Lewan addresses, in this report, some of the issues which had been
raised by discussions.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece
As previously, the power output was calculated from the amount of
water boiled into steam, and thus depends on the water flow. At the
two new tests the water flow was set at a slightly lower rate than
in previous tests.
The device used was the smaller version of the energy catalyzer,
which was first shown at
<http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece>a
test March 29, 2011.
The tests lasted for two and three hours respectively and the total
net energy developed was calculated to be 5.6 and 6.9 kWh (see
report for
<http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166567.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+19+April+2011.pdf>April
19 and
<http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf>April
28).
1. The ammeter used to measure the input current, from which the
total power consumption is calculated, were calibrated by us against
other instruments.
2. Total water-flow input was measured by weighing.
3. By calibrating the temperature-sensor probe in boiling water, we
have as far as possible ensured that there is only vapor at the
outlet of the energy catalyzer.
Shortly before the test on April 28, we calibrated the probe by
immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was
then 99.6 degrees centigrade.
The probe, which sits just below the outlet of the energy catalyzer,
later during the test showed temperatures of about 100.5 degrees centigrade.
Therefore it cannot reasonably be in contact with water, thus there
should be only water vapor (steam) at the outlet.
Alternatively, the probe is subjected to other heating, but probably
not electrical as the temperature curve during start-up is quite uneven.
During the April 28 test, we also checked the steam flow through the
outlet hose regularly. Some steam was reasonably being condensed
back into water in the three-meter-long tube that was exposed to air
and was thus at a slightly lower temperature, and a small amount of
water was observed coming out of the hose.
The amount of water coming out before boiling was clearly larger,
and this was initially measured.
April 19 report, water by weight, coming from reservoirs, after point
at which water was coming out the outlet hose. Pumping rate:
17:10 - 17:31 4.15 kg/h
17:31 - 19:41 4.12 kg/h
Temperature: rose from heating start at 17:15, 22.8 deg C, to about
45 deg C in 4.5 minutes (at 17:19:30). 4.9 deg/minute.
At that point, the rate of rise of temperature increases, it seems,
but not drastically. At this point, the temperature probe is immersed
in liquid water, and the somewhat erratic rise in temperature is
puzzling. However, this may reflect irregularity in generated power,
but the generated power, at this point, does not seem large compared
with the original heating rate, which is presumably from the approx
300 W heater power.
Time to boiling, taken as 17:24:30, was, after the 45 deg. point, 5
minutes, rise 11 deg/minute.
It looks like there is a somewhat more than doubled heating power at
the 4.5 minute point. From 17:23 - 17:24, heat is rising from 82 deg
C to about 95 deg. C, 13 deg/minute.
At what point does the supposed additional 2.6 kW turn on? Consistent
with that power, it must turn on after the cooling chamber has
reached boiling, or we would see more rapid temperature rise.
The flat temperature after 17:25 is consistent with mixed-phase. That
is, the probe is immersed in boiling water, or in wet steam. Lewan's
assumption that the steam is above boiling is based on an open
boiling calibration of the probe at 99.6 degrees. A closed boiling
chamber, with a confined outlet, will show a somewhat higher
temperature than an open pot. Lewan seems to assume that the slightly
higher temperature indicates dry steam. It's the opposite: it
indicates mixed phase, because that is what regulates the temperature
to a precise value. To get dry steam and truly elevated temperature
would take prolonged contact with a heating surface that is above the
boiling point.
Note: the initial condition shown in the temperature rise chart is
liquid water. The Lewan conclusion is dry steam, but that's based on
the presumed temperature of the probe being above the boiling point.
We can see in the "startup" temperature chart that the probe settles
at boiling, 100 C on the chart, and that chart continues until
17:29:35. The detailed report last reports temperature at 100.0 C at 17:31.
We can see that Lewan has erred in his assumption that boiling
temperature was 99.5 C (in his calculation) or 99.6 C (in his calibration.)
Later, Lewan reports that the temperature reached 100.5 C, but that
is not shown in the chart. Obviously, to know total power generation,
one would need to know the continuous temperature levels, not merely
a peak level. Does the 100.5 C figure mean that the chamber boiled
dry, so that steam was being flashed to a higher temperature? Or does
it mean that as the outlet hose filled with water, pressure increased
a little. In the April 28 report, remarkably, Lewan attributes a
100.6 degree temperature to back pressure in the hose due to
immersion of the outlet hose in accumulated water in a bucket. In a
hose going into a drain, accumulated water would build up to create
the same pressure or more, until it reached the drain level.
April 28 report.
Lewan reports sparging the steam. Uses increase in pressure from
immerson of hose in bucket of water to explain temperature of 100.6
degrees, but doesn't seem to realize that in the April 19 test, water
accumulating in the outlet hose would cause the same effect.
In other words, at no point do we see a clear sign of dry steam and
the absence of water flowing through the device into the outlet hose.
The only evidence presented as to the alleged absence of this is the
temperature, which clearly indicates no such thing.
The temperature chart shows quite erratic temperature rise, compared
to the earlier test, but there is no knee showing generally increased
heating power.
The techniques being employed, in both reports, have been inadequate
to accurately assess generated power.
If there is no fraudulent manipulation, it looks like there is some
excess power, from the increase in heating rate that takes place at
45 degrees. In a prior test, the Kullander and Essen demo, this
"knee" was at around 60 degrees. On the other hand, we don't see
continuous monitoring of the input power. That knee could also be
explained by an increase in heater power, or by some internal
phenomenon resulting in more rapid transfer.
These tests do provide better assessment of pumped water than prior
tests, giving a measured value for the total water pumped. There is
no sign of back pressure reducing the pumped water. But there is
still no assessment either of steam quality nor measurement of how
much overflow water remains, there is only the assessemnt of Lewan as
to how much is coming out of the hose at one point, and we can see
how the flow out of the hose could be transiently low, i.e., if the
hose is emptied, it would then take time to fill, during which time
steam would be visible at the outlet, with no water being visible.
With the end of the hose immersed in water, no water flow would be
visible. The steam would condense, returning all (or most) of the
water to the liquid state in the receiving bucket.
This possibility of flowing liquid water seems to have been either
overlooked or inadequately investigated.
Further, the assumption of dry steam is made from inadequate evidence
(temperature alone without pressure measurements) and it is assumed
that dry steam could not co-exist with liquid water, transiently,
with the steam being above liquid water, the assumption that steam
hotter than boiling must be dry is based only on the immediate
vaporization of very small water droplets suspended in it.
I must say, I'm appalled at how much time has been wasted on
inadequate demonstrations. Jed Rothwell refused to go if he could not
make certain tests. Rossi would not agree, so Jed did not go. Sensible!
From the first Lewan report, I *suspect* that there is some excess
heat, maybe as much as a kW or so, maybe even more. It's impossible
to tell how much, and if we toss "moderate unidentififed error," not
to mention "fraud" into the mix, this is less than convincing.
