The boiling point of water

Well-established, eh? There are complexities, some of which I knew, some not. Thanks to Paradigmnoia, who is almost always informed and informative, if not always transparent at first. He’s kind of an anti-Abd, the kind which, when combined with an Abd, can generate pure energy.

He pointed to The Myth of the Boiling Point, by Hasok Chang of the University of Cambridge. I highly recommend this article for the history of science and as an example of a scientific approach where ideas are tested and confirmed (or rejected) by experiment, instead of by just shoving words around.

And then I look at how all this applies to Rossi’s work, and turn to an explanation of what this blog is, what the “cold fusion community” is, and how we will transform the scientific mainstream, powerfully and effectively. Or, at least, take the first steps in that direction.

Chang doesn’t deal with pressure, but only looks at water at one atmosphere (presumably, could there be error there?). De-gassed water may remain unboiled at up to 108-109 C. Then it may boil explosively. That is superheated water.

For our interests, dry steam, containing no entrained or co-existing liquid water, cannot be assumed merely from temperature and pressure (unless the temperature is much higher than the boiling point). While steam and water coexisting at above the “boiling point” are not stable, that is not an equilibrium condition, there would then be an issue of time. For how long could they co-exist? Steam and fog (suspended water droplets) will rapidly come to equilibrium because the water surface area to volume ratio will be high, and thus heat transfer will be rapid, but if, for example, the water is condensed, running below the steam, the heat transfer across the lower surface area will be slow, and the temperature in the pipe may vary from the top to the bottom. The top could be seriously superheated and the bottom still liquid.

In public examination of the Rossi tests, this was all laid out in some detail in 2011, yet Rossi and Rossi’s friendly scientists ignored it, never responding to critique pointing out that it cannot be assumed that all water flow is completely evaporated. Often the discussion hinged on “steam quality,” and somehow an illusion existed among people who should have known better, we’d think, that a humidity meter can be used to measure steam quality. After all, the meter has a g/m^3 display; however that is only a calculated display from humidity, and the meter, from how it is constructed, cannot detect liquid water. There are no “steam quality meters.” It’s a difficult measurement!

(Wrong. I did the research in 2011. They now exist. This meter apparently can generate mass flow, steam quality, and heat flow signals. Want to see some thorough engineering considerations? Manufacturer promotional video.  A Prowirl 200 sold on eBay for $1200. What all this reveals is the astonishingly amateurish work of Rossi and Penon. This meter existed in 2014.)

However, low “steam quality” is only the literal tip of this iceberg. What about running liquid water?

There are more problems. As pointed out by THH, recently, if steam is superheated, i.e., if it actually is dry, water-free, it will no longer regulate temperature, and any additional heat will raise the temperature considerably. A constant temperature in the steam pipe is an indication that the steam still contains unevaporated water. Only if the heating were tightly controlled with unvarying conditions might this be different, and it would be quite difficult to control the steam temperature to exactly the equilibrium temperature for the pressure. Atmospheric pressure varies, so if the steam pipe actually is at atmospheric pressure, and if the heating is constant and the steam is fully evaporated, the temperature must vary with atmospheric pressure. One of the charts prepared (by Paradigmnoia or THH?) compared them (using weather service records of pressure). Is there a correlation?

These facts do not prove that the Doral Plant had “no XP.” That is probably impossible to prove. However, this and other clear facts about that Plant, from the evidence we have, indicate that the “test” results are unreliable, something is off. That this doubt relates to problems that were raised over five years ago, that were well-known, is appalling.

It is clear that the “test” was not designed to address possible error sources, but, instead, depended on assumptions of honesty, freedom from manipulation by the inventor, and not only honesty, but full competent design, satisfying experts in steam measurements (HVAC engineers, generally, not “nuclear engineers,” necessarily, who do not deal with ragged designs). The “Final Report Annexe” is not the full report, only a daily data appendix, and it obviously assumes full evaporation of 90% of the poorly-measured flow, a single meter being operated out of specified range. That more precise measurements and calculations were not made was based on a request by Rossi that 10% of the flow be deducted “to be conservative.”

Personally, I would want an engineering review to be precise and as accurate as possible, with, then, estimates of possible error, not “conservative” or — what’s the opposite of conservative? Naive and foolish? Reckless?

