In the end of demonstration the amount of water was measured from the
primary loop output. It was 0.9 g/s and few moments later it was 1.9 g/s.
This does not correspond well into water inflow rate that was calibrated
before the demo into 13 kg/h or 3.6 g/s. As referring into September test,
we can assume that water inflow rate was slightly lower due to internal
pressure of E-Cat. Something like 2.8 g/s.
This water inflow rate however can compensate only 6-7 kW power output,
where as heating power was probably somewhat higher, if all the heat losses
are considered. This means that water level inside E-Cat was lower than
overflowing and when the measurements were made, only steam was escaping.
When the first measurement was made, ΔT in secondary loop did not show high
power output. Only around 3 kW and mass flow of steam was 2 kW. In the
second measurement power output was measured around 5 kW and mass flow of
steam was corresponding to 4 kW.
This explains well why mass flow in primary loop was so low when it was
measured. Only high quality steam was escaping the E-Cat, because water
level inside E-Cat was low due to previous higher power output that probably
exceeded 6 kW or water inflow rate. This is no problem in short
demonstration, because E-Cat can store up to 30 kg water and this can
support boiling several hours before E-Cat is going to boil dry. E-Cat can
buffer 20 kW power output for an hour with 10 kg/h inflow rate, before it is
boiling dry.
This tells something how important it would have been, if the proper control
checks of water flowrate had been made in the input and out put of primary
loop.
—Jouni
tiistai, 11. lokakuuta 2011 Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]>
kirjoitti:
> I have not had time to read all the messages today, but I was thinking
about the known error sources.
>
> 1) The heat exchanger efficiency cannot be no more than 90%. That is
because, the surface area of E-Cat and hose to heat exchanger was in total
about 1.3 m². We do not know the surface temperature but if it was 60-85°C,
that would be some 300-800 watt heat loss. Therefore 80-90% is reasonable
quess for efficiency and in joules this takes 15-20 MJ. We still need to
assume that heat were not escaped from the primary loop into drain.
>
> 2) Most of the energy of electricity went into preheating E-Cat (ΔT=75°C).
100 kg metal and 25-30 kg water takes about 18 MJ energy that does not show
as output, because none of that heat energy makes it into the heat
exchanger. Therefore this heat must be added to the total heat output of
E-Cat.
>
> These are quite significant errors and both are known. Therefore they add
up to 40 MJ to the total output that was estimated to be 100-120 MJ.
Therefore total output was perhaps as high as 160 MJ. This means that if
excess heat was provided by chemical energy, it is required 10 liters of
thermite to be burned inside E-Cat. I think that this is significant to
consider these rather well known error sources. At least they offer decent
buffer, if there are errors in heat exchanger's ΔT due to too high water
flow rate in secondary loop.
>
> Also, does Mats have good guesses, what was the reasonable water inflow
rate into device? Was it the same as in September (11-13 kg/h)? If water
inflow rate is known, this gives certain limits how well E-Cat can support
boiling. And is there anyway to estimate the surface temperature of E-Cat?
>
> —Jouni
>
>
