Hi Bob,
I appreciate your response to my post. It is important to me that I have a
clear understanding of the relationship between the real output power delivered
to the heat exchanger and the internal energy of the ECAT. My suspicion is
that ultimately we will be able to correlate the temperature measured at the
ECAT output thermocouple and the real power exiting the device.
It seems to me that addition of extra input pump water would result in a
lowering of total ECAT temperature. The water surrounding this newly
introduced mass would immediately start to loose energy. This energy transfer
is required in order for the newly inputted water mass to match the overall T2
temperature. I was thinking of a simple thought experiment as follows. The
temperature T2 is at 116.6 (use 117) when deactivation occurs. Assume that the
ECAT has 15 kilograms of water inside at that moment. The energy within the
liquid would be 15000 grams x 491.08 joules/gram(NIST) = 7.3662 Megajoules.
Saturation pressure at that temperature is 1.8052 bars. Lets pour a slug of
water into the mix. Add 100 grams(Temp = 30 C) which is in the range of 30
seconds worth of extra water. That has an energy of 100 grams x 125.73
joules/gram = 12.573 kilojoules. First order approximation is that the total
average temperature will remain near 117 after the addition so the new water
will require 100 grams x 491.08 joules/gram = 49.108 kilojoules- 12573
kilojoules = net absorbed 36535 joules. Now we have a remaining energy of
7.3662 MJ - 36.535 KJ = 7.329665 MJ. When the water is thoroughly mixed and
stabilized the final tally is 7.329665 Megajoules / 15100 grams = 485.4
joules/gram. This energy is associated with a temperature of slightly below
116 degrees centigrade(486.83 j/g). Saturation pressure would now be a bit
less than 1.744 bars.
This experiment suggests that the temperature will drop from 117 C to 116 C and
the saturation pressure would drop from 1.8052 bars to ~ 1.744 bars or delta of
.0612 bars(.887 psi). My theory suggests that this pressure difference will
cause the valve to close slightly reducing the output vapor flow rate. As a
result the water inside the exchanger will move closer to it input port.
Consult my original post for details of how the thermocouple reading is
distorted.
I agree with you that the increase of pump input flow will result in an offset
to my proposed effect to some degree, but the vapor density is many times less
than that of the liquid and displacing 100 cc of vapor as per this experiment
would not result in much condensed water delivery.
Does this thought experiment appear logical?
It is important to understand that I am assuming that the ECAT is not full of
water and capable of overflow when this process occurs.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 9:26 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Hi David,
Yours was a very thoughtful post. It has taken some time to digest, and I can
say I have not fully evaluated the implications across the whole experiment.
However, I don’t think something so complicated need be invoked to explain the
power spike immediately after shutdown. According to Mats’ data, as the
hydrogen was released, the input flow rate at the peristaltic pump was
increased – in fact, basically doubled. Since the reactor was boiling, the
output at the time was pretty much steam and the reactor pressure was high
enough to keep the valve open constantly discharging steam. The immediate
effect of doubling the T3 input water rate is to double the VOLUME of effluent
from the reactor output. Since the temperature at this time remained well
above boiling, the output that was doubled was the volume of the steam. This
simple explanation seems sufficient to explain the spike in measured
temperature – double the steam volume at about the same temperature and you
double the heat output measured at the heat exchanger. Most of this is heat
already stored in the E-cat – this is not a burst in reactor output. Do you
believe a more exotic explanation is necessary?
Bob Higgins
**** On 10/21/2011, David Roberson wrote:
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.