Real science is highly conservative, it does not assume that single instruments are correct, because … as an example, for all we can tell from the data, the pressure sensor was inoperative. The sensor specified in the proposed protocol (early February, 2015) would have read absolute pressure, not gauge pressure, but obviously the readings given are gauge pressure (even though stated in the Report as “bar,” which is absolute pressure).

The Penon suggested protocol was inadequate, so why didn’t IH object to it? This then becomes a story of business intention and considerations, of how IH had decided to handle relations with a famously touchy and reactive inventor. As long as they could monitor the “test,” and as long as they had not consented in writing to the start date, they were safe, and maybe he would demonstrate something real, that’s my interpretation of their behavior. However, by July, 2015, Rossi had refused entry to the IH engineer, Murray. So by roughly August, IH and Rossi were communicating through and with the participation of attorneys. The implication by Rossi, on his blog, many times, that they did not object “until it was time to pay” is a lie, taking its place among many others.

Peter Gluck repeatedly claims that there is a conspiracy to denigrate and condemn Rossi as “evil.” I don’t think that way at all. I’m just looking at fact. One might lie in the service of “good.” People do, commonly. I also think that, absent clear necessity, this is a serious mistake, but that is another matter.

LENR progress needs full-on honesty and clarity, not lies and deceptions, at one extreme, and not fuzzy wishful thinking and failure to understand and address critique, at the other.

It is time for LENR to grow up, to stop blaming everyone else for rejection, to take responsibility for how LENR is presented to mainstream science and to the public. What we need to overcome the rejection cascade already exists, and if it isn’t enough, it can be improved, that has been obvious for years, yet …. it is only now that the necessary work is being done. It could have been done 25 years ago. Why was this not done?

To address this, we need look no further than our own community and what has been missing from it.

This blog is named for and dedicated to the “cold fusion community.” Who is that? In my concept as the registered owner of the domain and person legally responsible for hosting, anyone who declares themselves a member of the “community of interest” — in LENR or “cold fusion,” — is, by definition, a member. However, to be recognized and to participate in community decision-making (which is only the negotiation and discovery of consensus, this community, itself, is not a funding agency, but is only advisory), one must register and actually participate. As the Owner, at this point, I will act as advised by community consensus. Until structures are set up, which will require participation (I’m not going to set them up in a vacuum), I am the only Indian here, Chief of himself. As such, I can still be advised, and I am seeking advice, some documents here have been written but not published until they have had ample opportunity for private review, and published documents may be amended to reflect additional views, as an example).

It’s about time.

for even more amazing historical fact on water boiling:

The superheating race (200 C!)

A discussion of the engineering view of boiling vs the scientific view:

Discussion point 3: Modern theories of boiling

When I was reading the overall article, what occurred to me as an “explanation” of the elevated boiling temperatures was “surface tension.” Yes, apparently my scientific intuition is still functioning. Thanks, Reality!

I absolutely love coming across ordinary events that are not fully explained. Some of the experiments done by Chang could easily be done at home, they are practically trivial. (Be aware that superheated water can explode! Expect explosion and use gloves and eye protection!).

My own recent personal explorations are with entoptic phenomena. Now that I know what to look for, I see these under a wide variety of conditions. Seeing what I’m going to call the retinal surface mat, for the first time, a couple of weeks ago at most, was utterly astonishing. But it has been there my whole life! Now, if I look at the sky, I easily see what are known to be white blood cells, they are obvious! If I close my eyes, and open my left eye, looking at blue sky, I immediately see a piece of the mat. It not blue, it is an off-white patch, somewhat yellowish, and I see the blood vessels in it. This normally appears to vanish in a fraction of a second. With a moving pinhole, I see incredible detail, all waiting patiently for me to actually look. (With a stationary pinhole held close to the eye, I see the “surface junk,” including possible floaters.) What are the tiny black dots?

The pinhole trick is described on a Gizmodo page, linking to a video, and then we can see the usual dumb blog comments! It is obvious: there are people aplenty who would rather make snarky comments than actually look at what is plainer than the nose on their face. Grabbing a link to the video, I saw an ad. Tai Lopez. Fascinating, it was. My thought: selling ice to Eskimos. It can be lucrative if the Eskimos never look at what is all around them. (And, unfortunately, in spite of selling some real ice, Tai Lopez apparently lies about himself).

Actually looking is the core of science.


Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


Leave a Reply