Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
the emissivity was used, it was not the blackbody equation but is not that the greybody equation (correct term?) ? anyway what have to be the sensitivity error to explain the apparent COP ? naively I assume that the emissivity during the calibration have to be much much higher than assumed and the one at 1400C much much lower than assumed, with a factor of 3.4+ ? if the reactor is a perfect blackbody at 1400C, it have to express an emissivity of 30% at calibration ? is it right analysis ? is it possible ? 2014-10-16 6:57 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be a miracle to find that the temperature exactly matched what is expected according to the Stephan-Boltzman equation. I get that the preconditions for the Stephan-Boltzman equation were not met, technically, since the device is not a blackbody (e.g., painted with black refractory coating) and that there is an error term that is being raised to the fourth power. My questions are: what are the implications? Would the Stephan-Boltzman equation provide a lower bound for the true power, or an upper bound, or something else? How far off would the Stephan-Boltzman equation be in practice? I get the sense that it would be a minor error term and that professionals in this field would not be too hesitant to use the equation in a context such as the Lugano test. I'm starting to wonder whether the emissivity problem is primarily an academic one. Eric
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is being generated within the core. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
I agree David. You can verify this by looking at the data for both the caps and the E-Cat body. The caps are not incandescent, so there does not appear to be any transparency issue there. The Delta T/Watt is nearly the same despite an increase in input power of ~100W. You would expect it to be significantly lower. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is being generated within the core. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? Right. this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Exactly. However, there are some open questions about the IR camera and the color. So we cannot be sure the temperature really is getting higher. If the authors can confirm that the temperature shown in the internal thermocouple is also rising, and that the colors are transitioning to ones indicating a higher temperature, then yes, we can be sure there is an anomaly. This is true even though there is only one calibration point. That is inadequate, but it does not preclude certainty. Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? The device is open to air in a reasonably stable environment. I do not think that a change in convection on this scale is possible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Good point Jack. One item of interest is that my simulation shows that one can refer to two different COPs when the core generates heating power that are not so evident with an inactive core. The first is an incremental COP that is calculated by taking the derivative of the output power at a particular input power level. This is the what had the scientists concerned when they calculated the relatively large output power delta of 700 watts with an input delta of 100 watts. The large slope is caused by the non linear nature of both the power generation mechanism as well as the forth order non linear relationship between output radiated power and surface temperature. I consider this effect as demonstrating how the effective thermal resistance of the device is multiplied by the positive feedback that is associated with its operation. The temperature rises or falls much faster than expected by an inactive device when subjected to an incremental input power adjustment. The simulation shows that the maximum slope occurs at the temperature where the internally generated power comes closest to being equal to the power escaping. The device must be designed so that the generated power (as indicated by temperature being a time dependent parameter) never quite reaches the level of the power that is radiated, convected, and conducted away from the core at any time. This should be viewed as a requirement for stable operation under steady input power conditions. Operation outside of this region will result in a latching of output power even when input is removed. Special requirements and restriction to the input waveform can enable one to operate a stable system under careful constraints such as in SSM mode with PWM drive. The second type of COP measurement is our more common way of expressing device performance. This is calculated by taking the total power output and dividing by the total power input. I am assuming steady state conditions with constant input drive power. The number determined by this operation will always be smaller than that of the incremental form of COP mentioned earlier. This is due to the very non linear nature of the relationship between output power and input power when the core power generation is of a significant quantity. This demonstrated behavior solidifies in my opinion the proof that the core is generating a major amount of power during the test. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 3:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible I agree David. You can verify this by looking at the data for both the caps and the E-Cat body. The caps are not incandescent, so there does not appear to be any transparency issue there. The Delta T/Watt is nearly the same despite an increase in input power of ~100W. You would expect it to be significantly lower. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is being generated within the core. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
You might say I am splitting hairs but what Mckubre has written here is technically incorrect. The Stephan-Boltzman law is relationship between temperature and output power. It is not a relationship between input power and output power so you can't use the law by itself to infer any relationship between input and output power. Additional assumptions/laws are required. Harry On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is being generated within the core. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
To go a bit further, the law applies to black body radiation and not just any emitter. I suspect it is a difficult task to prove that the actual power being radiated is exactly what is expected unless a system is constructed to capture all of the radiation over the entire spectrum. Then that must be reconciled against a known amount of power being supplied to the radiator. It would be a miracle to find that the temperature exactly matched what is expected according to the Stephan-Boltzman equation. The best that we can do is to calibrate our test system with a known amount of power being radiated. That is exactly what the testers did in their dummy run. It would have been better had they calibrated their equipment at the same output power as generated by the device, but that could not be done under the conditions they experienced. I give them a great deal of credit for what they actually were able to accomplish. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 12:18 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible You might say I am splitting hairs but what Mckubre has written here is technically incorrect. The Stephan-Boltzman law is relationship between temperature and output power. It is not a relationship between input power and output power so you can't use the law by itself to infer any relationship between input and output power. Additional assumptions/laws are required. Harry On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is being generated within the core. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would be a miracle to find that the temperature exactly matched what is expected according to the Stephan-Boltzman equation. I get that the preconditions for the Stephan-Boltzman equation were not met, technically, since the device is not a blackbody (e.g., painted with black refractory coating) and that there is an error term that is being raised to the fourth power. My questions are: what are the implications? Would the Stephan-Boltzman equation provide a lower bound for the true power, or an upper bound, or something else? How far off would the Stephan-Boltzman equation be in practice? I get the sense that it would be a minor error term and that professionals in this field would not be too hesitant to use the equation in a context such as the Lugano test. I'm starting to wonder whether the emissivity problem is primarily an academic one. Eric
[Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Hi Following Mickael McKubre critics, I posted a question for the testers but some here may answer with the public data - assuming the convection factor is maybe badly represented (underestimated for the dummy, over represented for the active) because the dummy was tested at lower temperature than the active, what is the minimum possible COP than one can absolutely judge from simply thermal radiation ? - can the moment when you increased the power by 100W and the apparent heat increased by 700W be enough to support a COP above 1 ? - is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 - it seems that the dummy was less hot with more power in, and the active version hotter with less power, do you confirm ? - was simply the active version wil less power visibly more brightly than the dummy when powered more without the load? (this one only for the testers) - is it thus impossible that COP is not above 1, even if many errors have been done, like on emissivity, transmissivity, calibration, convection ? - can you provide computation of different possible COP assuming huge errors in those parameters ? if the extraordinary claim of COP1 is confirmed, maybe the normal claim of calorimetry can be more easily accepted (even if McKubre remind us to be cautious on the exact number).
