On Sep 15, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted
to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking
something practical has been created, the basis for the
"calorimetry" of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis
in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet
right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously
did not condense there.
That is true. However, in the Krivit test and other previous tests,
the flow rate was lower, so I do not think you can compare them.
I provided the numbers Jed. As I showed numerically, it was not
reasonable that no water was ejected in the prior demonstration tests
unless the tests were run at precisely the right input power (from
electric plus LENR) at all times to just boil all the water yet not
raise the steam temperature. Not likely! Further, I showed that at
the flow rates and input power, with no LENR power, the results of
prior demonstration runs could be replicated *provided no one looked*
to see if water was flowing out of the E-cat. Now we have the
fortunate case that *someone actually looked*. The emperor has no
clothes! No one will be making the assertion (at least with any
credibility) that all the water has been converted to steam, without
some good level of actual physical observation. The prior assertions,
that all the water has been converted to steam, made without actually
looking, now clearly have no credibility whatsoever. Those prior
assertions actually never did have any credibility. That is the
relevant comparison.
Also if they had put a probe into this stream of steam and water
and withdrawn it, it would have come out wet, whereas in previous
tests it was dry.
This depends on where the probe was located inside the device. It
was located where the temperature was above 102°C. It therefore was
in a well away from the water flow.
In general I agree that a non-steady state mixture of water and
steam is difficult to measure. I wish that Lewan had sparged the
steam and water. Before this test, I sent messages to Lewan, Rossi
and others urging them to do this, but they did not. They had a
perfect opportunity to do this, with that large plastic trashcan.
It will easily hold enough water to condense all of the steam.
This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to
insulate the barrel. Also, better to run the output through a heat
exchanger first and do flow calorimetry on the cooling water, and
isoperibolic calorimetry on the cooling water source and water out.
Most high school kids could probably build a heat exchanger suitable
for this.
By the way, flow rate was almost exactly 3 g per second.
This is not known. It is only known for the period of time for
which flow measurements were actually made. The new E-cat obviously
has some means to restrict output flow rate (and thus input flow
rate) and to drive pressure way up. The pump likely does not pump
at the same volume against all pressure heads. It would be
interesting to know how such a pump reacts to a complete output flow
blockage at the E-cat end of the input hose. It appears that such a
flow blockage occurred prior to the venting of the water plus steam
at the bottom of the device at the end of the test.
Input power will be enough to vaporize 0.7 g assuming no heat
radiated from the device. That is extremely unrealistic. So the
fact that about half the water was vaporized does indicate there
was excess heat.
More to the point, during the 35 min. heat after death event, the
temperature did not decline much. This is proof that there was
anomalous heat. Stored heat can only produce a temperature that
declines rapidly at first and then gradually.
This is false. There is thermal storage on the outside of the
device, in the form of lead. The thermal resistance between this
material is much higher than the thermal resistance between the
heater and the water. The test documented was highly dynamic. It
is entirely feasible and in fact predictable that a thermal pulse
would arrive from the lead thermal storage layer in a delayed fashion.
In the arctic, where water pipes are often buried 10 ft deep or more,
it sometimes takes hours for a thermal pulse to freeze the pipes.
If one cold night occurs, followed by a warm day, the pipes can
freeze during the warm day because the cold thermal pulse is just
arriving at the pipes.
After the power went off the temperature did not decline rapidly.
Therefore the input power of 2.5 kW was only a fraction of the
total power. If the total power was around 5 kW where 2.5 kW was
half, the temperature would've fallen a lot faster and sooner.
We do not know that. We do not know the interior construction. What
we do know is the new device is massive, 80 kg dry weight from
Lewan's report. That is a huge thermal mass.
Lewan estimates the water volume of the cell at 22 to 30 L. If
there had been no anomalous heat the temperature would have fallen
sharply within minutes. You can boil a pot of 22 L of hot water and
observe this easily.
This is a false analogy. A pot does not weigh 80 kilograms, and is
not insulated.
Turn off the heat, and it stops boiling instantly. It starts to
cool a few degrees in minutes. The temperature never rises and
never stabilizes, unless you change the insulation (or the flow
rate, in this case). In this case the temperature will certainly
fall quickly because during the 35 min. 6 kg of cold water was
added to the cell. The heat capacity of this water far exceeds the
total heat capacity of all the metal in the cell.
This is not known. We know nothing of what the 80 kg of mass
comprises. We do not know the temperature to which the thermal mass
was driven. The specific heat of water is 4.186 is 4.186 kJ/(kg K).
Delta T for the water to boiling is 70°C. That is (4.186 kJ/(kg K))*
(70 K)*(6 kg) = 1758 J to heat the water to boiling. Suppose the 80
kg thermal mass o the E-cat is mostly steel and copper (at 0.40 kJ/
(kg K)) and driven to a temperature of 200°C. That is (at 0.40 kJ/
(kg K))*(200 K)*(80 kg) = 6400 J, about 3 times as much as needed to
bring that flow to boiling. Further, we do not know the actual flow
rate for that period because we do not know the pressure head the
pump was driving against, unless of course the 6 kg was actually
measured for that period? Also, is the project so cash encumbered
that it can not afford a kWh meter?
Of course the thermal mass could possibly be mostly lead (at 0.14 kJ/
(kg K)), but on the other hand it could be mostly Mg ((at 1.05 kJ/(kg
K)). We don't really know. Even if it is mostly lead, and driven to
200°C, it will still hold more than required to bring the 6 kg to
boiling. Since the amount of steam was not actually measured not
much more energy has to be supplied to provide some steam.
It is also notable that the thermal mass could be heated to more than
200°C. We don't know the nature of the heating element or its
location. We are otally in the dark and force to guess about most
everything. The important thing is obviously to obtain a quality
measurement of total energy in vs total energy out for each test.
Then no knowledge of what is in the E-cat is necessary. What could be
more simple?
Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more
difficult regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far
better regime for self deception.
That is true, but there is no doubt it was boiling for 35 minutes
with no input power. Anyone who ignores this fact is engaged in
the worst kind of self-deception imaginable.
I think ignoring the new demonstration, which is an even better
playground for self delusion than the previous demonstrations, is
reasonable. The prior demonstrations were very badly done,
demonstrated nothing. The new one thus far has the same fundamental
problems, only they are worse. Even more guessing games are
required. Even more conversation is generated. Much more work is
required for any kind sensible analysis (if that is even possible) of
the pittance of data available, due to the thermal dynamics
involved. What a waste of time. Maybe the best thing I could do is
go away for a month or two and come back to see if the conversation
here is still at the same nonsensical level it is now. Maybe NASA
will look at Rossi's device. Maybe they will confirm that something
novel is happening. I hope so.
Further, the E-cat mass has been greatly increased, and the max
input power increased. The "heat after death" from mundane causes
will now obviously be much longer.
This cannot sustain boiling for more than a few seconds, at this
flow rate. Metal cannot store much heat, and this cell was
producing excess heat the whole time, so there was no possible
storage at all. With 2.5 kW input only, it would have transitioned
from boiling about one third of the water to boiling none of it,
and that would have taken a few seconds at most.
Good grief! Did you bother to do any calculations?
- Jed
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
