On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Test of Energy Catalyzer
Bologna October 6, 2011
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-
cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Once again no kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy.
It is far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by
P(t) = d E(t)/dt
than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and
integrate to obtain E(t).
Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the
time stamped volume data! It is much more accurate, depending on
flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as:
f(t) = d V(t)/dt
than to integrate:
V(t) = integral f(t) dt
(or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional sporadic
short interval flow measurements. This is the value of using volume
meters. This appears to actually be a small point in this case,
however, because fortunately overall flow volume was measured, and
total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear to be an issue,
at least compared to the other issues.
The flow rate chosen was (once again) too large, resulting in a max
delta T of about 8°C and thus very unreliable accuracy in the heat
measurements. The measurements might have been more reliable if the
thermocouples had not been placed on insulated metal parts, i.e.
connected directly, metal to metal, to the heat exchanger itself.
They should have been separated from the heat exchanger by low
conductivity material, such as a short length of rubber hose, to
avoid thermal wicking problems through the metal. The same applies
to the output temperature measurement for the E-cat. This is the same
old problem as before, but compounded. This makes the temperature
data highly unreliable.
From Report:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C.
18:53 Tin = 24.3 °C Tout = 29.0 °C T3 = 24.8 °C T2 = 116.4 °C
18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger,
supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow
of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C.
19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C
Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly
condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/
s. Temperature 23.2 °C.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This indicates a significant problem with temperature measurement.
The most serious problem, however, is the output temperature recorded
for the "condensed steam". Perhaps that was a repeated recoding error.
The "condensed steam" is measured leaving the heat exchanger at a
temperature lower than room temperature by at least 5°C, and lower
than the Tin of the exchanger by 1°C.
If the heat exchanger were 70% efficient as estimated by some
individuals, then the "condensed steam" water temperature should have
been closer to Tout. Given a delta T of the cooling water of 32.4°C
- 24.2°C = 8.2°C, we might expect a "condensed steam" temperature
more like 34.8°C, not 23.2°C. The condenser itself and the highly
insulated flow lines do *not* appear to be a source of loss of
energy, and thus low measurement efficiency. Further, the low
temperature of the "condensed steam" water indicates no loss of
energy in the heat exchange process due to dumped heat in the form of
"condensed steam" going down the drain.
Based on all the above, the temperature measurements lack the degree
of credibility required to make any reliable assessment of commercial
value.
A rough estimate of energy in:
11:52 to 12:02 8.07 A * 225 V * 10/60 hr = 0.302 kWh
12:02 to 12:12 9.22 A * 226 V * 10/60 hr = 0.347 kWh
12:22 to 12:32 11.24 A * 224 V * 10/60 hr = 0.420 kWh
12:32 to 14:00 12.05 A * 224 V * 88/60 hr = 3.959 kWh
14:10 to 15:53 11.90 A * 221 V * (10+13+54)/60 hr = 3.419 kWh
15:53 to 19:08 0.50 A * 230 V * 195/60 hr = 0.168 kWh
Total energy in: 8.615 kWh = 31 MJ
Noted in report: "15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A
device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432
mA. Voltage 230 V."
The power measurement during this period may be highly flawed,
depending on the circuits involved and where the measurement was
taken. Filtering between the power measurement and E-cat is
essential, unless a fast response meter, like the Clarke-Hess is used.
The heat after death was estimated in the report to be between 38 MJ
(based on secondary circuit water flow) and 21.7 MJ (based on steam
mass). This indicates some possible energy gain, but the temperature
data is highly unreliable, and the COP does not look to be anywhere
near 6. Further, the temperature tailed off after less than 4
hours. The device should not have been shut down there, but re-
energized. To be shown to have any commercial value the device should
be shown producing net energy for an extended period, like the 24
hours originally touted for the test. The claim is it can run for 6
months without refueling. This test was apparently not meant to be a
demonstration of commercial value.
More to come on the numbers.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
