2011/9/22 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>: > 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 >
But it can also measure the enthalpy from steam by measuring the steam quality, if the mass flow of steam is known (We do not know it!). At least Galantini's DeltaOhm humidity measuring instrument can measure the enthalpy that steam caries. Jed Rothwell wrote: » In the first test, Galantini used a Delta Ohm monitor to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is a model HD37AB1347 IAQ with a high temperature HP474AC SICRAM sensor. See: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 The brochure and the experts that Lewan and I have contacted say this instrument measures the enthalpy of steam. I expect they are right and the people who say otherwise here are wrong. I have no further comments on this issue. » DeltaOhm can measure the suspension of liquid water droplets and gaseous water medium, i.e. steam quality. I believe that Testo 650 can do the same trick. Problem is that measured steam quality (98.8%) does not tell us anything how much liquid water is overflowing, therefore we do not know the mass flow of steam and instrument is useless where they intended to use it. Your criticism is justified although you were incorrect whether Testo 650 can measure steam quality. === You are somewhat right that data from K&E test is bad if not useless. Only way how we can estimate total enthalpy is that we assume, that we can use data from other E-Cat's where we have some better data. I.e. we assume that outlet hose is the same in all E-Cat's. This way we can estimate that there cannot be more heat generated than 2 kW, but lower limit is unknown. I estimated the lower limit to be 1.2 kW, I.e COP was 3-6. But I do not think that we can go for better accuracy than this. I think that your speculation about the auxiliary heater is not relevant, because if it would have provided total input heat that exceeds 300 watts, they would have included it into report. Also I think that your assumption that thermometer reading may be affected by heat that is conducted via copper, is unreasonable, because heat transfer between copper and stem/hot water is much much larger than what copper can conduct. This is that copper and water temperature are the same near thermometer. Also if thermometer would be affected by the heat, then the probe would be misplaced. And it would indicate that Rossi is lying, because he said that the probe measures the steam temperature. And we cannot expect that Rossi is lying, because if we do then we should assume that there is hidden conventional power source that provides alleged excess heat. This would end all discussion, because no-one has given scientific validation for E-Cat, because we cannot exclude hidden power sources. > 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. > This fact amazes me the most in this saga. How it is seriously possible, that such a grandiose mistake could have been made in assumptions. Not once, not twice but six times! I think Lewan got the message after discussion of his September demonstration. > > 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. > That is correct conclusion. And further more. Fuel container does not need to be inside the core, but e.g. that wooden stand could be hollow. That could easily hide several kilograms of fuel, if needed. Only way we can make estimations, is to use other better demonstrations as reference and to _assume_ that this E-Cat behaved similarly as other E-Cats. > > > 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. > > Most of the input water mass flow necessarily must have continued on out the > exit port without being converted to steam. > This is very good observation. If your calculations are correct, then it should be very good evidence for inconsistencies. Perhaps this is the reason why Rossi has said that his new E-Cat has more effective heat exchangers than stainless steal. However this issue has been discussed in Rossi's blog a lot and he is perfectly aware that stainless steal is poor heat conductor. Perhaps this issue is under control or perhaps not. Especially bad shadow this casts for Levi's observed "130 kW power surge" during the 18 hour test. (I thought previously that it was measuring error, but now I am sure that it was measuring error) However it would have been good question to ask how thick walls steal reactor chamber had? === Very good analysis about the test anyway. Thanks for that. Here is something else to analyze. REPORT ON HEAT PRODUCTION DURING PRELIMINARY TESTS ON THE ROSSI “NI-H” REACTOR. Dr. Giuseppe Levi http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html?m=1 –Jouni
