On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > Due to these blunders, their measurements were meaningless. Probably true. > However, > there is one useful information in that March experiment, what has > been ignored. They observed that E-Cat heated water for the first 9 > min with 350W electric power to 60°C and after that power increased > and temperature went in 4 min to 97.5°C. > > We know that water inflow was 6.48 kg/h and therefore if we assume > that heating and water pump were initialized at the same moment, we > can roughly calculate that total power of E-Cat was around 1000-1500 > watts, because E-Cat contained 1.6-1.8 kg water and the thermal mass > of metals is low. This reasoning is not right. The volume of the ecat (where the heat is transferred to the water) is only a fraction of a liter. The water in the rest of the contraption has nothing to do with the warm up period, any more than the water in the hose does, or the water down the drain does. And the difference between a cold ecat and one at equilibrium is that the output water is hot; the input is always cold. So, the contribution of the water in the ecat to the thermal mass is roughly divided by 2. Water has a much higher heat capacity than the metals, but the metals are much heavier, so they will constitute most (nearly all) of the relevant thermal mass. We know it takes 600 W to boil water at that flow rate, and from the rate of increase near boiling, it does seem to be well above that, so 1 kW is not implausible, but neither is 800W. Unfortunately, they did not monitor the input electrical power like they did in January, and this power can easily be provided by the mains. If we assume this to be constant, it suits very well > with Mats Lewan's observation that he observed around 2 kW and > temperature anomaly was 100.5°C. Where as E&K observed temperature > anomaly of 100.1-100.2°C. Therefore it is necessary that Mats Lewan's > E-Cat was operating with higher power output than E&K's E-Cat. > The flow rate was lower in Lewan's case. That means more steam would have to be produced to remove the same amount of heat. So, even if you take these fractions of a degree seriously, they do not give evidence that the power was higher in Lewan's case. > > Also January E-Cat produced 101.5°C steam, but there power output and > thus pressure, was considerably more. Perhaps something like 6-12 kW. > Or, perhaps 2 kW, which is above the power required to reach boiling at the claimed flow rate, and twice the plausible power of E&K. Or, perhaps 1.1 kW, which is above the power required to reach boiling at the estimated flow rate from the pump frequency, and corresponds to the average input power. I don't recall the thermometer was calibrated in that experiment. The problem with attributing this small increase in bp to more power is that it dips below the bp briefly after the input was reduced to 400 W, and then goes right back to previous bp when the input is jacked up to 1.55 kW. If there were 6 - 12 kW generated, it would have to drop to less than 2 kW and jump back to 6 - 12 kW in a matter of minutes. That's not plausible. > February test, however confirmed that E-Cat is really able to perform > with high power output, but it is just matter of regulation. > You are more easily convinced than I am. > > PS. Here is my explanation and working theory how E-Cat is functioning: > > [...]We need some 600 wats for heating water inflow to boiling point. Then > we can calculate how much power we need to increase pressure inside E-Cat to > explain elevated boiling point. My gut feeling says that we need extra power > some kilowatts, so there is clearly extra heat present. This clearly > falsifies Krivit's criticism by one order of magnitude as he assumes that > there is just few hundred wats for generating steam and elevating the > pressure. > First, your gut feeling, especially if it is completely unsupported, falsifies nothing. Second Krivit was not quantitative about the power he thought the output steam represented. He was merely questioning the conclusions because no evidence of steam dryness was provided, and claimed that the liquid content of the steam could change the claimed excess heat by *as much as* 2 orders of magnitude. > To confirm this hypothesis on E-Cat, we should have strong correlation > between alleged power output and measured boiling point (we have the same > hose in all demonstrations). That is, because pressure is directly > proportional to amount of generated steam. > I don't think that's true. With the chimney filled with water, the height will produce an increase in the bp by a fraction of a degree. With pure steam, the pressure required to get through the various fittings, expanders, reducers, and elbows could cause a similar fraction of a degree increase in the bp. What happens in between is pretty hard to predict, but the fact that the temperature is very flat shows that from the very onset of boiling (at 600W) the pressure is pretty constant. > Overall, I think that Rossi has adjusted the water inflow such a way that > more than 60% of water goes through phase change. > At least you are now admitting that what comes out of the ecat is most probably a mixture of liquid and gas. Since we have no way to know the ratio, the output power can vary by 700% or so. >
