There are other possible sources of error:
So far I have seen, electrical non-insulated NiCrNi Thermoelements where
used.
If these have not close thermal contact to the metal, they will
partially measure the ambient air temperature.
If the air temperature is the average between hot steam 100° and warm
water 30° then it is about 65° and the thermoelement will report a
little bit more than the water temperature.
On the other side, if the elements both have close contact to the metal,
then they might been disturbed by chemogalvanic or electroosmotic
voltages, because they where connected to one and the same multichannel
instrument.
The thermovoltage of NiCrNi is about 4000µV/100°C or 40µV/1°C.
So they must be fixed with great care, in close and firm thermal contact
to the metal, isolated against ambient air that might circulate under
the thermal isolation, and electrically isolated.
If this was not the case, it might explain some of the irregularities in
thermo readings.
I use these often to measure surface temperarures of semiconductors,
have some experience.
Am 21.10.2011 23:16, schrieb David Roberson:
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
