Horace, you were correct. I did error with the temperature (one example how easy it is to jump into conclusions when you thought to be certain, but actually reasoning was flawed). Temperature after the heat exchanger was indeed measured in primary circuit. But we have just two datapoints which had mass flow rate of 3.3 kg/h and 6.9 kg/h. This is rather variable. However, I do not think that this variation could explain temperature fluctuations in secondary loop, because most of the enthalpy was caried out by steam and and that should not have no other fluctuations than what are caused by power fluctuations. 95°C water without steam did not cause notable temperature change in secondary loop.
Therefore we can just assume high efficiency for the heat exchanger. Something like 90% or above. Or we can just ignore it. Jouni wrote: > > 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. > Horace wrote: > There is no evidence provided of that at this point. > We do not have any evidence against it either. All evidence that we have is pointing into this direction that E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining after initial heating. Jouni wrote: > 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. > Horace wrote: > Again, there is no evidence provided of that at this point. > There is no evidence against either, because test was scheduled to be short (8 hours). lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > > On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > 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. > > The format I used I think is very useful for calibration runs, where it is known there is no excess heat. If the protocol is good and sufficiently long, and the measurements good, then at the end of the run the COP ends up at 1. For this this is useful, but it is not meaningful to extrapolate long term COP, what you were trying to do, when you thought that COP was rather low for industrial applications: »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.» This is just utterly false reasoning, because initial heating of E-Cat consumed most of the input and it does not need to be done more than once. But perhaps your mistake was with this misunderstanding: »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.» Temperature tailed off when the hydrogen pressure was reduced and frequency generator was shutdown in 19:00. after that it took some 40 mins to stop heat production at kilowatt scale. that is, reactor was shutdown in 19:00 as was scheduled. Therefore E-Cat test was phenomenal success that surpassed even our wildest dreams. I think we need David Copperfield to explain the illusion, because no less skilled illusionist can not do such a convincing demonstration, if it was the gratest hoax in history of cold fusion. We have positive evidence against hidden power sources and positive evidence for huge amounts of excess heat with only 50-80 watts input for frequency generator. —Jouni
