On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:57 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
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).
Here you are making the point I made in my report. The evidence
presented is insufficient to determine one way or another if there is
excess heat. This is poor experiment design. It wouldn't be so
horrific if many people had not suggested in advance ways to get good
evidence, like combined use of isoperibolic calorimetry methods.
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.
The test was advertised to be 24 hours. Then it was advertised to be
at least 12 hours. It would be nice to know when the 19:00 shutdown
time was "scheduled."
Therefore E-Cat test was phenomenal success that surpassed even our
wildest dreams.
I find this viewpoint unimaginable. I guess I am short on
imagination. 8^)
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
Hidden power sources are not needed to explain the results. A
misplaced Tout thermometer provides all the explanation that is
necessary.
and positive evidence for huge amounts of excess heat with only
50-80 watts input for frequency generator.
—Jouni
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
