On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I've been having some off-vortex action with this.
Latest version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410E.php
My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a
Rick Cantwell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo
(It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the
surface of the tubes, not inside).
It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.
It appears to me a significant deficiency with this experiment is
similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations, namely, it
is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially at
the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some that
the water is due entirely to steam condensation which occurs in the
hose. This may not be the case.
Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See:
http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html
Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device
should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an
insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure
water, See
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html
A smaller (actually probably inconsequential since the experiments
were run to equilibrium conditions), problem might be that Rossi's
more recent demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large
diameter boiler area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical
section, just the opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's
experiment. A short rise narrow tube should be more capable of
supporting a percolator effect - which dumps liquid water into the
hose, i.e. comes to equilibrium flows faster.
It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device
pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid. No overflow
or percolator effects should be present because the device, at
equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top.
Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and
water condensation in the hose, should be exactly the same. It is
not. Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected
into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes.
Now to take a more quantitative look at this.
At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass
flow. At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow.
In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase
(second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw
(assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of:
Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W
In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase
(second experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of:
Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W
In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the
water.
In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the
water.
In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s.
In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s.
In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:
R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s
In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:
R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s
In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with
water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about
50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect,
should be more apparent.
Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of
the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that
all the water is converted to steam. The controller in the Rossi
device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it,
assuming no power storage in the device. The input power was
measured as constant. If the controller maintains a constant power
demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to
resistors in the controller itself. It is notable that 4 muffin fans
were shown in the E-cat. If the controller periodically reduces
power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent power of the
device dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped out of the E-
cat and down the hose. Demonstrating steam production is obviously
best accomplished when maximum power is supplied to boiling water in
the E-cat. To perpetrate a fraud using a device like the one
demonstrated by Rick Cantwell, but using a controller, an operator
would have to know when maximum power were being supplied by the
controller, perhaps by sound, or have to have a manual switch to
change modes. This is not to say Rossi has done this. He may have a
legitimate nuclear device. However, this clearly demonstrates that
nothing has been proven unless calorimetry is performed on the output
which measures a full run enthalpy balance.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
