Am 11.10.2011 16:01, schrieb Colin Hercus:
Hi Robert,
If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to
124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly
well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to
possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at
least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures.
The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C
which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that
0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has.
I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of
11kg/hr. I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate
for the October test..
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236
Colin
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon
<robert.leguil...@hotmail.com <mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com>>
wrote:
Let's now take this to its logical conclusion.
At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as
though the average power (including the power applied by the band
heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW.
Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its
124C peak.
So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume
some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question,
"What's the floor?":
Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C
to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the "sound",
"feel" and relative temperature stability. But, as with every
demonstration, we cannot determine how much.
This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to
380 watts or 2.5 kw.
Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
<mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with
same LMI P18
>pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if
making
>124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar)
>http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would
suggest at
>maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure.
>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
>
>If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than
3.6kw
>(1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW
(0.91g/s
>24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was
>dropping.
>
>At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary
of 6.5°C
>and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a
power output
>of 4.5kW.
>
>So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be
>delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly
>overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad
outlet
>thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though
it could be
>a lot more.
>
>On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com
<mailto:a...@well.com>> wrote:
>
>> At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com <mailto:a...@well.com>> wrote:
>> It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his
responses to
>> Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably
at the usual
>> drain).
>> He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the
flowmeter.
>>
>>
>> The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The
flow
>> results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature.
>>
>> He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of
>> sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the
peristaltic pump
>> was increased.
>>
>> We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during
Lewan's
>> walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says "about 1 hour ago
we went into
>> self-sustaining mode".
>>
>>
