On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Try to understand there is no way that the temperature can decay in
only a few minutes. If you start with 1MJ and subtracted 1kJ/sec
you'd get 1000sec.
This is woefully wrong on two counts, (a) the 1 MJ number is a wild
guess on your part and probably wrong, way too high, and (b) you can
not simply subtract 1 kJ/sec until reaching zero, even if that is the
thermal demand at some point. There is flowing water coming in at 23°
C or thereabouts. The temperature required to warm that water up to
100°C is substantially above 100°C, as I have clearly shown:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg50831.html
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf
For example, note in the above pdf, to which I have added a "Stored
Energy" column, that even though the initial stored energy is 1.11
MJ, that steam generation stops when stored energy is 0.5467 MJ. All
the 1.11 MJ is thus *not available* to generate steam.
Note in:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf
Mode 3, line 3, that, given all the assumptions in that line, a
minimum mass temperature of 307°C is required to heat the incoming
water to 100°C. This is due to a need to be consistent with the
Thermal Resistance that is required by the assumptions. This is in
part what I mean when I say this kind of model can iron out internal
inconsistencies in the choice of input parameters.
Now understand that we don't stay at 1kJ, we decrease in accordance
with a decline in temperature.
Yes, I provided a thermal decline curve, and, for your convenience I
added a column providing the the Thermal Energy of the mass by time:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf
Nothing further is required since it is obvious that steam will be
produced for more than 15 minutes.
The only thing obvious to me is that your conclusion is based on an
over simplistic and erroneous analysis, and is also based on an
assumption without a good foundation.
You have yet to acknowledge this. Listen to me, not to yourself.
I've been hearing obvious nonsense like "the temperature will
decline very fast therefore steam will be produced for only a
couple minutes." This is absurd.
Again, this assertion of less than 2 minute decay was based on one of
30 assumption data sets I have provided. I did not supply the 1 MJ
number. It was suggested on this list. Further, I don't believe
the 1 MJ number is correct and never did. It is merely a *sample*
assumption "for the sake of discussion" based on the postings of
others, your postings perhaps.
Again, I don't think we have communicated. Please explain what the
following comments, taken from my post and quoted by you, meant to you:
"My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote -
with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if
the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage,
for example."
"For the sake of discussion, let's just assume ... "
"So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should
not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2
minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut
off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the
above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with
regard to the E-Cat."
What do you think my statements, quoted above, mean? Do you think
they mean I am asserting the device mass stores a MJ of energy? Do
you think I am asserting therefore there is a 2 minute time limit
until no steam? This is not what this means at all. In fact I
explicitly stated why that calculation was provided. Your straw man
argument simply is not valid.
Again I say, if you don't like my assumed numbers feel free to tell
me what your assumed numbers are for Mass, Thermal Power (before
shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow. However, it
should be self evident that the results can be made to look as you
please with regard to decay time, by choice of assumptions. The
required data is simply not available to make a true determination of
decay time. That said, discussion based on quantitative analysis
should be more meaningful than discussion based on personal feelings
and arbitrary assumptions. At least some of the inconsistent
assumptions might be ruled out.
You need to take a more serious look at this.
I'll gladly do this.
You have certainly rested on your 1970 laurels.
I would not say that I am resting. 8^) I do tend to take daily
afternoon naps though! 8^)
Assumed numbers are meaningless.
My point exactly.
You do not proceed from first principles.
This is what I have done, proceed from basic principles with regard
to analysis, even though the model is simplistic. Your mental model,
however, is even more simplistic, to the point of arriving at false
conclusions even if the assumed data is correct.
I've already shown steam will be produced for over 15 minutes.
This is clearly false. You have shown nothing. You have overlooked
the fact that much energy still remains in the mass when steam
generation stops, due to the need to heat the flowing water. This
means even if a MJ or more thermal energy is available, a large
portion of that can remain unusable, due to the large delta T
required just to heat the water to boiling point. A temperature well
above boiling point is required just to heat the water to 100*C. I
provided the required minimum temperature, "Critial Temp", to produce
steam. This then provides the cutoff time on the curve.
I've said this many times. I will not consider your numbers since
they are obviously flawed as well as you calculation.
So, I am simply wrong because some of my numbers don't agree with
yours and therefore you won't even look at my calculations?
It is obvious to the most rank amateur that steam will be produced
for over 15 minutes. Your errors have been pointed out.
You have made multiple analysis errors. It is you who is standing by
an *assumption*, namely the availability of over a MJ of thermal
energy. It is I who merely provides a means to look at the
*consequences* of a set of assumptions. The assumptions I chose are
somewhat arbitrary, in order to examine their implications and
possibly make some useful deductions.
Please provide your assumed numbers for Mass, Thermal Power (before
shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow. I will then be
happy to analyze the implications of those assumptions.
Again I say, I am prone to making errors. There is a good possibility
I have something wrong. It would be a good thing to find any such
errors and thus be able to perform an accurate analysis. You have to
at least look at the calculations to find any such errors though
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
