On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Quick question, Horace: Are you going for the 470kW which was
claimed, or are you working with a reduced number?
The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total
vaporization of the input water. If that didn't take place then
the generated power may have been substantially lower.
I am mainly attempting to reproduce graphs 2 and 5:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2.png
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5.png
assuming a much lower energy than the 470kW claimed. To produce Graph
5 I had to assume the calorimetry was off by a factor of 75%, i.e.
the calorimeter indicated 4 times the true power. This was a
mistakes on my part, as was providing the 0.8°C bias based on the
initial thermometer readings. This °C bias, as I noted in my review,
added about 37% energy to the output. I should have used the
original data, not my biased data.
I suspect the displacement in temperature that occurs initially, as
shown in Graph 4:
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph4.png
may actually be due to the heat exchanger interior and the E-cat
interior being cooler than the water temperature at the time of the
run start. Perhaps some cold air flow from the E-cat may have made
it out of valve as the cold water initially displaced it in the E-
cat. In any case, if the actual data is used, then the discrepancy
between claimed power out and negative COP power out is not so large.
I suspect the Pout thermocouple was not even touching the nut, that
the frayed insulation was in part between the thermocouple tip and
the nut, thus exposing the thermocouple primarily to the air
temperature under the insulation.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
