometers have a margin of error of +/- 0,05 Celsius > > This depends on the probe. However, from other > data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.) > the probe has an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's > greatly overstated the accuracy, it seems, and > that is crucial here. The *resolution* is 0.1 C., > and I think he munges that into +/- 0.05. > >>5- I made my measurements only when the temperature was exactly 100.1 Celsius > > Plus or minus 0.4 C. > >>6- Since the amount of evaporated water , for >>the saturated steam, is 585 grams/cubic meter, >>as a consequence if the measured amount of >>evaporated water is less than this figure, the >>difference must be or water not evaporated, or >>condensed water. Conservatively, we calculated >>the missing steam totally as if it was non evaporated water > > This is totally bogus. Non-evaporated water will > be present as wetness in the steam. This will not > affect the humidity of the steam, thus it will > not affect the g/m^3 display. The accuracy of the > meter above 95% is +/- 3.5%. The meter is going > to be reading as low as 96.5% even if the > humidity is 100%. That would be 20.5 grams short, if all is well. > >> 7- Conservatively we always considered the >> error margin of all the instruments as if it >> was always in favour of the amount of energy >> produced, so that we always have reduced the >> amount of energy produced of the possible error >> margin. In any case, such amounts of energy due >> to error margins resulted to be irrelevant. > > He's doing energy calculations? I thought he was reporting on steam quality? > >>8- The amount of vaporized water measured has >>always been between 570 and 580 grams/cubic meter. > > In other words, this is saturated steam, 100% > humidity, within meter error of the value for the > temperature and pressure, though I haven't > checked that. It will read this regardless of the > wetness, though I'm not sure what this meter will do if immersed in water. > >>9- We considered the minimum limit of 570 grams, >>conservatively, plus we considered the error >>margin, so that there is a lack of 12 + 15 = 27 grams of vaporized water. >> >>10- This amount of 27 grams is the 4.73% IN MASS of not vaporized water. > > He absolutely has no clue what he's doing. He's > lucky he came up with a reasonable value (5% is > normal boiler steam wetness), because the steam > quality could be 50% and the measurements would > likely be the same. Notice that in his earlier > reports he stated that the steam was dry. I have > a strong suspicion that he just made up all of > the above, it's not what he actually did. But maybe it is. > >>11- Therefore the amount of energy produced by >>means of the E-Cat has to be reduced of 4.73% , >>if all the error margins are calculated to >>increase the lack of vaporized water; without >>calculating the error margins, the reduction of energy skoulb be around the 2% >> >>12- An empirical confirmation, not rigorous >>though, is the fact that I extracted many times >>the probe from the chimney of the reactor, and >>it was “ictu oculi” dry: being the chimney a >>small vertical cylinder, due to the gravity in >>short time it would be filled by water, if >>significant amount of water shouldn’t evaporate, >>with two consequences: i) the temperature could >>not be 101.1 Celsius and ii) the probe would have been wet. > > Many of us believe that the E-cat is likely to be > overflowing as a normal condition. It certainly > starts that way. It would be filled with boiling > water. He seems to think that 100.1 C could not > be the temperature of boiling water, but he's > neglecting the internal pressure, which could > certainly raise the temperature to that level. > > Detailed records of temperature measured > precisely would tell us more of a story. The > temperature should reach boiling as the thing > heats up, then *very slightly raise* as steam > evolution increases, due to the increased > pressure from increased steam volume and flow. > > But what about the probe appearing dry? He hasn't > stated which probe he pulled. The temperature > probe or the humidity probe. However, I'd assume > this was the humidity probe. The mechanics have > not been described. When the probe is pulled, > does steam spurt out of the device through the > probe insertion point? He doesn't tell us how he > was making the measurements. There were witnesses > to the January test, maybe they know what he was doing. > > If the probe(s) can be inserted and removed > during operation, without spewing steam, possibly > scalding the person pulling them, then there must > be something in the instrument port that blocks > steam. It would also block water. It would "wipe" > the probe as it is pulled. The probe is at > boiling at an elevated temperature above ambient > boiling temperature. A thin film of water would immediately evaporate. > > I did look at what a knife immersed in boiling > water and pulled out would show. Only the end of > the knife was supposedly immersed, this was in a > teakettle, through the pour spout. There wasn't > much pressure, I'm sure, because the opening was > large about an inch in diameter. The kettle was > making lots of steam. The knife was wet, but, in > fact, the *whole knife* was wet. Not just the > part immersed, supposedly. The water did not > disappear. I don't think I had any pressure, so > the effect I anticipate from pulling a probe out > of steam under a little pressure would not happen. > >>13- I have not been requested to make videos > > We needed to know this? > >>14- To measure the pressure has been used a >>deprimometer Testo, but I also used a water >>column vulgaris, and the displacement has been less of 1 mm > > How he did this and how that measurement applies > to pressure inside the E-Cat, which is the > critical pressure, is unknown. He doesn't say. > > The Testo pressure probe, as I recall, is only > rated to 60 C. So he could not have measured the pressure of the steam. > >>15- To measure the temperatures have been used >>Testo Data loggers, already defined in the reports, property of Leonardo Corp > > He seems to have been unfamiliar with the accuracy of those probes. > >>Dr Gilberto Galantini, Order of Chemists of Ferrara N°A 194 > > Notice: Chemist. Not steam engineer. > >
