INTRODUCTION
This is a highly belated review of the Travel report by Hanno Essén
and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011, and created April 7, 2011, to be
found at:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf
FIG 1 & 2 NOTES
It appears the thermometer wells, "thermocouple holders", are only
partially completed on the left 3 E-cats. Fig. 4 shows a completed
thermocouple holder with probe inserted. Note that the exit for the
thermocouple holder is located below the level of the steam/water
exit port. If the brass fitting is not a pressure fit or o-ring
sealing device, then if water leaks out of the exit port and down the
hose, it should also leak around the probe. Steam should leak around
the probe fitting as well.
E&K: "... according to Rossi, the reaction chamber is hidden inside
in the central part and made of stainless steel."
E&K: "Note that on the main heating resistor which is positioned
around the copper tube and made of stainless steel (Figure 3) you can
read the dimensions and nominal power (50mm diameter and 300W).
E&K: "At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary
electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety
if the heat evolution should get out of control."
The auxiliary (preheater) element wire leads are clearly visible at
the entrance to two of the three unused E-cats in Fig. 2.
FIG. 3 NOTES
It appears the heating chamber goes from the 34 cm to the 40 cm mark
in length, not 35 cm to 40 cm as marked. Maybe the band heater
extends beyond the end of the copper. It appears 5 cm is the length
to be used for the heating chamber. Using the 50 mm diameter above,
and 5 cm length we have heating chamber volume V:
V = pi*(2.4 cm)^2*(5 cm) = 90 cm^3
If we use 46 mm for the internal diameter we obtain an internal
volume of:
V = pi*(2.4 cm)^2*(5 cm) = 83 cm^3
Judging from the scale of picture, determined by the ruler, the OD of
the heating chamber appears to actually be 6.1 cm. The ID thus might
be 5.7 cm. This gives:
V = pi*(2.85 cm)^2*(5 cm) = 128 cm^3
The nickel container is stated to be about 50 cm^3, leaving 78 cm^3
volume in the heating chamber through which the water is heated.
If the Ni containing chamber is 50 cm^3, and 4.5 cm long, then its
radius r is:
r = sqrt(V/(Pi L) = sqrt((50 cm^3)/(Pi*(4.5 cm)) = 3.5 cm
total surface are S is:
S = 2*Pi*r^2 + 2*Pi*r*L = 2*Pi*(r^2+r*L) = 2*Pi*((3.5 cm)^2 +
(3.5 cm)*(4.5 cm))
S = 180 cm^2
The surface material is stainless steel.
FIG. 4 NOTES
It is notable the 2 cm of lead is not evident. The insulation looks
more like a polyester than fiberglass, and if so its melting
temperature is around 250°C.
FIG. 5 NOTES
It looks like there may be two white power wires going into the E-
cat. Hard to tell. It looks like some kind of straight white tubes
of short length go through the insulation as well. No notes made of
their function.
FIG. 6 NOTES
The slopes on leading side and trailing side of the inflection point
(elbow or kink) at 10:37 are 6.7°C/min, 9.4 °C/min respectively.
FIG. 7 NOTES
The temperature reading might be interpreted to mean an equilibrium
was possibly reached, but this not known since the water overflow was
not measured and independent calorimetry was not performed on the
output mass flow. The thermometer is subject to heat wicking through
the well, other error producing effects which may or may not exist
depending on the structure of the device inside which is not
permitted to be observed.
FIG. 10 NOTES
There appears to be two power cords running from two receptacles on
the rightmost (in the photo) back side of the blue box. This could
indicate that both the main band heater and the auxiliary heater were
in use, indicating more than 300 W was in use at some point.
REVIEWING THE CALIBRATION CALCS
E&K: "Calibrations. The flow of the inlet water was calibrated in the
following way. The time for filling up 0.5 liters of water in a
carafe was measured to be 278 seconds."
Flow is thus (500 gm)/(278 s) = 1.80 gm/s.
E&K:"Visual checks showed that the water flow was free from bubbles.
Scaled to flow per hour resulted in a flow of 6.47 kg/hour (Density 1
kg/liter assumed). The water temperature was 18 °C. The specific heat
of water, 4.18 joule/gram/ °C which is equal to 1.16 Wh/kg/ °C ..."
