2011/10/7 Robert Leguillon <[email protected]>: > I have not yet had time to compile the four hours of "warm up". Obviously, > we don't have all of the data required to even remotely show a balanced > energy equation. >
I disagree. Calculating energy input is straight forward and it is ca. 30 MJ. Calculating energy output is more tricky, but we have sufficient data to do it in reasonable accuracy. If we examine the secondary circulation data carefully. I calculating for the output something between 100-150 MJ. > The "at or near parity" statement was referring to E-Cat performance before > it was turned off. One would expect an operating E-Cat that is consuming 2 > kW input power, to be displaying 12 kW output power during operation. > This does not appear to be what was demonstrated. > Where did you get that 12 kW? On average input power was 1 kW during the demonstration. As we see that Average output power was close to 6 kW, then during this test COP was 6. But if consider that most of the electric input was for initial heating of E-Cat to 95°C when cold fusion reactions were kicked in. Then we get more than 10 for COP. > If the E-Cat was running at a high enough core temperature to produce 3.5 kW > output, while 2.5 kW was being introduced to the heater (230V x 11A), then > why did the output not immediately drop to 1 kW when the power was removed? > Why did it not slowly decline and stabilize at a new baseline that > represented the E-Cat's output power? How does it maintain the same output > power, when you've removed 2 kW of input? Is he claiming that the E-Cat > isn't producing its own heat for the first 4 hours, and now it only operates > when you REMOVE power from the heaters? > This is good observation. And it is good to read healthy skepticism, because this is not obvious Here is the temperature graph. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231409333581939&set=o.135474503149001&type=1&theater and direct link to the picture. http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/296467_231409333581939_100001386229231_643956_806537009_n.jpg It is good to see, that after the input power was cut from E-Cat, Temperature of secondary circuit was increased to maximum power output! This explains very clearly why there was not a drop in the output when power was cut. Also 3,5 kW is too low figure for power. Because it does not include inefficiency of heat exchanger. Therefore reasonable figure is 5 kW typically and in peak after power was cut it was more close to 6-8 kW. –Jouni > These questions would never have to be asked if we were only evaluating 8 > hours of operating gains, and that's point in its entirety. > > > > >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:21:18 -0400 >> >> On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:01 -0500, Robert Leguillon wrote: >> > My Two Cents: >> > >> > Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. >> > >> > Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. >> > We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected >> > by phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with >> > an operating E-Cat producing 6 or more times input power. Instead, we >> > were asked to evaluate a temperature decay of an E-Cat, whose power >> > output was at or near parity with the input, while a new device >> > "produces frequencies." >> >> I disagree with this. During the 'power phase', you can measure the >> power coming out of the system as heat. The conclusion is far away from >> a 4 hour 'charging phase' followed by a 3 1/2 hour 'discharging phase' >> of near equal parity. >> >> Craig >> >> >> >
