The ECAT measurements conducted on October 6, 2011 have several discrepancies
that have made it extremely difficult for us to understand. I would like to
offer the following possible mechanism for consideration to the group of
experts assembled on the edge of the vortex.
As I think about the structure of the system consisting of the ECAT and heat
exchanger, an interesting thought occurs to me. We can be reasonably safe in
assuming that any space remaining within the ECAT enclosure is full of pure
water vapor. Furthermore, after passing through a probable check valve, the
vapor continues down the pipe and into the port of the heat exchanger. Now
this is where it becomes interesting. I suspect that the vapor starts to
condense as soon as it goes into the exchanger, but does not totally liquefy
until somewhere within. The distance from the beginning of the exchanger to
the point where the vapor consists of mainly hot water may be highly variable.
This demarcation point must be moving closer and then further away from the
entrance. Of course any hot water that has been condensed proceeds toward the
exit of the device and cools down totally.
Water vapor does not transfer heat well to cooler surfaces since it has a low
density. For this reason, I suspect that only a small portion of the vapor
energy is transferred to the manifold where the secondary output and
thermocouple resides. One good feature associated this configuration is that
readings made during this period of the test when output power is high and
increasing should be relatively accurate. I assume that once the steam passes
a distance within the exchanger, its effects on the thermocouple are
overwhelmed by the much larger secondary water flow. On the other hand, if
much steam condenses within the small manifold, plenty of heat is released and
the thermocouple reading gets seriously degraded.
I think most of the above information has been discussed previously within the
vortex by various persons. My new concept (as far as I know) is that a subtle
thing is occurring. Instead of water being expelled through the ECAT output
valve due to overflow or percolation, etc I suggest that it is being pulled
backwards by a vacuum mechanism. Consider this, as the temperature within the
ECAT drops as measured by the thermocouple at its output, the pressure inside
is reduced according to water saturation tables. The output valve closes a
small amount to compensate. Less vapor is released through the valve and the
pressure must fall within the feed line to the heat exchanger and within the
heat exchanger itself. The heat exchanger is now able to condense the vapor
closer to the entrance and the water backs up potentially all the way into the
manifold with the thermocouple attached. I suspect that the water can climb a
very short way into the ECAT output tubing when subjected to rapid pressure
dropping conditions within the ECAT. Since there can be no significant
condensation within the tubing, it is unlikely that the water would ever reach
as far as the output valve.
It should be apparent that as long as boiling is occurring within the ECAT
there should always be vapor escaping through the output valve which, of
course, keeps and vacuum drawn water past the point where that vapor can
condense.
This new model might solve a few of the mysteries that have dogged us for so
long. For example, as the power into the ECAT increases by turning on the
internal heating device or by extra LENR energy production you will observe the
temperature reading (T2) rise. This results in an increase of the pressures
and more vapor generation which moves the water/vapor line further into the
exchanger. The thermocouple (Tout) sees less water and more vapor inside the
manifold and reads lower. I noticed this effect showing up well at 15:42 just
before the device went into self-sustaining mode. At that temperature Tout –
Tin is only 3 degrees while the internal temperature of the ECAT was reaching
its value of 121.8 degrees, up from 119.2 degrees, its previous value. Take
some time to review the excellent information supplied by Mats in his October
report and look for this phenomenon. I see pretty good correlation to the data.
Another thorn is our paws has been the unusual behavior when the total power
has been shut down and water flow maximized at the end of the test run. Look
at the data from 19:22. About 14 minutes before this time the power was shut
down, hydrogen eliminated and input water flow rapidly increased. A nice 2.1
degree drop is seen in the ECAT output temperature from the last reading. My
thought is that the increased water input flow quickly reduces the rapid
boiling within the ECAT and allows the vacuum effect to draw the exchanger hot
water into the manifold. This water then leads to a large apparent power
increase (Tout – Tin = 8.6 degrees) which is an illusion. Temperature just
prior to this (Tout – Tin = 5.3 degrees) yields a lot less power.
I would like to recommend an interesting science experiment from long ago as an
analogous effect to the vacuum concept that I have suggested within this
document. In that experiment a transparent pot of boiling water is removed
from a cooking stove. Most of the air has been replaced by water vapor in the
space above the liquid. Some method is then applied to seal the pot so that it
is air tight. The experimenter places cubes of ice on the top seal and the
water starts to boil again. The boiling continues as the water temperature
drops due to the condensation of the vapor above the liquid. Of course the
condensed vapor leads to a pressure drop and the boiling temperature associated
with it.
My new concept seems to explain a number of the unusual observations that have
occurred and I suspect that more will be revealed as it is applied to the test
data. This new theory suggests an alternate explanation for several behaviors
that earlier were attributed to ECAT overflow which is not expected according
to my simulation.
There have been several documents that suggest that the extended life after
death observed during this test clearly demonstrates the LENR process. I agree
entirely with this suggestion and evidence is before us in Mats document.
Notice the rapid drop in ECAT temperature after the power and hydrogen are
removed. The rate of fall is far in excess to that which should be observed by
the increased water flow rate if you assume there had not been LENR energy
keeping it elevated before that time. Jed has continued to point out that the
ECAT should be cold in a short period of time without LENR and the data shows
exactly that.
Dave
