Hi Finlay, I mean if you take temperature of two chambers to be 130C at time power is turned off, and allow cold water to flow in at 11l/h and hot water to flow out based on the simulated temp in the chimney then the rate of drop in temperature is virtually identical to that reported by Mats. This simulation used a two chamber model with 12kg water equivalent thermal mass in chamber 1 and 21kg in chamber 2.
During start up, when the reported the power is added to chamber 1 the simulated temperature matches very well with what is seen until we reach 100C in the chimney, so it looks like the thermal mass estimate is fairly accurate. From the 100C point, if you allow 600W heat loss due to steam the temperature curve is also a very good fit without any added heat from CF. I need to do a little work on the simulation before I can publish it. But I'm convinced the whole temperature curve can be explained without any CF heat being added. However I can't explain why we have back pressure of 1 bar, there would have to be a pretty small opening for the steam. And i can't explain the volume of overflow water measured as this would indicate more steam than 600W. Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that can be made. I'm totally disappointed and disillusioned. Colin On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Finlay MacNab <finlaymac...@hotmail.com>wrote: > Colin, > > Excellent analysis! Thank you very much for posting this information. > > Could you clarify what you mean when you say "BUT only if during this > power off period there is not much power being used to make steam"? > > Are you saying that the result is consistent with the simulation only if > all the outflow from the device is liquid water? > > Thank you again for your well reasoned and detailed post. > > ------------------------------ > > Hi, > > I haven't posted here before, I've just been lurking. > > A few months ago I wrote a simple finite element simulation for the eCat, > it's a simple model based on two chambers each with a thermal equivalent of > water with cold water entering chamber 1, being heated by the heater and > reactor and then the same water flowing into a second chamber and supplying > heat to it. By adjusting the thermal masses I could get this model to pretty > accurately predict the temperatures on the ECat during the warm up period > and then I needed to add excess heat beyond the electrical supply to get the > temperature charts from Rossi's experiments. > This pretty well convinced me that Rossi was onto something. I'll paste a > couple of charts from the simulation but I'm not sure if they'll come > through. > The simulation is not perfect but I think it's close enough. The major > issue is that as the reactor chamber heats above boiling we have a mix of > steam & water in it and moving into chamber 2. Rather than simulate this I > just model chamber 1 as water >100C with no steam. That's why the red line > goes over 100C, you can think of it as the amount of heat going into the > next chamber rather than temperature. > > Below is simulation from 16 Dec Test. It uses 900W input power with > increase to 1800W at 17:47 and two chamber model of thermal mass 0.7kg and > 1.3kg. The model also has power dropping to 0 at 18:00, Levi reported that > the reaction self sustained for 15 minutes. An interesting point is fast > cool down of the real reactor at 18:15 vs the slow cool down predicted by > the model. This is 100 consistent with Levi report that water flow was > increased to stop the reaction. > [image: DEc16.png] > > And now the simulation from 14th Jan test. This first chart shows simulated > temperature based on zero excess power. The simulation is overlaid over > actual power and temperature charts from the report. The interesting point > is that the simulation fits the initial temperature rise and the fall at the > end of the experiment. The only explanation for the actual temperature graph > is excess heat. > [image: Jan14.png] > > These simulations, though not perfect, have convinced me there is excess > energy. > > Now comes this new demo so I just entered all the data provided by Mats, > adjusted the thermal mass (33kg) to get the initial rise in temperature to > match the data, and ... The charts are pretty consistent with there being > *no* excess energy, the drop in temperature after the power is off can be > fully explained as thermal inertia (with thermal mass equivalent of 33kg of > water in two chambers) BUT only if during this power off period there is not > much power being used to make steam! > Now the simulation didn't fit this eCat as well as earlier experiments > which I think is because we don't know the geometry of the device or the > exact placement of the thermometer. > > The only evidence for excess heat is the one measurement of overflowing > water. Mat later calculates a "Worst Case Scenario" and I think he messed up > a bit, my "worst Case" is: > 1) Under "Water Flow Inlet" he reports flow as 11.08 kg/hr during boiling > 2) At 21:50 he measures water overflow as 5.0 to 6.5 kg/hr > 3) So "worst" estimate of steam is 11.08 -6.5 = 4.58 kg/hr > 4) if this was 90% steam (distinctly possible for a boiler) then we get > about 4.1 kg/hr of steam > 5) Times heat of vapourisation (628wh/kg) = 2600Watts > 6) And heating 11.08 kg/hr to boiling = 11.08 * 81.3 = 900W > so as input power is close to 2600W we only have 900W excess energy. Not > very convincing for a module of a 1MW plant! > > I'd also like to address the fact that temperature rose after power was > turned off. This can be explained by thermal inertia if the point where heat > being applied was not the same point where temperature was being measured. > The point where heat was being applied could be quite a bit hotter than 130C > and even after power was cut we could could continue to get output > temperature rising. Just imagine a steel bar and we heat one end and measure > the temperature at the other end, there is a lag as heat transfers along the > bar, turning off the heat and the the cool end of the bar continues to > increase in temperature for a while. > > Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a > major disappointment. > > Colin > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joe Catania <zrosumg...@aol.com> wrote: > > ** > You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not > giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been > ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its > thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a > first principle. It is accepted without proof. > > If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up > to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the > temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates > this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that > through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput > at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference? > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Finlay MacNab <finlaymac...@hotmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik > > > Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER > EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only > discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! > > I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe > in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the > observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of > heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat > capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy > inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. > > 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what > you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone > here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal inertia" can > explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your > claims. > > If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and > distracting from more interesting discussion. > ------------------------------ > > Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as > temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik > > JC stated: > “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” > Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s > internal temperature on startup… > > Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s > resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of > ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for > resistance heater power… > > Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) > --------- ----------- ---------- > 18:59 5 0 > 19:10 6 11 > 19:20 7 10 > 19:30 8 10 > 19:40 9 10 > > We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not > know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and > Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a > setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) > > Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is > 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful > calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. > > -Mark > > *From:* Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik > > I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The > temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a > piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this > takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the > temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same > temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your > talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the > temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared > the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun. > > > >
