Bob Higgins of Motorola Solutions did an analysis
which he sent to Mats Lewans, who copied it to me
and a couple of others on Vortex.
Hello Mr. Lewan,
I am enclosing my spreadsheet analysis of the
data you published for Ing. Rossis October 6
test at U. of Bologna of his E-cat. In this
analysis, I tried to incorporate reported items
such as water leakage, heat loss through the
insulation, difference in source water
temperature and the water temperature of Tin, and
the final energy stored in the E-cat when the
experiment was terminated. If you have the
occasion to look through this analysis, I would
appreciate hearing of anything you find that may
not be consistent with your observation as a
first hand witness to the test. You are welcome
to share this with others that may also be able
to evaluate the analysis for missing features or wrong calculations.
We considered the possibility of contamination of
the Tout by the hot water/steam of the heat
exchanger primary input. However, because the
secondary water was flowing up out of the
secondary outlet and out of the brass header, and
the contamination primary heat would have to pass
this water to reach the thermocouple, and because
the flow rate was high in the secondary, heat
from the primary inlet would quickly be diverted
into the secondary outlet water. Thus, very
little of this contamination heat would make it
to the thermocouple and cause temperature error -
we regarded it as a possible minor second order
error. If you draw a cross-section picture of
this pipe and the flowing water, you can see how
possible contamination heat from the primary
inlet would likely terminate in the secondary
outlet water long before reaching the thermocouple.
I would agree with everyone else that there was
much that could have been improved the
experiment, but the real point now it to
understand the data we have and determine what
information that can be derived from it with confidence.
It is interesting now how the skeptical criticism
on the net seems to be switching from doesnt
work at all to doesnt work with acceptable
commercial COP. Are the skeptics now convinced
there was large scale excess energy? In and of
itself, this is a physics shattering
breakthrough. It is clear from the data that the
COP would have been much higher if the test had
been run for a longer period. I am personally
excited by the results and data from the experiment.
Thanks to Ing. Rossi for hosting the experiment
he was under obligation to no one to do the
experiment - and to you for reporting the data.
I suggested he subscribe to vortex, but meanwhile ...
He sent a very large spreadsheet, with a couple
of interesting diagrams / plots.
I've put some of them (with permission) in my initial draft report
I extracted and annotated a couple of pictures from his spreadsheet :
a) a very nice schematic diagram of the fat-cat.
(He shows a pressure regulator at the outlet ...
I don't know if this is a guess or new information!)
b) Another data plot and comments
Initially, heat is stored in the E-cat as it is
filled with water and the water is being
heated. This energy is accounted a lumped addition at the end.
When E-cat fills at about 173 min into the
experiment, steam is not yet formed and liquid
spills into heat exchanger and there is measurable
heat exchanger output. Some of the stored energy
in E-cat is being quickly lost into the heat
exchanger as the liquid water carries out heat
quickly. This causes the spike seen just after 173 min.
At 185 minutes, steam begins to form (crosses
100C) and by 200 minutes the steam is 110C which
corresponds to about .6 bar pressure (AJF : over atmospheric -- 1.6 total).
At 220 minutes, the steam reaches about 120C
which is about 1 bar of pressure (over ambient)
and the output is probably mostly steam.
At 350 minutes, the steam is down to about 116C
which may make it oscillate in the pressure
valve: valve closes, pressure builds up,
valve opens and outputs a burst of steam, valve
closes. The data is too coarse to show this
possible temperature/pressure oscillation.
The oscillation probably gets averaged out in the
heat exchanger heat measurement. Probably needs and output measurement that
also integrates all of the heat output in one big lump as a check.
If oscillation occurs due to a pressurization
valve, it could cause the temperature measurement
in the reactor (green curve above) to be
wrong. There could be intermittent measurements
of steam and water and the steam temperature could be oscillating.
c) Overall energy balance
Test of Rossi 27kW Reactor No 2 (1 of 3 reactor cells activated)
Location: University of Bologna, Italy
Analysis: Bob Higgins
Note: See supplemental analysis at bottom of
data for additional energy balance items.
Heat exchanger efficiency = 0.98 [Rossi estimate]
E-cat Insulation Value (R) = 6.0 W/(K*m^2) [Higgins, estimate]
Est. E-cat surface area = 1.4 m^2 [Higgins, estimate]
Reactor flow rate, Fp = 13.0 liters /
h [Lewan, est.; changes with time, var not used]
Reactor water leakage, FL = 2.0 liters / h at 2 bar internal [Lewan, est.]
Exchanger flow rate, FE = 640.8 liters / h [Lewan, measured]
E-cat total heat output = 33.76 kWH = 121.5 MJ
Total electrical input energy = 8.97 kWH = 32.3 MJ
(That didn't copy very well ...)
d) Residual Energy in Tank
Final Temp of water in E-cat = 97.7 C
Average Temp of input water to E-cat = 25.5 C
Temp difference of remaining water = 71.7 C
Est. volume of water in E-Cat at end = 20.0
liters remaining (est. liquid volume remaining,
some internal volume may be steam.)
Heat stored in E-Cat water = 1.667 kWH heat remaining in water at end of data
Weight of E-Cat = 98 kg
Average specific heat of E-Cat (est.) = 0.07
(presume an average of steel and lead)
Est. Heat stored in E-Cat structure = 0.572 kWh
heat remaining in E-Cat structure at end of data