Just a few comments on your comments (parts I didn't comment on have
been snipped away)...
On 11-09-21 08:18 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
[ ... ]
However, the graph makes no sense. There is no sign of things coming
asymptotically to an equilibrium as would be expected.
Yes, indeed. The graph is impossible. It was one of my "Rossi moments"
when I realized that the (piecewise linear!) graph didn't correspond at
all to the interpretation as showing that the reaction "ignited" when
the temp reached sixty degrees.
If there were no water flowing through the device -- or if the
thermometer were isolated from the flowing water -- then the graph would
be reasonable: Linear temperature rise is what we'd expect with constant
heat applied (and constant thermal mass). The problem is in trying to
reconcile the graph with *flowing* water, where what we might call the
"effective thermal mass" of the system rises linearly with the effluent
temperature, due to the linearly increasing cost of heating the water.
Suppose for a moment it takes no energy to bring the temperature of
the copper etc. up to equilibrium temperature of 60°C, that the copper
is a perfect insulator (except for the heating chamber walls), and
thus has no heat capacity, and that there is no heat loss through the
insulation. If the device has no water in it initially, the outlet
temperature would remain at room temperature until the water reached
it, and then it would instantly jump to 60°C, because the heater
*continually* provides enough heat to send the water out of the
heating chamber at 60°C.
Now, assume that the temperature rise is slow and constant because the
device metal and possibly some residual water requires heating. There
is a problem with this because it would be expected that as the copper
comes up to equilibrium with the water temperature, the delta T
between the water and copper at each point decreases, and the output
temperature curve would asymptotically approach 60 degrees instead of
heading there as a flat line.
Sure, it would look a whole lot like a capacitor charge curve, where
it's being charged through a resistor.
Similarly, the elbow, the increase in temperature curve slope to a new
constant value, appears to be an instantaneous increase in power
output. If there were a sudden increase in power applied to the
heating chamber, it would seem that the copper between the chamber and
the temperature sensor would again have to be heated, as well as the
water in the device.
The temperature curve almost looks like what would be expected if a
well stirred pot of water were being heated. It should not look like
this. There is a water flow in and out.
Right, there is supposed to be water flowing through the system ... but
that's not what the graph says, is it? Very interesting.
Suppose the device were initially full of a liter of water at 18°C,
when the flow and power were turned on. This means, for the 300 W to
bring the inflow of water to exactly 60°C in the 9 minutes, the
existing pool of water could have been heated at all. It would all
have to flow out the port at exactly 18°C until the 60°C water arrived
at the thermometer. This does not happen, as shown in the temperature
graph. The vicinity of the thermometer gradually warms up.
It is questionable that the device should suddenly turn on hydrogen
energy at 60°C. In the (later) water only test which was not public a
mere 5°C sustained rise in water temperature was enough to maintain
the supposed hydrogen energy production.
THE "KINK" ELBOW OF HEAT RISE AT 60°C
E&K: "Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be
seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation.
(Figure 6). A temperature of 97.5 °C is reached at 10:40. The time
taken to bring the water from 60 to 97.5 °C is 4 minutes."
The slope of the lower elbow section was (60°C)/(9 min) = 6.7°C/min.
The slope of the upper elbow is (37.5°C)/(4 min) = 9.4 °C/min. If the
first slope represents 300 W, then the second slope represents
(9.4/6.7)*(300 W) = 421 W.
A KEY STATEMENT
E&K: "The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45
all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the
outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. This
means that from this point in time, 10:45, 4.69 kW power is delivered
to the heating and vaporization, and 4.69 – 0.30 = 4.39 kW would have
to come from the energy produced in the internal nickel-hydrogen
container."
This looks absurd. The power suddenly goes from 421 W to 4.69 kW when
the water temperature reaches 100°C??
The most notable part of this E&K statement is the phrase: "visual
checks of the outlet tube". This appears to mean periodic checks of
the end of the rubber tube, in a manner similar to that done in the
Krivit demonstration. Obviously only steam would come out of the top
port, because the liquid water is separated, flowing out the hose.
Further, if 4.69 kW of steam would produce a steam flow of about 3000
cc/sec, given 1.8 gm/s input flow at 18*C. Through a 1 cm^2 opening
this would have been a velocity of 30 m/sec, certainly highly notable
by the observers! What a great photo or video that huge flow of steam
would make! No corresponding note or recording was made.
