I fear that we can not translate measurements obtained during the October 6 test directly to those of the October 28 one. The water pump systems are vastly different. I consider the high quality pumps installed for the October 28 test to be more consistent in output than the other small unit used on the 6 th. It is true that Rossi and the customer engineer allowed approximately the same amount of time to pass from start of input pumping to the beginning of the self sustaining mode as for the earlier tests.
It is quite clear that the ECAT was completely filled during the September test since Mats collected the overflow water and found the rate to be 13 kg/hour at a time before boiling commenced. The latest test states that the input water flow rate was 6.314 liters/hour during the main portion of the test. There is no mention of any other rates in the document or in Rossi's logs that I have seen. This lower rate is consistent with the position that only vapor is emitted from the ECATs. The evidence is all that we have to work with. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 9:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy Yes, but the October 6th test provides some idea of what the Megawatt output may ave looked like, had the E-Cats indeed started empty. I was looking for a orollary indication that the E-Cats were full at test commencement. David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect that the input flow rate was larger for the October 6 test when the ressure was low. It is fairly straight forward to calculate the amount of ater fed into one of the ECATs during the 3.5 hour period of the 28 test. It hould be 6.314 liters/hour * 3.5 hours = 22.1 liters. The 3.5 hour period is erived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test started t 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy The "Ottoman" E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October ests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), nd how long it took for the output to register anything at all. Now add in the act that the October 6th thermocouple was much closer that the MegaCat output hermocouple. ... Thoughts? To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: [email protected] Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500 We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and everal issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of he opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period ince it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must pen before water can escape. According to our previous logic, the thermocouple eadings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water flow. There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed. We know hat the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be ir tight if performing properly. I hypothesize that warm air which is of high umidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it. ll of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor ecomes dominate. This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would mmediately begin to condense upon every surface. This would lead to elevated eadings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid ater pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. There would be far too low f a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would ool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, his initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing ithin the output system. This would of course make the temperature hover about hat required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C. This sequence f events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling temperature that xists for a fairly long time before the standing water becomes overwhelmed. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the arious ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the easurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. urthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and he HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. Dave
