On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/1 Horace Heffner <[email protected]>:
If you want to see wet steam as I have described it, as generated
by the
peroclator effect
Your description is wrong, because percolator effect does not produce
wet steam, but hot water and little dry steam (steam quality ca. 98%).
What you are here saying that coffee maker produces ultra wet steam
instead of hot water, what is as a concept silly. Using such a silly
concepts like "wet steam" in context where they do not belong gives
quite clear message that you are not familiar with the field you are
trying to analyze. It is not good sign that you give own definitions
for the physical concepts. (I know this, because I have done this also
some times)
What existing technical name would you provide for the concept that
water is being blown out of the device on a continual basis as long
as the power is applied and input flow is constant. I used an
analogous concept to name the effect. This I think is effective,
certainly for writing purposes. It is a lot better than BWODOCBWPAIFC.
It is not a good sign that you are setting up a straw man argument
that the steam being "dry" when, massive amounts of water are blown
out with it, somehow validates the "calorimetry" performed. When
people resort to straw man arguments it means either they can not
think clearly or they know they are wrong and are seeking a diversion.
But instead of calling percolator effect, you should calculate what
portion of inlet water is evaporated. It is quite clear that the whole
E-Cat is quite quickly emptied from water due to percolator effect.
I simply do not know what to say to such a statement when I provided
such clear numbers that show this percolator effect is a continuous
process when the device operates in steady state, equilibrium state.
Do you have objections to the numbers I have produced? It is as if
you don't understand anything at all about what I have posted or the
numbers provided. The E-Cat does not dry out in the various
scenarios shown to date. In steady state operation the percolator
effect is continuous. Water is continually supplied, some boiled and
some *continually* blown out of the device by percolator effect. This
*continual* process invalidates any steady state calorimetry with the
assumptions made by Rossi that the steam was "dry", that all water is
converted to steam. This is obviously an erroneous *assumption*, not
measurement, that invalidates the public tests even if a large COP of
nuclear heat is actually being produced.
The measurements required for even an amateur level of calorimetry
were not
taken. The products that went into the hose went down the drain.
This
leaves us with guesswork at best.
That it is untrue. In December demonstration there was measured 100
kPa excess steam pressure.
Please provide the URLs for this data and any analysis provided in
the test reports.
This is more than enough to estimate quite
accurately the total enthalpy. If your data is flawed in many ways,
then you need to be creative and try to reconstruct as much as you
can. As I showed quite clearly, that there are several methods to try
to calculate the total enthalpy. None of them is alone accurate, but
together they may be significant.
And ... they may not be significant.
This is why it is useless to relay on expert knowledge, because we are
in the situation that no expert knowledge is available, because
situation is unique. In unique situations, we must be creative.
This is nonsensical. It is the responsibility of the demonstrator to
provide a meaningful demonstration. It is not incumbent upon
observers to be creative to find meaning in a demonstration.
But Horace, why do you constantly ignore the fact that steam
generation in closed container is always generating excess pressure?
And in this case, excess pressure was 100 kPa.
Here are the three creative methods for calculating total enthalpy.
And please do not just ignore them:
–There was 100 kPa overpressure, and from Mats Lewan E-Cat we get one
reference point (there was 32 kPa overpressure). Therfore 6-9kW is
likely explanation for 100 kPa. Steam engineers could also calculate
directly the amount of steam needed for generating 100 kPa excess
pressure.
Pressure alone means little without flow quantities. If your steam
flow numbers are off, due to most being water flow, then pressure
alone is meaningless. For example, if you insulate a pressure cooker
it does not take much heat to maintain 100 kPa, about 1 atmosphere
pressure. Also, I assume you mean here gauge pressure and not
absolute pressure.
–During the two approximately 6min power surge at 17:30 and 17:50
temperature rose approximately 1.5 times more than during the first 30
minutes when only 1.2 kW electric heater was active. Therefore total
heating power when E-Cat was producing excess heat, was approximately
9kW. (This is most reliable estimation, because it calculates the
enthalpy in sub-boiling temperatures. and data all necessary data is
measured.)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwDi8cYrtI/AAAAAAAAE1E/
TT603dSfpzs/s1600/report3.jpg
I don;'t see an input power trace, just temperature measurements.
Again, an attempt to look at dynamics without knowledge of the actual
parameters, what is inside the E-Cat. This demonstrates the
importance of *measuring* and balancing total *energy* of a test, and
not just power, when dynamics are involved. Also it demonstrates the
importance of achieving steady state.
–And for third method, the enthalpy can be calculated using an
estimation of total
thermal mass of E-Cat. This is where I got that 6 kW for minimum
possible
power output.
Estimates and guesses. This is not science. For example, one issue
is, if band heaters are used on the outside of the device, then the
thermal mass of the band heaters and outer jacket of the device are
important. There really are two thermal masses and temperature
involved. No measurement is taken of either temperature. The problem
is we don't know much about what is inside the insulation. This is
why it is so important to do good calorimetry on what goes into the
device and comes out of the device for every moment of every test,
and determine a full energy balance, not just screwball estimates of
values that we have to be "creative" about to glean any meaning at all.
Well the pea might be under this shell, or maybe that shell. We
have to be creative to figure it out. Meanwhile gambling money at
even odds on finding the pea under one of 3 walnut shells is not such
a good idea, especially since the pea may not be under any of the
three. Money on pure research is one thing. Investing with an
expectation of return is another.
October will hopefully provide some real insight.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
