RE: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

We do have a language barrier here... sorry!
Can someone translate my point to Peter?

"If I understand you right, you don't want anything being tested this way.
 And Rossi does not want it. This is strange.

No, that is NOT what I meant...
I think your analysis was a GOOD effort!

-Mark
 

-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] 
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

Am 11.12.2011 22:57, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:
> Peter:
> There's a bit of a language barrier here...
>
> I was not suggesting that you actually repeat the analysis, or do something a 
> little different... but I think most readers will understand my point.
I dont understand your point.
If I could test the ecat I would do it in the same way. If it works I would 
confirm it.
If it does not work I would not confirm it.

This is what I did with the heatexchanger software, inside the frame of my 
possibilities.
If I understand you right, you dont want anything being tested this way. 
And Rossi does not want it. This is strange.

At some day, however, it must happen.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.12.2011 22:57, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:

Peter:
There's a bit of a language barrier here...

I was not suggesting that you actually repeat the analysis, or do something a 
little different... but I think most readers will understand my point.

I dont understand your point.
If I could test the ecat I would do it in the same way. If it works I 
would confirm it.

If it does not work I would not confirm it.

This is what I did with the heatexchanger software, inside the frame of 
my possibilities.
If I understand you right, you dont want anything being tested this way. 
And Rossi does not want it. This is strange.


At some day, however, it must happen.

Peter

RE: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Peter:
There's a bit of a language barrier here...

I was not suggesting that you actually repeat the analysis, or do something a 
little different... but I think most readers will understand my point.

Again, thanks for taking time to run the analysis and report your results...

-Mark

 
-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] 
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

Am 11.12.2011 21:51, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:
> Peter:
> Thanks for taking time to RAISE the SNR!
>
> What can we conclude from your analysis?  Well, at first reading, it seems 
> reasonable, so it is at least helpful and might swing the 'accuracy meter' a 
> little over to Rossi's favor, however, I don't think its conclusive. But that 
> seems to be the norm in this case, that the only conclusive thing we can 
> conclude from what facts we do have, is that nothing is conclusive!
>
> I APPLAUD your efforts here since what you did is EXACTLY what this 
> discussion group is for... tomorrow you could run some more test cases with 
> this software and come to the opposite conclusion, which I would also 
> applaud!  It's unfortunate that some people on this list just don't 
> understand that...

No. I can say you, that I did not test exactly the same model, because I could 
not find this.  I tested if the orders of magnitude are possible with water and 
nothing more and I confirmed it.

And no, I cannot do other tests. Say I use double the flow rate, then I get an 
efficiency of 98% instead of 99%. This doesn't matter.  I'm not interested in 
peanut counting and will not do this. Any test with similar magnitudes will 
give similar results. Why should I repeat it? The result is plausible. Only an 
experiment with the real thing could bring new findings, but i doubt it.

I agree Peter,
-mark

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.12.2011 21:51, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:

Peter:
Thanks for taking time to RAISE the SNR!

What can we conclude from your analysis?  Well, at first reading, it seems 
reasonable, so it is at least helpful and might swing the 'accuracy meter' a 
little over to Rossi's favor, however, I don't think its conclusive. But that 
seems to be the norm in this case, that the only conclusive thing we can 
conclude from what facts we do have, is that nothing is conclusive!

I APPLAUD your efforts here since what you did is EXACTLY what this discussion 
group is for... tomorrow you could run some more test cases with this software 
and come to the opposite conclusion, which I would also applaud!  It's 
unfortunate that some people on this list just don't understand that...
No. I can say you, that I did not test exactly the same model, because I 
could not find this.
I tested if the orders of magnitude are possible with water and nothing 
more and I confirmed it.
And no, I cannot do other tests. Say I use double the flow rate, then I 
get an efficiency of 98% instead of 99%.
This doesnt matter. Im not interested in peanut counting and will not do 
this.
Any test with similar magnitudes will give similar results. Why should I 
repeat it? The result is plausible.
Only an experiment with the real thing could bring new findings, but i 
doubt it.





-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

Yes, I do now think, the heat exchanger should do it in the horizontal 
orientation.
I tested this as follows:
I downloaded and installed the heatexchanger calculation software from SWEP.
It is unregistered and in demo mode. Registering is free bust must be approved, 
so I have none.  In this mode the application supports only water-water 
applications, so far I found.

So I inserted the primary water flow multiplied by 5, this gives about the 
thermal energy of the steam.

Under this conditions I get secondary delta_t of 5°  and the difference between 
primary out and secondary in is about 0.5 degrees.  Lewan reported about 1 
degree.

