Alright, if it's conclusive without the thermocouples.... Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H. calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the Rossi camp? I only ask, because multiple references have been made to "tons of cooling water" to quench the reaction during H.A.D. In reality, the water flowing through the E-Cat (as the heat exchanger primary-side output) was measured twice: The first time, it was .91 grams/sec and the second time it was just shy of 2 g/s. If the E-Cat were indeed 14.2liters (14.2 kg), the entire contents of the E-Cat would take 2-4 hours to be completely replaced. All the while, a "device that generates frequencies" is still running. When it is turned off, the E-Cat temp begins declining. Soooo many questions.
Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny >> Teknik results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the >> logged E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way. >> > >It cannot track them. The eCat is boiling water at a given pressure, >somewhat above 1 atm. The temperature cannot rise. If power increases, it >will boil more water but the temperature will not rise. > >If you capture the steam from the pot on your stove in a heat exchanger, and >you turn the gas light up, you will see no change in the boiling water >temperature but the heat exchanger will capture more heat. > >There are minor fluctuations in the eCat steam temperature. I do not know >what causes them. Perhaps hot water, or just instrument noise. > >Note also that the cooling water outlet thermocouple of attached to the >outside of the pipe. A pipe is a large heat sink, and a way to "average out" >or blur the heat signal. This has been talked to death here, but people have >not noted that this is actually a recommended technique. It prevents rapid >fluctuations and local hot spots in the water from affecting the >thermocouple. In this case, it may be picking up heat from the steam pipe as >well, so it may be a little too high, but it is still an excellent way to >smooth out the signal and be sure that the heat is homogeneous and real. If >it turns out to be a little high that has no impact on the overall >conclusions. > >Note that it can only be a little too high. Not a lot. Compare the thermal >mass of 10 kg/min of cooling water to 55 g/min of steam. Try it! Sparge 55 g >of steam at 120 deg C in 10 kg of tap water and you will see that the final >temperature is a lot closer to the tap water than the steam. Or just do it >in your head. It takes roughly 34,000 calories to raise water from 25 deg C >to steam at 120 deg C. Divide that into 10,000 g of water, and the water >goes up about 3.4 deg C. For most of the test, the temperature rose 5 deg C. >That's in the same ballpark. Maybe the actual temperature rise was only 3.4. >So what? An hour after the power was cut it would have been 0.000 deg C, in >the absence of anomalous heat. > >There may have been more than 55 g of steam per minute at times. No one kept >track of the input water to the reactor. There was no need to. That is not >relevant to the calorimetry, in this case. > > > A quick example is between 19:03 and 19:22: In that time frame, E-Cat temp >> is steadily decreasing, hydrogen is purged, the frequency generator is >> turned off, and water flow increased (in the primary). But in the following >> 20 minutes, the output supposedly increases from 3.9 kW to 6.1 kW. >> > >That is a different issue. That is when the eCat is being degassed and the >flow through the eCat is turned up, according to Lewan's log. Conditions are >no longer stable and the calorimetry no longer works. Calorimetry requires >steady state conditions, in which only the heat flux varies. When you open >valves or change flow rates, conditions are not in steady state. It is >difficult to model the system. > >Also, there may have been a burst of heat then. It is hard to judge. > >- Jed
