Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as 
temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik


  JC stated:

  "(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)"

  Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat's 
internal temperature on startup.

   

  Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat's 
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of '5' 
and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for 
resistance heater power.

   

  Timestamp  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)

  ---------  -----------   ----------

  18:59         5             0

  19:10         6            11

  19:20         7            10

  19:30         8            10

  19:40         9            10

   

  We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know 
exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan 
states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' 
is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  

   

  Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.

   

  -Mark 

   

  From: Joe Catania [mailto:[email protected]] 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

   

  I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The 
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece 
of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes 
considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature 
will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline 
slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I 
have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a 
degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over 
and the CF regime to have begun. 

Reply via email to