The error in thermocouple reading is far larger than suggested. The best place to get an accuracy check is when Mats Lewan measured the water output flow from the heat exchanger at 18:57 during the October 6 test. He carefully measured the water out of the exchanger and calculated the flow rate as .91 grams/second. He then assumed it was all vapor which condensed within the exchanger and this is the results.
.91 grams/second x 2260 joules/gram = 2056.6 watts. Water all assumed to be vapor which is not being conservative. (29.8 C - 24.5 C + .8 C) = 6.1 C Measured at time of water collection with correction factor included. 6.1 C x 4.18 joules/C-grams x 178 grams/second = 4538.644 watts According to thermocouple data. The maximum power available is approximately 2056.6 watts versus a reading of 4538.644 watts. This is far too much to neglect. Please explain how the small error expected could allow this? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alan J Fletcher <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 7:28 pm Subject: [Vo]:Oct 6 Heat Exchanger Manifold Thermocouple Placement. My latest Spice Simulation results, using Bob Higgins' diagram, gives n error of +3.8 % his is probably LESS than the modelling errors. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php Main screenshot : ttp://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111109_spice_007.png Primary Input (HOT): 100 C water at 15 liters/hour. econdary Output (COLD) : 30C water at 600 liters/hour (40x ratio) mbient : 30 C hermocouple : 31.96 C econdary Outlet : 30.78 C (raised slightly from 30C by conduction hrough the manifold). ifference : 1.19 C (or 3.8 %) This simulation is for Primary Input water at 100C, and is UNCALLIBRATED. The main unknown in the simulation is the thermal resistance through he insulation, and to air where it is uninsulated. But removing ALL connections to ambient temperature -- which yields he highest thermocouple placement error -- gives only a +4.4% error. here are also possible errors in the placement of the Secondary nput thermocouple, which would give a negative offset, and partly ancelling the primary. I therefore accept the published Heat Exchanger Secondary results as alid, and don't plan to study this any further. It would still be advisable to separate both the thermocouples from he heat exchanger assembly through a section of insulated hose. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
