Why do you think the device is under pressure?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Heffner" <hheff...@mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely
unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such
conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a
fly.
It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there
is no excess energy produced. This is because purely normal
electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up. The 4 metric
tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous thermal mass. With a
steel heat capacity of 0.49 J/(gm K), the 1 MW E-cat has a possible
thermal mass Mt given by:
Mt = (0.49 J/(gm K))(4 tons)(1x10^6 gm/ton) = 1.96x10^6 J/K
At 200°C, or delta T = 100°C above boiling, this is an energy storage
of 196 MJ. This is enough to produce 196 MW seconds of boiling
energy if the water being recycled back into the E-cat from a
condenser is at 100°C. It is thus critical to know where the heating
element is located in the E-cat, and the general geometry of the
device, to determine the device safety even if no excess energy is
produced.
Earlier I estimated the flow rate out the E-cat pipe to be 223 m/s,
or 803 km/hr, at 1 MW output with 100°C water recycled. This is over
6 times a reasonable flow rate limit for the pipe size.
Each of the new E-cats, if like the one demonstrated briefly, can
utilize 2500 W electric input, for a total of 130 kW. If the E-cat is
operating at a COP of 6 then it will produce 0.78 MW of thermal
output. However, if the thermal mass is heated to a mean temperature
of 200°C, the device can periodically produce over a MW of steam
without any excess energy input at all ever. This demonstrates why
it is important to measure each test run total energy balance vs
momentary powers.
Instabilities can develop in the water condense cycle flow rate,
especially if the condenser capacity can be overrun. If the condenser
capacity is overrun an explosion can result due to pressure build up.
High pressure steam can drive water within and from the condenser
into the E-cat, and then steam as well, creating a momentary feedback
loop. If the steam momentarily cannot be condensed at an adequate
rate, say due to water slugs in the line, then the input water flow
rate is momentarily low and the water entering will end up
superheated steam, allowing the thermal mass to overheat. This kind
of flow instability then can be the source cause for a periodically
over 1 MW feedback loop oscillating condition to form, even without
excess energy. This demonstrates the need to control the flow of
water into each E-cat independent of the flow rate out of the
condenser and dependent on the mean thermal energy stored in the
overall device.
The new 80 kg E-cat, one 52nd of the 1 MW E-cat, when tested alone,
looked like it might have had some unusual transient properties. For
example, it is strange the device at the end was under so much
pressure, yet steam was not pouring forth from the thermometer well,
around the probe. The hose itself should have been able to take much
of the pressure off the device. It looked as if possibly some
thermostatically controlled orifice closed or the output flow was
momentarily blocked for some reason (pure speculation of course.) If
true, that a dangerous situation was suddenly perceived by the
operators, then this one wild speculation would account for the
abrupt lack of will to carry on the experiment through the night, or
the next day. The huge thermal mass provided by 80 kg of mostly
steel could bring instabilities not only to a 1 MW E-cat made of 52
of them, but internal instabilities to the small E-cats by
themselves. There is no way of knowing if this is true without
detailed knowledge of the structure of the device. Such knowledge is
not required to determine true COP, provided total test run energy
balances are accurately determined. Such knowledge is required,
however, to make any estimate of the device safety.
If a single E-cat catastrophically fails, it will be difficult to
enter the container to perform any emergency operation of the
remaining devices. Hopefully complete operation can be performed
remotely.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
