The more I consider Horace’s model of a scam ECAT device, the more I warm up to
the idea. We are all aware of the fact that any excess energy produced by the
core modules will propagate toward the water coolant and result in higher
temperature and increased output power.
If there is no excess energy generated as Horace’s model is simulating, then we
will see a reasonably clear indication to that effect. The main issue that he
and we face is to ensure that the heat losses and actual output power
calculations are accurate. This is where I think we need to concentrate our
efforts to guarantee that a true picture arises.
I concluded that the output power delivered to the heat exchanger is somewhat
lower than was originally assumed by calculations of the thermocouple readings.
Mats Lewan’s figures suggested that there was a discrepancy to resolve. He
assumed total vaporization of the .9 grams/second water output flow to
calculate that approximately 2 kW of power was delivered. This of course would
be the maximum possible and it could be lower depending upon the quality of the
steam released. He also used the thermocouple readings to arrive at a figure
of approximately 3 kW of power. Something must be in error for these two
techniques to differ by this amount.
The power delivered to the heat exchanger, using my assumptions at that point
in time, was only 692 watts. I am not sure that the low power calculation will
hold up under very careful analysis, but it is a good start. I predict that
the true power output was between my estimate of 692 watts and the 2 kW
calculation of Mats.
For Horace’s simulation to be accurate, he needs to include the power escaping
from the other two mechanisms as well. There is apparently water leakage from
the gasket material amounting to .5555 grams/second which steals heat away with
it. If this flow is assumed to be water and no vapor then approximately 215.9
watts leaves the system via this path.
The last escape source for heat generated by the LENR process is through the
insulated casing of the ECAT. We are in serious need of assistance if we are
to get a good handle upon this factor. I casually chose a leakage power of 500
watts for this process due to my ignorance of this form of heat loss. It is my
hope that someone with more experience and knowledge of radiation, conduction
and convection would help to arrive at a reasonable estimate.
The total of these three sources of heat loss from the system equals 692 +
215.9 + 500 = 1408 (rounded) watts. If Horace can show that it is possible for
stored energy to supply output power that fulfills all of these losses
throughout the entire period of operation of the ECAT test, then I would be
very interested in seeing his results. He can accurately calculate the energy
stored within the core by analyzing the input power curve. The stored energy
is merely the total input energy throughout the process less energy that
escapes through heat loss.
Of course, Horace is aware that the power output must follow some form of
exponential decay where it is substantially higher at the beginning of the self
sustaining operation and finally ends at the 1408 watt level. And at the end
of the operation, an explanation for the deactivate delay period preceding the
fast slope of temperature at T2 needs to exist. Finally, the actual fast slope
after that delay has to have an explanation that makes logical sense.
I request that Horace includes the factors which I have outlined above within
his simulation. He should be able to demonstrate that stored energy is not
capable of matching the real life measurements if the ECAT works as advertised.
This is not an easy task, so Horace needs encouragement. He has convinced me
that his intentions are pure and that he wants to know the truth without a
hidden agenda.
Dave
