On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny
Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat
the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all
experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2.
This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.
Peter
I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the
water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!)
Do you mean there wasn't enough power applied to convert all the
water flow to steam?
Yes. Kullander and Essen have calculated this explicitely and I
recalculated it and can confirm.
Also I dont think two Physics Professors can do errors here because
this is too simple to calculate.
Look here: <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf>
.
At the time I read the original version that did not have the photos.
I still have the copy. It seemed to me the data could not be relied
on because the calorimetry was insufficient. I don't think I
commented on it on vortex. I didn't take it seriously. We have seen
here on vortex what good calorimetry looks like, and that was not
close to it. Based on your comments I took the time to review the
paper here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51632.html
.
At Page 2 they write:
"It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature,
10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to
raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet
temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no
additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature
would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the
temperature increases faster after 10:36,...."
I recalculated this. I did not recalculate the other documents, but
reliable persons said this and I made some rule of thumb estimations.
.
The calculations are correct. However, the data does not look
credible. It could be and could not be correct. It appears to me that
the power measurements were not checked or at least recorded frequently.
.
I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not
actually knowing the true flow rate at all times. Mattia Rizzi
observed pump rates on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s.
Essen & Kullander measured it with a carafe.
.
One measurement is of course not a good substitute for continued
measurement and recording.
.
(See page 1, chapter "Calibrations").
In the january experiment they measured the weigt of the water bottle.
They use a peristaltic pump. I was often in chemical labors in my
life. ( I did electronics and computer servicing there)
They use peristaltic pumps, (equipped with calibrated hoses) when
accurate flow is required.
This should be pretty constant and a big variation would be audible.
.
I have used peristaltic pumps. I own a couple that I have used for
various purposes. Their pump rate varies if frequency changes
(usually only important for very accurate calorimetry, depending on
the source of the electricity), and volume varies if pressure head
varies.
.
If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94
gm/s, input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the
flow heated to 100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated. All that is
hard to know too because apparently Rossi touched the control
panel. Manual adjustment is apparently part of the process, as is
changing duty factors. This is one reason why a good kWh meter
would be of use.
Yes but the heater is controlled by a zero crosspoint switch. The
heater should be on some seconds and off some seconds.
.
There was no mention of this in the report.
.
The current that they measured should be the maximum current and it
corresponded to the 300W rating of the band heater.
.
very strange that only the band heater would be used when the
function of the auxiliary heater is to ignite the reaction.
.
A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats
is so high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much.
I think Kullander and Essen where there all the time and they
watched carefully what was going on.
Of course this cannot prove that there ai no hidden fake energy
source and that there are no tricks,
.
It is not necessary that there be any faking going on. The
calorimetry data is simply not good enough to tell what is happening.
.
but I think in the Kullander and Essen demo we can be sure there
was more energy than 300W. 600W would have been required to heat
the water flow to 100° and some additional 100 Watts are needed to
get reasonable steam and boiling.
.
Yes, 620 W would have been required.
I don't think we really know there was only 300W. There were two
wires running to the device from the blue box, as should be
expected. There are two heaters. It seems to me logical that Rossi
was occasionally operating the controls as usual. The data seem to
indicate this is true. The same device was used for the Krivit demo
and it took 748 W. We certainly know it can draw more than 300 W.
.
Only fast sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative
energy is meaningful, or first principle energy integrating
techniques. Total energy in vs total energy out for a long period
is the meaningful number.
Yes of course for a scientific publication test this is necessary,
but not for a qualitative plausibility test.
.
On this I think we simply disagree. I think the standard for
demonstrating the device should be much higher than those required
for publishing a scientific article.
.
.
Best,
Peter
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
