Hey, Horace, I don't see anyone calling YOU a "pathological skeptic" -- thanks muchly for doing my homework for me...
Gratefully, Rich Murray On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water temperature. Not > the temperature of output of primary circuit. You are correct, it should be > the value what you thought it to be, but this is the main flaw in the test. > This also means that we do not have any means to know what was the > efficiency of heat exchanger, because we do not know how much heat went down > the sink from open primary circuit. Primary circuit should have been closed. > > I did not reference T3 in this regards, as far as I know. If you think I > did in some relevant way please provide a quote of the material to which you > refer. Here again are the quotes I think are important with regards to > *measuring* the outflow of the primary circuit: > "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." > > "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." > The water coming out of the primary circuit should not be cooler than the > cooling water going into the heat exchanger, but the difference may be just > thermometer error. My point here is there is no wasted heat going down the > drain if this is correct. > > > > > Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the > beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating > took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore > COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was > stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And > self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the > hydrogen pressure, E-Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. > > This is not a flaw in reasoning. I have done many similar calculations and > I typically like like Ein Eout and COP as final columns. COP is very > meaningful, and helpful to quick interpretation, but you have to "wring > out" the latent heat in the system at the end of the test. I have posted a > test of mine where the COP ended at 1, and another where it ended > significantly above 1. > You are making the unwarrented assumption above that the thermometry can be > relied upon. I don't think it can. The thermometers were improperly > located and no manual checks were provided, no calibration run. > > > Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, > but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly > self-sustaining. > > There is no evidence provided of that at this point. > > Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not > have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My > guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. > > Again, there is no evidence provided of that at this point. > > But your calculations were absolutely brilliant. > > Thanks, but they are just standard operating procedure for this kind of > thing I think. > > It was something that I wanted. It also confirmed my estimation of 100-150 > MJ for total output, including 30 MJ of electricity. Although I did consider > also something for the innefficiency of heat exchanger. > > for Mats Lewan, I would like to ask did anyone measure the temperature of > primary circuit after the heat exchanger? This would be very important bit > of information. > > I provided quote of a couple of such measurements above. > > —Jouni > > lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner <[email protected]> > kirjoitti: >> The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported >> by NyTeknic here: >> >> http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece >> >> >> http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 >> >> A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: >> >> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf >> >> Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid >> negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some >> degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net >> energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. >> >> The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ >> input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the >> lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data >> unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. >> Just a few things might have made all the difference. >> >> First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry >> problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T would have improved >> reliability of the power out values. >> >> Second, the lack of hand measurements of the cooling water temperatures >> Tin and Tout periodically was unfortunate, especially when large values of >> delta T was present. The thermometers should be relocated down the rubber >> hose a short distance and insulated. >> >> Third, a kWh meter could have been fairly cheaply purchased or obtained >> and read at the same time the other electric meters were used. >> >> Fourth, a filter to smooth any pulsed current demand from the E-cat power >> supply could have been used, or an oscilloscope used to ensure no such >> pulses were imposed on the input current. >> >> Fifth, the flow meter volumes could have been manually recorded at the >> same times temperature readings were recorded. >> >> >> GENERAL COMMENTS >> >> A control calibration run was not made, as evidenced by a 0.8°C minimum >> error in the delta T for Tin and Tout. >> >> 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 too large, resulting in a max delta T of about >> 8°C and thus 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 >> problem as before, when the thermometer was buried in the earlier E-cats, >> but compounded. This makes the temperature data highly unreliable. >> >> From the 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." >> >> These values indicate a significant problem with temperature measurement. >> The most serious problem 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. >> >> It is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time >> 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a >> confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the >> temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water >> carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may introduce water into >> output stream, as before. If the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject >> to thermal wicking, the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. >> This sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for increased >> temperature from the >> Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam input. >> In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power >> quickly momentarily rises. This kind of mystery can be, should be, >> unravelled using a dummy or inactive E-cat during calorimeter calibration >> sessions. >> >> If the heat exchanger were 70% efficient as estimated by some individuals, >> then the "condensed steam" water temperature should have been above Tin. >> 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 if the >> coupling of the two circuits were imperfect. The insulated condenser itself >> and the insulated flow lines do not appear to be a significant source of >> loss of energy, and thus low measurement efficiency. Further, the low >> temperature of the "condensed steam" water upon output from the primary >> circuit 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Even if it is real, a COP of 3 is marginal for commercial application. It >> is much more difficult to achieve self powering with a cop of 3 vs 6. >> Unfortunately the temperature data is unreliable, and the COP does not look >> to be anywhere near the advertised 6 or even 3. Further, the temperature >> tailed off after less than 4 hours of no power input. 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 >> was the E-cat can run for 6 months without refueling. This test was not >> useful as demonstration of commercial value. >> >> As in the numerous prior demonstrations of the E-cats, we are left >> tantalized by the indication of possible excess energy, and disappointed >> that with a little extra effort the evidence might have finally been at >> hand. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Horace Heffner >> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ >> >> >> >> >> > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > >
