On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water
temperature. Not the temperature of output of primary circuit. You
are correct, it should be the value what you thought it to be, but
this is the main flaw in the test. This also means that we do not
have any means to know what was the efficiency of heat exchanger,
because we do not know how much heat went down the sink from open
primary circuit. Primary circuit should have been closed.
I did not reference T3 in this regards, as far as I know. If you
think I did in some relevant way please provide a quote of the
material to which you refer. Here again are the quotes I think are
important with regards to *measuring* the outflow of the primary
circuit:
"18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger,
supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow
of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C."
"Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly
condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/
s. Temperature 23.2 °C."
The water coming out of the primary circuit should not be cooler than
the cooling water going into the heat exchanger, but the difference
may be just thermometer error. My point here is there is no wasted
heat going down the drain if this is correct.
Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP
from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because
initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening
inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for
anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA
electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not
show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E-
Cat continued running for some 40 minutes.
This is not a flaw in reasoning. I have done many similar
calculations and I typically like like Ein Eout and COP as final
columns. COP is very meaningful, and helpful to quick
interpretation, but you have to "wring out" the latent heat in the
system at the end of the test. I have posted a test of mine where
the COP ended at 1, and another where it ended significantly above 1.
You are making the unwarrented assumption above that the thermometry
can be relied upon. I don't think it can. The thermometers were
improperly located and no manual checks were provided, no calibration
run.
Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own
interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial
solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining.
There is no evidence provided of that at this point.
Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but
we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can
sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps
indefinitely.
Again, there is no evidence provided of that at this point.
But your calculations were absolutely brilliant.
Thanks, but they are just standard operating procedure for this kind
of thing I think.
It was something that I wanted. It also confirmed my estimation of
100-150 MJ for total output, including 30 MJ of electricity.
Although I did consider also something for the innefficiency of
heat exchanger.
for Mats Lewan, I would like to ask did anyone measure the
temperature of primary circuit after the heat exchanger? This would
be very important bit of information.
I provided quote of a couple of such measurements above.
—Jouni
lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>
kirjoitti:
> The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as
reported by NyTeknic here:
>
> http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/
article3284823.ece
>
> http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of
+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
>
> A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf
>
> Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to
avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This
compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and
location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for
the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643.
>
> The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the
36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically
speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the
thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer
than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have
made all the difference.
>
> First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out
calorimetry problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T
would have improved reliability of the power out values.
>
> Second, the lack of hand measurements of the cooling water
temperatures Tin and Tout periodically was unfortunate, especially
when large values of delta T was present. The thermometers should
be relocated down the rubber hose a short distance and insulated.
>
> Third, a kWh meter could have been fairly cheaply purchased or
obtained and read at the same time the other electric meters were
used.
>
> Fourth, a filter to smooth any pulsed current demand from the E-
cat power supply could have been used, or an oscilloscope used to
ensure no such pulses were imposed on the input current.
>
> Fifth, the flow meter volumes could have been manually recorded
at the same times temperature readings were recorded.
>
>
> GENERAL COMMENTS
>
> A control calibration run was not made, as evidenced by a 0.8°C
minimum error in the delta T for Tin and Tout.
>
> No kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy. It is
far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by
>
> P(t) = d E(t)/dt
>
> than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and
integrate to obtain E(t).
>
> Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the
time stamped volume data. It is much more accurate, depending on
flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as:
>
> f(t) = d V(t)/dt
>
> than to integrate:
>
> V(t) = integral f(t) dt
>
> (or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional
sporadic short interval flow measurements. This is the value of
using volume meters. This appears to actually be a small point in
this case, however, because fortunately overall flow volume was
measured, and total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear
to be an issue, at least compared to the other issues.
>
> The flow rate chosen was too large, resulting in a max delta T of
about 8°C and thus unreliable accuracy in the heat measurements.
The measurements might have been more reliable if the thermocouples
had not been placed on insulated metal parts, i.e. connected
directly, metal to metal, to the heat exchanger itself. They should
have been separated from the heat exchanger by low conductivity
material, such as a short length of rubber hose, to avoid thermal
wicking problems through the metal. The same applies to the output
temperature measurement for the E-cat. This is the same problem as
before, when the thermometer was buried in the earlier E-cats, but
compounded. This makes the temperature data highly unreliable.
>
> From the report:
>
> "Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C."
>
> "18:53 Tin = 24.3 °C Tout = 29.0 °C T3 = 24.8 °C T2 = 116.4 °C"
>
> "18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger,
supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a
flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C."
>
> "19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C"
>
> "Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger,
supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a
flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C."
>
> These values indicate a significant problem with temperature
measurement. The most serious problem is the output temperature
recorded for the "condensed steam". Perhaps that was a repeated
recoding error. The "condensed steam" is measured leaving the heat
exchanger at a temperature lower than room temperature by at least
5°C, and lower than the Tin of the exchanger by 1°C.
>
> It is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at
time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises.
This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the
influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the
primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting
the power may introduce water into output stream, as before. If
the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject to thermal wicking,
the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. This
sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for increased
temperature from the
> Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam
input. In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that
output power quickly momentarily rises. This kind of mystery can
be, should be, unravelled using a dummy or inactive E-cat during
calorimeter calibration sessions.
>
> If the heat exchanger were 70% efficient as estimated by some
individuals, then the "condensed steam" water temperature should
have been above Tin. Given a delta T of the cooling water of 32.4°
C - 24.2°C = 8.2°C, we might expect a "condensed steam" temperature
more like 34.8°C, not 23.2°C if the coupling of the two circuits
were imperfect. The insulated condenser itself and the insulated
flow lines do not appear to be a significant source of loss of
energy, and thus low measurement efficiency. Further, the low
temperature of the "condensed steam" water upon output from the
primary circuit indicates no loss of energy in the heat exchange
process due to dumped heat in the form of "condensed steam" going
down the drain.
>
> Based on all the above, the temperature measurements lack the
degree of credibility required to make any reliable assessment of
commercial value.
>
> Noted in report: "15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero.
A device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current
432 mA. Voltage 230 V."
>
> The power measurement during this period may be highly flawed,
depending on the circuits involved and where the measurement was
taken. Filtering between the power measurement and E-cat is
essential, unless a fast response meter, like the Clarke-Hess is used.
>
> Even if it is real, a COP of 3 is marginal for commercial
application. It is much more difficult to achieve self powering
with a cop of 3 vs 6. Unfortunately the temperature data is
unreliable, and the COP does not look to be anywhere near the
advertised 6 or even 3. Further, the temperature tailed off after
less than 4 hours of no power input. The device should not have
been shut down there, but re-energized. To be shown to have any
commercial value the device should be shown producing net energy
for an extended period, like the 24 hours originally touted for the
test. The claim was the E-cat can run for 6 months without
refueling. This test was not useful as demonstration of commercial
value.
>
> As in the numerous prior demonstrations of the E-cats, we are
left tantalized by the indication of possible excess energy, and
disappointed that with a little extra effort the evidence might
have finally been at hand.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
