In order to walk you must first crawl. If you can't understand what I written
you will never make the required progress. Yes you can model what I'm talking
about mathematically. You just don't have the patience, are incompetent or are
plain ignorant. 1MJ is not a wild guess. Even if it was it would not be wrong.
You are the one insisting on numbers for illustrative purposes. If you can't
see a line then you aren't going to be able to see a line drawing. Yes you can
simply subtract 1000 from one million as many times as you like. We aren't
discussing water flow. There is 1MJ only and a certain amount of cooling. If we
assume 1kW steady then we produce 1kW steam for 1000 seconds. It makes me laugh
that you aren't able to see that esp. when you told me that 5kW steady was your
assumption. You're calculation involving 1.11MJ is unacceptable. Now your
telling me 1 MJ is ok? You're nuts. To say .5467MJ is not available to form
steam is wishful thinking only. Nevertheless it does not mean steam will not be
produced for 15 minutes. Since your result is in conflict with this it is
wrong. You need to start again. A good place to begin is with a steady 1000J
decrement from 1MJ per sec. If you can solve that you may be ready to proceed
to non-steady cooling.
----- Original Message -----
From: Horace Heffner
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations
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/
