I have completed my review of the data collected during the October 6 test of the self sustaining ECAT. This has been an interesting endeavor that has convinced me that Rossi actually has achieved his goal. There is still gold hidden within the graph of T2 versus Time, but I will leave that for others to mine. Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The October test of the latest version of the ECAT generated a large volume of data that I have mined extensively in my quest to understand some of the characteristics of the device. Most of the low hanging fruit has now been plucked and the task has become far more difficult. There is however one more item that I wish to hypothesize upon. I have been gazing at the last plateau of the curve defining the temperature within the ECAT (T2) as a function of time. Obtain the high definition version of this graph from one of my previous documents as a reference. This can be found at http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3303817.ece/BINARY/Updated+analysis+Ecat+Oct+6+Roberson+%28pdf%29. Locate the beginning of the plateau at time stamp 25000 and follow it to the end of the test procedure at approximately 30000 seconds. This is the region under focus. The portion of the curve that begins at around 13000 seconds into the experiment demonstrates a long time constant that continues at least until 22000 seconds. After this time, the temperature curve begins to flatten off and stays flat until the beginning of the region of interest for this document. This rise has been a thorn in the side of many of our members that seems to defy explanation. One may be at hand. First, you must realize that the ECAT core is operating in a stable mode. By this, I mean that its output power is probably following an exponential decay as it slowly cools down during self sustaining mode. The rate of cooling is indicated by the large time constant that I referred to above. As example, at time 13000 the temperature of the water bath is approximately 121 degrees C. By the time that this time constant is hidden within the new effect at 22000 seconds, the T2 reading has decayed to 117.5 C. There seems to be insufficient data available to readily calculate the power associated with this temperature. But other indications act as our guide. Second, I used the readings at around time stamp 15420 to arrive at my estimate of the power capability of the ECAT. The reasons for this choice of time for the calculation is complex and I will explain them if absolutely necessary and then by direct email only. The high temperature associated with this reading strongly suggests that the output stream into the heat exchanger is totally vapor. Remember that the power is dropping off according to an exponential decay which results in a significant power delta as time progresses. Allow your thoughts to follow the curve T2 from 15420 forward until you just arrive at the beginning of the anomalous rise in temperature at time stamp 24000 seconds. I contend that this rise does not reflect an increase in output power from the core but is in fact an illusion. It is true that the energy contained within the water bath has increased due to a higher temperature and pressure reading, but this does not prove that the power output of the core has increased. It is my hypothesis that the action of the output section causes the observation according to the following mechanism. Core output power drops steadily with time by the relationship above. As this power drops, the power absorbed by the water follows as this is the only outlet for the energy from the core. Less and less boiling results as the power slowly decays. Initially, a hurricane of vapor forces its way into the output port keeping most of the water out of its path. This very dry vapor causes any water contained within to flash instantly into steam as it exits the check valve. As time proceeds forward, the hurricane becomes merely a bad storm and continues to have less strength. I suspect that the slowly rising edge starting at time mark 24000 and continuing to 25500 represents the transition region between virtually total vapor and a phase mix heavy in water. The pressure is climbing as the output valve passage becomes clogged with water. At first this low quality mix will all flash into steam upon exiting the valve, but eventually water remains. As the power continues to fall long enough, the output of the ECAT will become water at a temperature elevated above 100 C. A small portion of this hot water will continue to flash into vapor upon exit of the check valve which can then keep the water stream moving throughout the heat exchanger and onward to the plumbing sink. As this time approaches, the input region of the heat exchanger will exhibit a pressure reading quite close to atmospheric. We can estimate the pressure at which the check valve begins to open and it is 1.64 bars (114 C). I used the reading at time mark 23000 to obtain this value. This particular temperature was chosen since it represents the minimum value reached while the output stream was mostly vapor. The rapid drop in T2 which occurs at the very end of the test (32000 +) is not explained within this report. The abrupt nature of the effect suggests a valve closure, but it would be unusual for that to occur with the input water flow rate assumed. It is likely that the ECAT was ejecting a vapor and water mix when Mats Lewan made his output flow rate determinations. The water and vapor mix will modify the power output estimate dramatically for his measurement at time stamp of 28619. The quality of the vapor output during this period is very difficult to determine accurately with the limited data available. I made an educated guess by assuming that the quality readings at both test time stamps were such that approximately the same amount of vapor (.182 grams/second) was exiting. A quality value of .2 for the .91 grams/second measurement and .095 during the 1.92 grams/second measurement achieved this