The heat capacity of water is 4.18 J/(gm K) near 45°C, but is above
4.2 J/(gm K) below 5°C and above 81°C. The average is probably
closer to 4.19, but I have simply used 4.2 in my prior calcs, which
gives a slight edge to a free energy conclusion. This I consider a
non-issue, but simply of general interest.
(4.18 J/(gm K)) * (1000 gm/kg) * (3600 s/hr) = 1.16 Wh/(kg °C)
E&K:" ... is used to calculate the energy needed to bring 1 kg of
water from 18 to 100 °C. The result is 1.16(100-18)=95 Wh/kg. "
(1.16 Wh/(kg °C)) * (100°C - 18°C) = 95 Wh/kg
E&K: "The heat of vaporization is 630 Wh/kg."
E&K: "Assuming that all water will be vaporized, the energy required
to bring 1 kg water of 18 °C to vapor is 95+630=725 Wh/kg. To heat up
the adjusted water flow of 6.47 kg/hour from 18 °C to vapor will
require 7256.47=4.69 kWh/hour."
(6.47 kg/hour)*(95 Wh/kg + 630 Wh/kg) = 4690 Wh/hr = 4.69 kW
E&K: "The power required for heating and vaporization is thus 4.69
kW. It should be noted that no error analysis has been done but
according to Giuseppe Levi, a 5% error in the measurement of the
water flow is a conservative estimate. Even with this error, the
conclusions will not change due to the magnitude of the observed
effects."
This number is not applicable unless all water flow is converted to
steam. It is also not applicable if the power is even slightly
larger, or the flow ever even slightly smaller than estimated,
because the extra power, by conservation of energy, necessarily goes
into superheating the steam. If the steam is superheated in the
device then this should be reflected in the thermometer reading being
well over 100°C.
ELECTRIC POWER
E&K: "The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter
reading was 1.5 amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating
including the power for the instrumentation, about 30 watts. The
electric heater thus provides a power of 300 watts to the nickel-
hydrogen mixture. This corresponds also to the nominal power of the
resistor."
No mention was made of continual monitoring of the power. No mention
is made of variable power, or power factors, or use of the auxiliary
heater, which pre-heats the water prior to the main heating chamber.
No mention is made of any operation of the power selection switch on
the blue box which is used to prevent overheating etc.? The same E-
cat device (it appears to me, the one on the right, less the wide
chimney part) in the Krivit demo consumed over 700 watts. Certainly
power was neither computer recorded nor integrated for the test run.
No kWh meter was used.
INITIAL RUNNING
E&K: "The heater was connected at 10:25 and the boiling point was
reached at 10:42. The detailed temperature-time relation is shown in
figure 6. The inlet water temperature was 17.3 °C and increased
slightly to 17.6 °C during this initial running. The outlet water
temperature increased from 20 °C at 10:27 to 60 °C at 10:36. This
means a temperature increase by 40 °C in 9 minutes which is
essentially due to the electric heater."
No mention was made of what time the pump was started. Also, the
total water containing volume of the device is not specified.
The flow rate is 1.80 gm/s, so for the 9 minutes that is (1.80 gm/s)*
(9 min)*(60 s/min) = 972 gm. The water heating energy E1 required is:
E1 = (40°C)*(972 gm)*(4.18 J/(gm K)) = 162.5 kJ
Total heat applied = (300 W)*(9 min)*(60 s/min) = 162 kJ.
One problem is not knowing which was turned on first, the water or
the heater. Another problem is not knowing whether the second heater
was turned on after the power measurement was made, or whether power
adjustments were later made on the blue box.
It is not known for sure the water was flowing by the thermometer at
this time, overflowing into the rubber tube. That seems likely
though. It is not known how much thermal wicking directly from the
band heater to the thermometer well occurs through the copper. It
appears it is not known for sure the thermometer well actually is
situated such that, or made such that, water actually comes in
contact with the thermometer. If the well is closed ended, or if the
probe seal is air (steam) tight, then even if the well end is
submerged, the air in the well itself may act as a locked in bubble,
preventing water from ever reaching the thermometer. The thermometer
is then subject to some direct heating from the band heater through
the copper. This might account for the 102°C reading in another run
even if atmospheric pressure steam/water was produced.