It is highly unlikely the power output was sustained at *exactly* 4.69
kW for the entire run. This would be necessary to fulfill both
conditions noted in the report, namely (1) all water flow was
converted to steam, and (2) the outlet temperature remained between
100°C and 100.4°C. If a mere 10 W additional were added beyond the
perfect 2 conditions noted, then the steam temperature would increase
to 108°C. This did not happen. The only logical conclusion is all the
water was not converted to steam.
Right; liquid water at the outlet provides the "internal feedback"
necessary to nail the temperature at boiling ... as has, I think, been
observed earlier during this discussion.
Absent the presence of liquid water in the effluent, some very precise
control feedback must have been present, but there's no evidence of the
existence of such a system.
Water was flowing out of the exit port. In fact, based on the elbow
and two slopes of the temperature curve, it could be expected that
very little power was actually involved in steam formation at 10:45.
Water was likely pouring out of the exit port at near 1.8 cm^3/sec.
Based on the T vs t slopes it seems possible the power for most of the
first part of the elbow, for abut 9 minutes, was around 533 W, and the
second part of the elbow, and maybe beyond, it was about 748 W, the
power applied in the Krivit demonstration. This is certainly more
credible than a nearly instant power surge of 4 kW when the
temperature hit 100°C. It looks as if power was possibly switched to
the preheater element at some initial point and then the band heater
kicked in at a later point. There is no way of knowing exactly what
electrical power was applied throughout because it was not recorded,
and most importantly not integrated via a kWh meter. There is no way
of knowing the actual enthalpy was generated because the output heat
flow was not measured.
Despite having access to much of the E-cat device, to make credible
measurements Essén and Kullander would have had to come prepared with
their own calorimetry equipment and a kWh meter in order to make good
use of that access.
OPERATION
E&K: "The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified
Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to
550°C. The measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was
non-vaporized, at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was
non-vaporized."
This is nonsense because the Testo 650 is a relative humidity meter
http://www.instrumart.com/products/28689/testo-650-humidity-meter?s_kwcid=TC|23075|testo%20650||S|p|7377156844&gclid=CNmO966qr6sCFRAaQgodCD0zJQ
http://tinyurl.com/3hdw68c
The relative humidity of steam is 100%. If less than 100% was measured
it means there is air in the probe well. Further, this measurement
ignores the water which can pour out of the exit port, or bubble or
spurt out by a percolator effect, and which is not measured.
E&K: "The energy produced inside the device is calculated to be
(1.000-0.013)(16:30-10:45)4.39 =25 kWh."
This calculation is utterly without foundation.
DISCUSSION
E&K: "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50
cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is
that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the
measured energy production."
This conclusion is without foundation because the 25 kWh number is
without foundation. Due to inadequate instrumentation there is not
even solid evidence the the power out is greater than the electrical
power in. There are various inconsistencies in the report that can not
be resolved without more detailed knowledge of the inside of the E-cat
at the time, and better instrumentation for the test.
HEAT FLOW THROUGH THE NICKEL CONTAINING STAINLESS STEEL COMPARTMENT
If the stainless steel compartment has a surface area of approximately
S = 180 cm^2, as approximated above, and 4.39 kW heat flow through it
occurred, as specified in the report, then the heat flow was (4390
W)/(180 cm^2) = 24.3 W/cm^2 = 2.4x10^5 W/m^2.
The thermal conductivity of stainless steel is 16 W/(m K). The
compartment area is 180 cm^2 or 1.8x10^-2 m^2. If the wall thickness
is 2 mm = 0.002 m, then the thermal resistance R of the compartment is:
R = (0.002 m)/(16 W/(m K)*(1.8x10^-2 m^2) = 1.78 °C/W
Producing a heat flow of 4.39 kW, or 4390 W then requires a delta T
given as:
delta T = (1.78 °C/W) * (4390 W) = 7800 °C
The melting point of Ni is 1453°C. Even if the internal temperature of
the chamber were 1000°C above water temperature then power out would
be at best (1000°C)/(1.78 °C/W) = 561 W.
Lovely!! Thank you for that estimate, Horace!