So if this exchanger can do it with water, then it should also be able to do it 
with the equivalent energy in steam.
Apparently horizontal orientation is not a problem here.

BTW, the difference between primary out and secondary in was about 1 degrees in 
Lewans report.
If the primary delta_t was 100° then this means, the energetic efficiency of 
the heatexchanger was 99 %.
This is pretty good and is probably because this exchanger is designed for 
higher flow rates.

Best,

Peter

RE: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Peter:
Thanks for taking time to RAISE the SNR!

What can we conclude from your analysis?  Well, at first reading, it seems 
reasonable, so it is at least helpful and might swing the 'accuracy meter' a 
little over to Rossi's favor, however, I don't think its conclusive. But that 
seems to be the norm in this case, that the only conclusive thing we can 
conclude from what facts we do have, is that nothing is conclusive!

I APPLAUD your efforts here since what you did is EXACTLY what this discussion 
group is for... tomorrow you could run some more test cases with this software 
and come to the opposite conclusion, which I would also applaud!  It's 
unfortunate that some people on this list just don't understand that...

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] 
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

Yes, I do now think, the heat exchanger should do it in the horizontal 
orientation.
I tested this as follows:
I downloaded and installed the heatexchanger calculation software from SWEP.
It is unregistered and in demo mode. Registering is free bust must be approved, 
so I have none.  In this mode the application supports only water-water 
applications, so far I found.

So I inserted the primary water flow multiplied by 5, this gives about the 
thermal energy of the steam.

Under this conditions I get secondary delta_t of 5°  and the difference between 
primary out and secondary in is about 0.5 degrees.  Lewan reported about 1 
degree.

So if this exchanger can do it with water, then it should also be able to do it 
with the equivalent energy in steam.
Apparently horizontal orientation is not a problem here.

BTW, the difference between primary out and secondary in was about 1 degrees in 
Lewans report.
If the primary delta_t was 100° then this means, the energetic efficiency of 
the heatexchanger was 99 %.
This is pretty good and is probably because this exchanger is designed for 
higher flow rates.

Best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Yes, I do now think, the heat exchanger should do it in the horizontal 
orientation.

I tested this as follows:
I downloaded and installed the heatexchanger calculation software from  
SWEP.
It is unregistered and in demo mode. Registering is free bust must be 
approved, so I have none.
In this mode the application supports only water-water applications, so 
far I found.


So I inserted the primary water flow multiplied by 5, this gives about 
the thermal energy of the steam.


Under this conditions I get secondary delta_t of 5°  and the difference 
between primary out and secondary in is about 0.5 degrees.

Lewan reported about 1 degree.

So if this exchanger can do it with water, then it should also be able 
to do it with the equivalent energy in steam.

Apparently horizontal orientation is not a problem here.

BTW, the difference between primary out and secondary in was about 1 
degrees in Lewans report.
If the primary delta_t was 100° then this means, the energetic 
efficiency of the heatexchanger was 99 %.
This is pretty good and is probably because this exchanger is designed 
for higher flow rates.


Best,

Peter


Am 11.12.2011 21:06, schrieb Alan Fletcher:

"Peter Heckert"


Here is a screenshot about condensing applications:
http://hphsite.de/vortex/SWEP-handbook.png

I think Rossi did it perfectly wrong and the exchanger cannot work in
horizontal orientation.

I think that the combination of using it horizontally AND with a low team 
volume will work against Rossi -- any pooling of water in the HE which creates 
a blockage would rapidly result in a temporary fall in the secondary output 
temperature.

But which wins .. a blockage, or negative pressure from condensation?

Any negative pressure from condensation (vacuum relief valve) feeding back into the eCat 
would result in a lower pressure and greater evaporation. Also, this argues against the 
"input pump" blockage -- negative pressure would increase the flow.

All of which makes the 120C reading less  understandable.


SWEP has also a software to calculate heatexchangers. ...

I'll try to give it a shot next week.

Maybe I'll also try to get the Elmer FEM system working again.

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Alan Fletcher]

"Peter Heckert"   

> Here is a screenshot about condensing applications:
> http://hphsite.de/vortex/SWEP-handbook.png
> 
> I think Rossi did it perfectly wrong and the exchanger cannot work in
> horizontal orientation.

I think that the combination of using it horizontally AND with a low team 
volume will work against Rossi -- any pooling of water in the HE which creates 
a blockage would rapidly result in a temporary fall in the secondary output 
temperature.