E&K: "It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature,
10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to
raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature
of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat
had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the
60 °C recorded at 10:36."
This makes sense within the author's context. At a flow rate of 1.8
gm./s, input temp 18°C, the overflow output water temperature should
reach an equilibrium temperature of 57.7°C. However, the graph makes
no sense. There is no sign of things coming asymptotically to an
equilibrium as would be expected.
Suppose for a moment it takes no energy to bring the temperature of
the copper etc. up to equilibrium temperature of 60°C, that the
copper is a perfect insulator (except for the heating chamber walls),
and thus has no heat capacity, and that there is no heat loss through
the insulation. If the device has no water in it initially, the
outlet temperature would remain at room temperature until the water
reached it, and then it would instantly jump to 60°C, because the
heater *continually* provides enough heat to send the water out of
the heating chamber at 60°C.
Now, assume that the temperature rise is slow and constant because
the device metal and possibly some residual water requires heating.
There is a problem with this because it would be expected that as the
copper comes up to equilibrium with the water temperature, the delta
T between the water and copper at each point decreases, and the
output temperature curve would asymptotically approach 60 degrees
instead of heading there as a flat line.
Similarly, the elbow, the increase in temperature curve slope to a
new constant value, appears to be an instantaneous increase in power
output. If there were a sudden increase in power applied to the
heating chamber, it would seem that the copper between the chamber
and the temperature sensor would again have to be heated, as well as
the water in the device.
The temperature curve almost looks like what would be expected if a
well stirred pot of water were being heated. It should not look like
this. There is a water flow in and out.
Suppose the device were initially full of a liter of water at 18°C,
when the flow and power were turned on. This means, for the 300 W to
bring the inflow of water to exactly 60°C in the 9 minutes, the
existing pool of water could have been heated at all. It would all
have to flow out the port at exactly 18°C until the 60°C water
arrived at the thermometer. This does not happen, as shown in the
temperature graph. The vicinity of the thermometer gradually warms up.
It is questionable that the device should suddenly turn on hydrogen
energy at 60°C. In the (later) water only test which was not public
a mere 5°C sustained rise in water temperature was enough to maintain
the supposed hydrogen energy production.
THE "KINK" ELBOW OF HEAT RISE AT 60°C
E&K: "Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be
seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation.
(Figure 6). A temperature of 97.5 °C is reached at 10:40. The time
taken to bring the water from 60 to 97.5 °C is 4 minutes."
The slope of the lower elbow section was (60°C)/(9 min) = 6.7°C/min.
The slope of the upper elbow is (37.5°C)/(4 min) = 9.4 °C/min. If
the first slope represents 300 W, then the second slope represents
(9.4/6.7)*(300 W) = 421 W.
A KEY STATEMENT
E&K: "The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45
all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the
outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. This
means that from this point in time, 10:45, 4.69 kW power is delivered
to the heating and vaporization, and 4.69 – 0.30 = 4.39 kW would have
to come from the energy produced in the internal nickel-hydrogen
container."
This looks absurd. The power suddenly goes from 421 W to 4.69 kW
when the water temperature reaches 100°C??
The most notable part of this E&K statement is the phrase: "visual
checks of the outlet tube". This appears to mean periodic checks of
the end of the rubber tube, in a manner similar to that done in the
Krivit demonstration. Obviously only steam would come out of the top
port, because the liquid water is separated, flowing out the hose.
Further, if 4.69 kW of steam would produce a steam flow of about 3000
cc/sec, given 1.8 gm/s input flow at 18*C. Through a 1 cm^2 opening
this would have been a velocity of 30 m/sec, certainly highly notable
by the observers! What a great photo or video that huge flow of
steam would make! No corresponding note or recording was made.
It is highly unlikely the power output was sustained at *exactly*
4.69 kW for the entire run. This would be necessary to fulfill both
conditions noted in the report, namely (1) all water flow was
converted to steam, and (2) the outlet temperature remained between
100°C and 100.4°C. If a mere 10 W additional were added beyond the
perfect 2 conditions noted, then the steam temperature would increase
to 108°C. This did not happen. The only logical conclusion is all
the water was not converted to steam. Water was flowing out of the
exit port. In fact, based on the elbow and two slopes of the
temperature curve, it could be expected that very little power was
actually involved in steam formation at 10:45. Water was likely
pouring out of the exit port at near 1.8 cm^3/sec.