goal. Additional support for this estimate is found in the fact that the actual power delivered to the heat exchanger was in proportion to the ratio (1.55) measured by taking into account the thermocouple readings available. This calculation neatly connects that anomalous data into the web. Time will tell whether or not these assumptions are anywhere near reality. An attempt to accurately estimate the ECAT power output requires that we include the leakage water escaping from the device seals which is reported to be 2 liters/hour. The final estimated output power is (.728 grams/second x 4.188 joules/gram-C x (116.6 C – 23.8 C) + .182 grams/second x 2260 joules/gram = 691.85 watts) for the normal path through the heat exchanger and (.55555 grams/second x 4.188 joules/gram-C x (116.6 C-23.8 C) = 215.9 watts) by escaping the enclosure. The total of these two power output sources is 691.85 watts + 215.9 watts = 907.75 watts. The core device of the ECAT is also supplying heat to the outside surface of its container. It is reported that these surfaces are quite hot to the touch. Someone should calculate the power lost through this mechanism which can then be added to the core performance. An estimate of 500 watts for this effect is a good beginning until it can be calculated with precision. Adding these figures together yields a power of 1407.75 watts core output for this time stamp. Recall that I came up with an estimate of 3125 watts in an earlier document at time 15420. This calculation did not include the other losses. The total core output power is 3125 watts + 500 watts + (.55555 grams/second x 4.188 joules/gram-C x 92.8 C) 215.9 watts = 3840 watts. The core output power appears to have drooped from an initial value of 3840 to a final value of 1407.75 throughout the test period. The above calculation may upset your confidence in the ECAT, but I see otherwise. The power output under driven conditions was pretty much as expected at approximately 3840 watts. This was the result of only one core module contributing to the output. When two additional cores are placed in close proximity to the current one, we can be assured that there will be interaction. The heat flow toward the heat sink from the core region will be several times as large as before. This will result in a temperature gradient that increases in the direction of the cores resulting in more output power. There is evidence that the combination of three cores results in improved power output consistency because of this positive feedback phenomenon. The large 1 MW system test demonstrates this by exhibiting nearly constant output when in the self sustaining mode. Individual core test performance apparently does not translate directly into three core test performance unless the results are calibrated to take into account the two absent cores. I have taken the opportunity to consider the assumed design parameters of the ECAT device and have factored in feedback that has been generously offered to me by my colleagues. My present inclination is to assume that the ECAT function probably relies upon heat generated within the core module itself as opposed to radiation escape. If this assumption is accurate, then Mr. Rossi has carefully adjusted the thermal impedance existing between the cores and the heat sink. This resistance is used as a form of thermal impedance matching. The cores operate at somewhat greater than 600 C while the heat sink is substantially lower in temperature. The varying thermal resistance paths would have to be responsible for the two dramatically different time constants seen and reported during my previous document. One interesting possibility suggests itself immediately. Positive feedback is often applied within the world of radio design to enhance the quality (Q) of resonant circuits. Perhaps the positive feedback generated by the careful trapping of heat within the ECAT core modules results in the observed response. If this is true, one would see the self sustaining mode become flatter as the core heats up until a critical temperature occurs at which point thermal run away would begin. This interesting mechanism will only occur if the power output of the core versus temperature is non linear. It is hoped that the supporting data for this assumption is revealed by Mr. Rossi when he reveals the physics behind his ECAT. OVERALL CONCLUSION This constitutes the final document that I will submit regarding the performance of the ECAT device during the October 6, test. Uncovering the facts to the best of my abilities has constituted the solution to a complex puzzle with well hidden clues somewhat like solving a mystery crime. I hope that Sherlock Holmes would be proud of the results. This endeavor has demonstrated that Mr. Rossi has achieved a marvelous goal. He deserves our never ending gratitude for bringing forth the instrument that will make the world a far better, fairer, and safer environment for mankind. We will be freed from the bonds of the fossil fuel lords if the political obstacles can be overcome, which I have faith will happen. I am saddened that 20 years was allowed to expire before this day by the actions of a few well connected ignorant people who will remain unmentioned. We can take comfort in the knowledge that many dedicated scientists and others have doggedly pursued the elusive effects of LENR reactions during this period with virtually nonexistent support from main line science funding sources. Their efforts are greatly appreciated. In conclusion, LENR also known by many as “Cold Fusion” is real and proven. Any lingering doubts as to the validity of this statement will be removed in the very near future as more and more devices emerge. The first monumental demonstration by Mr. Rossi will be followed by many more as his Model-T device is upgraded and additional competitors spring forward. His dedicated effort will be long remembered in the history of our civilization and if fairness prevails he will be awarded the Nobel Prize. David Roberson