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: - is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
McKubre’s point about the value of the implications of the input power step response is very important, and I entirely agree. In terms of systems analysis, when you have an input step function, the derivative of that input then becomes an approximation of the Dirac delta function, otherwise known as an impulse function. Sending an impulse through a system transfer function yields the transfer function itself, which is pretty handy to have. I’m glad that the testers included this step, and I think we all need to pay close attention to it. -Bob From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: * is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
The fact that the 100 watt input power increase yielded a calculated(and assumed) output power increase of 700 watts does indeed prove that the COP is greater than unity. My model shows that this is the general behavior that is expected from any device that has internally generated power. I have a great deal of information concerning this aspect of the CAT operation as modeled. The additional power contributed by the core is in the form of positive feedback. That is true since the core temperature increases beyond what would be expected from the addition of input power alone. My simulation reveals that you can treat this positive feedback behavior as though the thermal impedance of the ECAT is increasing with ever increasing amounts of core generated power. With that concept in mind you will realize that feeding a delta of input power into the device will result in a larger delta temperature change than expected in the absence of this feedback. The experimenters were worried by the large delta seen which they apparently thought was a tendency to head into device meltdown. That could indeed happen if the design was not protected by the rapidly increasing thermal radiation output path available to prevent just that occurrence. This design trick most likely is one of Rossi's trade secrets. I suspect that some of his earlier designs did not have sufficient heat sinking by radiation to offer the optimum protection. In those cases the positive feedback due to core heat generation could increase beyond a safe level until thermal runaway lead to device destruction. To reinforce my discussion you should refer to the previous test and the charts supplied within that report. The scientists pointed out the unusual shape of the temperature versus time plot and compared it to what they expected from a resistor load. What they plotted is entirely consistent with what is seen with my latest stable model. At the time I was convinced that Rossi actually was driving the device into an unstable region in order to get good COP. That was possible, but this latest data leads me to believe that he has designed his current device to avoid that dangerous unstable operation region. By careful geometry he must be balancing the radiation, convection, and conduction sinks with the internal power generation process. When such a design is optimized, the effective thermal impedance becomes very large and results in the observed much greater calculated delta in output power than that expected from the input drive delta. A device that did not have extra core generation of power would not behave in this manner. In my opinion this absolutely proves that the COP is greater than unity. My model suggests that the maximum COP actually occurs at an input power that is slightly above the region of maximum slope (delta output power)/(delta input power). The COP tends to fall off at a moderate rate once that maximum operating point is exceeded. The latest report clearly demonstrated that the scientists chose an operation point below the maximum. I can explain this further if anyone is interested. Every time I carefully examine the simulation runs and associated data I learn something new about the device behavior. I have to keep reminding myself that I have only a computer simulation and many important parameters must be hidden from my view. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 3:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible Hi Following Mickael McKubre critics, I posted a question for the testers but some here may answer with the public data assuming the convection factor is maybe badly represented (underestimated for the dummy, over represented for the active) because the dummy was tested at lower temperature than the active, what is the minimum possible COP than one can absolutely judge from simply thermal radiation ? can the moment when you increased the power by 100W and the apparent heat increased by 700W be enough to support a COP above 1 ? is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP1 it seems that the dummy was less hot with more power in, and the active version hotter with less power, do you confirm ? was simply the active version wil less power visibly more brightly than the dummy when powered more without the load? (this one only for the testers) is it thus impossible that COP is not above 1, even if many errors have been done, like on emissivity, transmissivity, calibration, convection ? can you provide computation of different possible COP assuming huge errors in those parameters ? if the extraordinary claim of COP1 is confirmed, maybe the normal claim of calorimetry can be more easily accepted (even if McKubre remind us to be cautious on the exact number).