But which wins .. a blockage, or negative pressure from condensation?

Any negative pressure from condensation (vacuum relief valve) feeding back into 
the eCat would result in a lower pressure and greater evaporation. Also, this 
argues against the "input pump" blockage -- negative pressure would increase 
the flow.  

All of which makes the 120C reading less  understandable.

> SWEP has also a software to calculate heatexchangers. ...

I'll try to give it a shot next week.

Maybe I'll also try to get the Elmer FEM system working again.

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

I downloaded an image from Ny Teknik and enhanced contrast and 
brightness and sharpened it, to make the thermoelement visible:

http://hphsite.de/vortex/thermoelement.jpg

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.12.2011 17:12, schrieb David Roberson:

Peter, Mats Lewan measured the output water temperature at two points in time 
and it was quite low.  Review his report.  What evidence do you have that the 
heat exchanger did not transfer the heat?

I did not say that.
Of course it transferred the heat. This is proven.  But it was filled 
with condensate.
The primary outflow was surprisingly low in temperature, so it must have 
transferred all heat that was available in this unfortunate configuration.
I have not seen an example in the SWEP handbook that exposed so good 
performance under normal operation conditions.
Therefore there was not hot steam, but hot water and the actual 
secondary delta_t was much lower than measured..

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Robert Lynn]

The heat exchanger will not work as well when horizontal (the condensate
water will not drain out nicely and the steam will not pass in parallel
through all channels equally due to pressure gradient from top to bottom of
stack), but it will still work - just with greater pressure drop
and inconsistent flow, and the outlet from the steam side will not be as
cold as it could be.  It means that there might be an extra 5-10% heat
energy leaving unnecessarily in hot water from the steam outlet, but that
doesn't make much difference to the overall calculations.

The key issue we have been discussing ad-nauseum is the bad placement of
the outlet thermocouple and the possible contamination of the outlet
thermocouple reading by heat leakage through the brass manifold from the
hot steam condensing in the brass manifold inlet.   We know (approximately)
the flow rates on the primary steam inlet side and the cold water secondary
outlet side, but as far as the heat leakage in that brass manifold is
concerned the heat exchanger is totally irrelevant - you only need the
brass manifold with the same steam and water flows and the same
thermocouple placement to determine what that heat leakage temperature
contamination is.

I still can't find the brass manifold anywhere on the SWEP website.  If
anyone could find me proper engineering drawings or a CAD model for that
manifold I could do a pretty accurate FEA analysis to get a good estimate
of the temperature contamination.

On 11 December 2011 14:57, Peter Heckert  wrote:

> Am 11.12.2011 15:15, schrieb Robert Lynn:
>
>  The key is the brass manifold - the heat exchanger is unimportant.  But I
>> have not seen the Brass manifold anywhere on their website.
>>
> I dont think the heatexchanger is unimportant.
> I got the heater applications handbook from SWEPS website.
> http://www.swep.net/index.php?**tpl=page0&lang=en&id=168
> It comes as an exefile.
>
> Here is a screenshot about condensing applications:
> http://hphsite.de/vortex/SWEP-**handbook.png
>
> I think Rossi did it perfectly wrong and the exchanger cannot work in
> horizontal orientation.
> SWEP has also a software to calculate heatexchangers. It calculates
> everything, flowrates,delta_t and pressures.
> Possibly somebody could try it, it is free.
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[David Roberson]

Peter, Mats Lewan measured the output water temperature at two points in time 
and it was quite low.  Review his report.  What evidence do you have that the 
heat exchanger did not transfer the heat?   I hope you realize that this 
suggestion of yours would indicate that heat was escaping the primary and thus 
more power was generated than expected.  This is contrary to your early 
statements of low power.

As you should be aware, I have reservations regarding the location of the TCs 
just as you, but not with the heat exchanger.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model


Am 11.12.2011 16:49, schrieb David Roberson:
 The exchanger did work in the horizontal position.  All it has to do is to 
ondense and cool the vapor/water mixture that enters into the primary.  The 
emperature of the exiting liquid was low enough and that is proof that the 
evice transferred the heat.
he temperature of the exiting liquid was not measured.
he temperature of the secondary out pipe was measured too close to the 
team/hot water inlet.
The heatexchanger was horizontal and therefore had no condensate 
rainage. I must fill up with condensate.
t could not produce more than 2° delta_t in this situation, because the 
rimary delta_t was 80° and the primary/secondary water flow ratio was 
:40. So it is proven, that the secondary delta_t measurement was wrong 
ue to wrong thermoelement placement.
Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.12.2011 16:49, schrieb David Roberson:

The exchanger did work in the horizontal position.  All it has to do is to 
condense and cool the vapor/water mixture that enters into the primary.  The 
temperature of the exiting liquid was low enough and that is proof that the 
device transferred the heat.

