Very interesting, thanks! And a reason more to use a simple steam water mixing device (valve) to condensate steam in the place of this finicky heat exchanger- as I have suggested months ago, Rossi has ignored this idea, complexity is part of his game. Peter
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:16 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
