Some consolidated and clarified text follows.
It appears a significant deficiency of Rick Cantwells experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo
is similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations; namely,
it is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially
at the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some
individuals that the output water is due entirely to steam
condensation which occurs in the hose. This may not be the case.
Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See:
http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html
Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device
should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an
insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure
water, See
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg48633.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg48653.html
A smaller problem (probably inconsequential since the experiments
were run to equilibrium conditions) might be that Rossi's more recent
demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large diameter boiler
area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical section, just the
opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's experiment. A short
rise narrow tube should be more capable of supporting a percolator
effect - which dumps liquid water into the hose, i.e. should come to
equilibrium flows faster.
It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device
pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid. No overflow
or percolator effects should be present because the device, at
equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top.
Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and
thus water condensation in the hose, should be greatest in mode 1,
because no energy is being used to heat the water once equilibrium is
reached in mode 1. More steam production should result in more
condensation in the hose. Much less condensation happens in mode 1
than in modes 2 and 3. Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water
is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in the
second two run modes.
Now to take a more quantitative look at this.
At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass
flow. At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow.
In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase
(second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw
(assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of:
Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W
In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase
(third experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of:
Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W
In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the
water.
In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the
water.
In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s.
In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s.
In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:
R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s
In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:
R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s
In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with
water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about
50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect,
should be more apparent.
Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of
the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that
all the water is converted to steam. The controller in the Rossi
device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it,
assuming no power storage in the device. The input power was
measured as constant. If the controller maintains a constant power
demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to
resistors in the controller itself. It is notable that 4 muffin fans
were shown in the E-cat controller. If the controller periodically
reduces power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent output
power of the E-cat dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped
out of the E-cat and down the hose. Demonstrating steam production
is obviously best accomplished when maximum power is supplied to
actually boiling water, as opposed to heating water, in the E-cat.
To perpetrate a fraud using a device like the one demonstrated by
Rick Cantwell, but using a controller, an operator would have to know
when maximum power were being supplied by the controller, perhaps by
sound, or have to have a manual switch to change modes. This is not
to say Rossi has done this. He may have a legitimate nuclear
device. However, this analysis clearly demonstrates that nothing has
been proven unless calorimetry is performed on the output which
measures a full run enthalpy balance.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