The temperature of the exiting liquid was not measured.
The temperature of the secondary out pipe was measured too close to the 
steam/hot water inlet.


The heatexchanger was horizontal and therefore had no condensate 
drainage. I must fill up with condensate.
It could not produce more than 2° delta_t in this situation, because the 
primary delta_t was 80° and the primary/secondary water flow ratio was 
1:40. So it is proven, that the secondary delta_t measurement was wrong 
due to wrong thermoelement placement.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[David Roberson]

The exchanger did work in the horizontal position.  All it has to do is to 
condense and cool the vapor/water mixture that enters into the primary.  The 
temperature of the exiting liquid was low enough and that is proof that the 
device transferred the heat.
Location of the TCs is another matter that is not related to whether or not the 
heat was transferred.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 9:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model


Am 11.12.2011 15:15, schrieb Robert Lynn:
 The key is the brass manifold - the heat exchanger is unimportant.  But I
 have not seen the Brass manifold anywhere on their website.
 dont think the heatexchanger is unimportant.
 got the heater applications handbook from SWEPS website.
ttp://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=page0&lang=en&id=168
t comes as an exefile.
Here is a screenshot about condensing applications:
ttp://hphsite.de/vortex/SWEP-handbook.png
I think Rossi did it perfectly wrong and the exchanger cannot work in 
orizontal orientation.
WEP has also a software to calculate heatexchangers. It calculates 
verything, flowrates,delta_t and pressures.
ossibly somebody could try it, it is free.
Best,
eter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.12.2011 15:15, schrieb Robert Lynn:

The key is the brass manifold - the heat exchanger is unimportant.  But I
have not seen the Brass manifold anywhere on their website.

I dont think the heatexchanger is unimportant.
I got the heater applications handbook from SWEPS website.
http://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=page0&lang=en&id=168
It comes as an exefile.

Here is a screenshot about condensing applications:
http://hphsite.de/vortex/SWEP-handbook.png

I think Rossi did it perfectly wrong and the exchanger cannot work in 
horizontal orientation.
SWEP has also a software to calculate heatexchangers. It calculates 
everything, flowrates,delta_t and pressures.

Possibly somebody could try it, it is free.

Best,
Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Robert Lynn]

The key is the brass manifold - the heat exchanger is unimportant.  But I
have not seen the Brass manifold anywhere on their website.

If we could get a hold of a brass manifold (or ask SWEP for an engineering
drawing or CAD model that they probably have) then we could do some proper
analysis or tests instead of all the assumption, hand waving and
*Gedankenexperiment
that we have been wasting so much time with.*

On 10 December 2011 07:58, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> The heat exchanger is Swedish, make and model: SWEP E8T-SC-S
>
> http://www.swep.net/index.php?**tpl=productsheets&lang=en&id=**
> 361&Type=E&Size=8T&Material=**SC&Pressure=S
>
> The installation manual is here:
>
> http://www.swep.net/fileview.**php?file=1300709490
>
> The brass manifold is also from SWEP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 10.12.2011 23:06, schrieb Alan Fletcher:

With the 1:40 primary:secondary flows there's most likely not a problem. And 
any problems (steam not condensed) would give a lower calculated power (as 
pointed out, in Rossi's -- ie less likely fake-- favour.)

The question is, if it works in horicontal position.
The condensate will fill up the heatexchanger horicontal position. This 
reduces the effective area and rises the steam pressure.



- Original Message -

It should be tested, if this exchanger can handle the claimed flow of
steam in horicontal position.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Alan Fletcher]

With the 1:40 primary:secondary flows there's most likely not a problem. And 
any problems (steam not condensed) would give a lower calculated power (as 
pointed out, in Rossi's -- ie less likely fake-- favour.)

- Original Message -
> It should be tested, if this exchanger can handle the claimed flow of
> steam in horicontal position.
> 
> Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 10.12.2011 22:46, schrieb Robert Leguillon:

But the "E" class is listed specifically as a single-phase heat exchanger. Does 
it double as a condenser?
  http://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=products-ranges&lang=en&id=352
I dont know, if this matters. Possibly it has only to do withthe 
pressure. It is also listed for low pressure boiler applications.


