I've spoken to Lewan about "the device producing frequencies". I believe it
to be a meter cheater in that it produces high frequency energy that cannot
be tracked accurately by the clamp-on ammeter. Notice energy in= energy out
in Oct test before dpf is used. After switching on this device all hell
beaks loose and the E-cat appears to be producinbg anonmalous energy but
this is easily explained by the fact that the device produces more power
than the ~100W logged by the meter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Leguillon" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:54 PM
Subject: [Vo]:About that Frequency Generator
Has anyone seen a photo? Does anyone know what make/model? Does anyone
know the specific purpose it was serving? Does anyone know how it was
hooked into the circuit? Was it electrically connected to the heater? Was
it electrically connected to the E-Cat at all? Had anyone heard any
reference to it before October 6? Was it needed for "self-sustaining"
operation in September?
David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
Here is an analysis that I just completed. It shows that Rossi has
achieved what he has been suggesting. LENR is real and will only get
better with time.
Dave
I have been reviewing the data obtained during the September and October
tests and can now confirm that there is proof that the ECAT generates a
large amount of excess energy. I would assume that the skeptic ones among
our group will read this report and realize that the proof has been before
us for a long time but is not easy to discern.
Start with a graph of the temperature readings at the ECAT output
thermocouple referred to as T2 during the October test. You must have a
graph that includes all of the temperature-time pairs supplied by Mats
Lewan in his Excel file.
My analysis is as follows:
Mr. Rossi performed a carefully controlled ECAT heating procedure. The
pattern of setting the input power to “5”, then “6”, all the way to “9” is
intended to slowly allow the internal components to reach ideal operation
temperature. The reactor reaches equilibrium somewhere around 13000
seconds into the test. Once this has been achieved, a series of on and off
power pulses (“9”) is applied to the core. This series of power
applications occur at a frequency that is high enough to be well filtered
by the low pass nature of the internal ECAT heat flow mechanism. This is
evident by the smooth curve of T2 versus time that shows up from 13000
seconds through about 15500 seconds. It is important to note that the T2
curve is slowly falling throughout this time duration. The average T2
reading is 120.5 C and has a slight negative slope. I realized that the
implication was that the ECAT output power would slowly begin to fall
along with this curve since that temperature drives the check valve, etc.
What can we make of this curve of T2 versus time? It turns out that a lot
of information is revealed. I did an analysis of the input power pulse
waveform starting at 11400 seconds until 14881 seconds to get the average
filtered component of the drive signal and obtained a net power input of
1252 watts. Then I realized that all of this power must be causing the
ECAT core module to reach some operational temperature. It then responds
to the elevated temperature and the LENR effect within starts to generate
extra energy. Next, the energy associated with the input power (1252
joules/second * time) adds to the newly released energy of the core. The
two of these energy sources end up as heat which proceeds to add energy to
the water contained within the ECAT.
The water will now either increases or decrease in temperature, depending
upon the heat that is lost from the system. We know of at least three loss
paths. The main output leading to the heat exchanger, leakage water or
vapor from the case, and heat leaving the case due to radiation or other
means. All that we need to prove is that the sum of these loss factors is
greater than 1252 watts in order to prove beyond doubt that LENR is
functioning within the Rossi device.
There is one subtle point to explain. There is a very slight negative
slope in T2 versus time during this region. I performed a quick
calculation and found that the power lost within the water tank as a
result of this slope is ((122-120.7) C x 4.188 joules/(C-grams) x 30000
grams)/1860 seconds = 87 joules/seconds or 87 watts. This calculation
reveals that a very small increase in the drive power will allow the
temperature of the water bath and hence output power to remain constant.
This is a very important point to make. The ECAT will continue to put out
the same power for as long as this input power (1252 watts) is applied.
This may not be the ideal self-sustain mode that we all love, but it is
significant.
Of course I was not content to leave out the additional knowledge revealed
by this region of the T2 temperature reading versus time. There is more
wonderful evidence to glean. Notice the positive slope in T2 reading that
begins at 16000 seconds. This slope is quite linear from 16000 seconds
until the level “9” input power pulse ends at the start of the
self-sustaining mode. An application of the identical formula as during
the negative slope above shows the following: (3 C x 4.188 joules/C-grams
x 30000 grams)/2700 seconds = 139.6 watts. This calculation suggests that
Rossi can increase the output power rather easily by driving the core with
an application of full power “9” for a brief time. It is not clear at this
time what the limits of safe and predictable operation are.
We are fortunate to have additional information revealed by the same
graph. The region following the peak in output power can help us determine
how the unit responds to no drive conditions as when it is used for
self-sustaining operation. Notice the slope after the peak at
approximately 18000 seconds. This negative slope is caused by the end of
input drive power resulting in reduced LENR activity. The slope has a
value that is clearly greater than the slowly falling region mentioned in
my first calculation above. Application of the exact same technique as in
the previous samples yields (2.7 C x 4.188 joules/(C-g) x 30000
grams)/1000 seconds = 339.2 watts. This calculation suggests that the
water is cooling relatively quickly and I suspect that this rate is
indicative of the cooling rate that would be dominate if there were no
LENR reaction present. Compare this slope to that which begins at around
30000 seconds after the hydrogen is eliminated and the water rate
increased.
Further evidence of the LENR activity is revealed by the smoothly falling
curve of T2 within the region of 22000 seconds. About the only sensible
explanation for this very long period of power output observed toward the
end of the experiment is that the heat must be LENR related. It can be
determined that the power generated by the LENR action within the ECAT is
less than that resulting from the steady application of power observed in
the first case I analyzed. It is assumed that this reduced power output is
associated with the decision of Mr. Rossi to only populate one active core
within the ECAT for this test. Three times the LENR generated power is
expected when all three are installed. I am still attempting to find an
explanation for the rise in T2 that begins at approximately 25000 seconds.
Now, if we were to assume that the power output is around 3125 (4.2 C x
4.188 joules/C-gram x 178 grams/seconds) watts (note 1) during the initial
powered region above and multiply this figure by 3 you get 9375 watts. The
average input was only 1252 watts at that assumed time. We calculate a COP
of 7.5 which is reasonable. This number needs to be adjusted to include
the wasted input power for controls, etc. but those additions would not
cause the final COP value to be significantly below 6.
I wish to mention one last observation that is gleaned from the data and
graph. A delay of 1526 seconds exits between application of a power pulse
and its effect appearing as water temperature rise. It is not clear why
there is such a significant delay within the device reaction, but the data
supports this contention.
(1) This value is calculated by using the values measured at 15:42 within
Mats Lewan report.
David Roberson