Another citation from installation manual:
In single-phase applications, e.g. water-to-water or water-to-oil, the 
mounting
direction has little or no effect on the performance of the heat 
exchanger, but in

two-phase applications, the orientation of the heat exchanger becomes very
important. In two-phase applications, SWEP's BPHEs should be mounted
vertically, with the arrow on the front plate pointing upwards.

It should be tested, if this exchanger can handle the claimed flow of 
steam in horicontal position.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Robert Leguillon]

But the "E" class is listed specifically as a single-phase heat exchanger. Does 
it double as a condenser?
 http://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=products-ranges&lang=en&id=352

Peter Heckert  wrote:

>Am 10.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Colin Hercus:
>> Did you see in the specs that the heat exchanger should be mounted
>> vertically when used for phase change. Having it horizontal should reduce
>> effectiveness and err in Rossi's favour
>Yes. It must be vertical.
>But I think the error should be in Rossi's disfavour, if there was a lot 
>of steam.
>The heat exchanger would fill up with condensate and the active 
>crossectional area will be reduced.
>If there was not much steam, it doesnt matter.
>
>citation from installation manual:
>
>>
>
>Condensers
>
>The refrigerant (gas) should be
>connected to the upper left connection,
>F1, and the condensate to
>the lower left connection, F3. The
>water/brine circuit inlet should be
>connected to the lower right connection,
>F4, and the outlet to the
>upper right connection, F2.
>
>end citation
>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Horace Heffnerwrote:
>>
>>> The heat exchanger is Swedish, make and model: SWEP E8T-SC-S
>>>
>>> http://www.swep.net/index.php?**tpl=productsheets&lang=en&id=**
>>> 361&Type=E&Size=8T&Material=**SC&Pressure=S
>>>
>>> The installation manual is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.swep.net/fileview.**php?file=1300709490
>>>
>>> The brass manifold is also from SWEP.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Horace Heffner
>>> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Peter Heckert]

Am 10.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Colin Hercus:

Did you see in the specs that the heat exchanger should be mounted
vertically when used for phase change. Having it horizontal should reduce
effectiveness and err in Rossi's favour

Yes. It must be vertical.
But I think the error should be in Rossi's disfavour, if there was a lot 
of steam.
The heat exchanger would fill up with condensate and the active 
crossectional area will be reduced.

If there was not much steam, it doesnt matter.

citation from installation manual:

>

Condensers

The refrigerant (gas) should be
connected to the upper left connection,
F1, and the condensate to
the lower left connection, F3. The
water/brine circuit inlet should be
connected to the lower right connection,
F4, and the outlet to the
upper right connection, F2.

end citation

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Horace Heffnerwrote:


The heat exchanger is Swedish, make and model: SWEP E8T-SC-S

http://www.swep.net/index.php?**tpl=productsheets&lang=en&id=**
361&Type=E&Size=8T&Material=**SC&Pressure=S

The installation manual is here:

http://www.swep.net/fileview.**php?file=1300709490

The brass manifold is also from SWEP.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Colin Hercus]

Did you see in the specs that the heat exchanger should be mounted
vertically when used for phase change. Having it horizontal should reduce
effectiveness and err in Rossi's favour

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

> The heat exchanger is Swedish, make and model: SWEP E8T-SC-S
>
> http://www.swep.net/index.php?**tpl=productsheets&lang=en&id=**
> 361&Type=E&Size=8T&Material=**SC&Pressure=S
>
> The installation manual is here:
>
> http://www.swep.net/fileview.**php?file=1300709490
>
> The brass manifold is also from SWEP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Alan Fletcher]

Hmmm .. (Fakes hat on). 

Just as well that the output flow was checked, even if only intermittently.

Otherwise (eg assuming the ecat was producing only hot water and no steam) one 
could take the whole stack apart, drill and/or plug various ports, so that the 
secondary outlet is  a mixture of X*100C + Y*25C -- producing the observed 30C 
output. (The bulk of the secondary flow would have to go out of the primary 
outlet.)

In my reports I say that this standard H.E., and thus not fakeable. 

Thanks again to Mats for doing at least ONE measurement and eliminating this 
fake.

- Original Message -
> The heat exchanger is Swedish, make and model: SWEP E8T-SC-S
> 
> http://www.swep.net/index.php?tpl=productsheets&lang=en&id=361&Type=E&Size=8T&Material=SC&Pressure=S
> http://www.swep.net/fileview.php?file=1300709490
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model

[Horace Heffner]

SWEP is located in Georgia too:

http://www.manta.com/c/mmj7slb/swep-north-america-inc

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/