Based on the T vs t slopes it seems possible the power for most of
the first part of the elbow, for abut 9 minutes, was around 533 W,
and the second part of the elbow, and maybe beyond, it was about 748
W, the power applied in the Krivit demonstration. This is certainly
more credible than a nearly instant power surge of 4 kW when the
temperature hit 100°C. It looks as if power was possibly switched to
the preheater element at some initial point and then the band heater
kicked in at a later point. There is no way of knowing exactly what
electrical power was applied throughout because it was not recorded,
and most importantly not integrated via a kWh meter. There is no way
of knowing the actual enthalpy was generated because the output heat
flow was not measured.
Despite having access to much of the E-cat device, to make credible
measurements Essén and Kullander would have had to come prepared with
their own calorimetry equipment and a kWh meter in order to make good
use of that access.
OPERATION
E&K: "The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified
Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°
C. The measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-
vaporized, at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-
vaporized."
This is nonsense because the Testo 650 is a relative humidity meter
http://www.instrumart.com/products/28689/testo-650-humidity-meter?
s_kwcid=TC|23075|testo%20650||S|p|
7377156844&gclid=CNmO966qr6sCFRAaQgodCD0zJQ
http://tinyurl.com/3hdw68c
The relative humidity of steam is 100%. If less than 100% was
measured it means there is air in the probe well. Further, this
measurement ignores the water which can pour out of the exit port, or
bubble or spurt out by a percolator effect, and which is not measured.
E&K: "The energy produced inside the device is calculated to be
(1.000-0.013)(16:30-10:45)4.39 =25 kWh."
This calculation is utterly without foundation.
DISCUSSION
E&K: "Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50
cm3 container can be ruled out. The only alternative explanation is
that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the
measured energy production."
This conclusion is without foundation because the 25 kWh number is
without foundation. Due to inadequate instrumentation there is not
even solid evidence the the power out is greater than the electrical
power in. There are various inconsistencies in the report that can
not be resolved without more detailed knowledge of the inside of the
E-cat at the time, and better instrumentation for the test.
HEAT FLOW THROUGH THE NICKEL CONTAINING STAINLESS STEEL COMPARTMENT
If the stainless steel compartment has a surface area of
approximately S = 180 cm^2, as approximated above, and 4.39 kW heat
flow through it occurred, as specified in the report, then the heat
flow was (4390 W)/(180 cm^2) = 24.3 W/cm^2 = 2.4x10^5 W/m^2.
The thermal conductivity of stainless steel is 16 W/(m K). The
compartment area is 180 cm^2 or 1.8x10^-2 m^2. If the wall thickness
is 2 mm = 0.002 m, then the thermal resistance R of the compartment is:
R = (0.002 m)/(16 W/(m K)*(1.8x10^-2 m^2) = 1.78 °C/W
Producing a heat flow of 4.39 kW, or 4390 W then requires a delta T
given as:
delta T = (1.78 °C/W) * (4390 W) = 7800 °C
The melting point of Ni is 1453°C. Even if the internal temperature
of the chamber were 1000°C above water temperature then power out
would be at best (1000°C)/(1.78 °C/W) = 561 W.
Most of the input water mass flow necessarily must have continued on
out the exit port without being converted to steam.
CONCLUSION
The report has various inconsistencies which prevent any solid
conclusions from being drawn. The E-cat only has value if the total
energy out for a long operation is much greater than total energy
in. It is feasibly inexpensive and not complex to directly measure
total energy in vs total energy out for long runs of this sized
device, measuring only the electrical input and thermal output of the
device independent of the device itself. Such a long term total
energy balance measurement eliminates any need to know the internals
of the device or to account for the extreme complexities of thermal
dynamics to determine its energy generating capacity.
This report is not a scientific paper, but a travel report as stated
in the article. It is an excellent report of what happened. However,
for the conclusions of the report to be scientifically credible a
great deal more is required in the way of calorimetry and data
collection.
The standard of evaluation of this kind of device for commercial
purposes, which could entail the investment of millions or billions
of dollars, should rise to a much higher standard than requirements
for publishing a scientific paper. Further, because the field itself
has such a controversial history, and yet has a colossal potential to
do much good for billions of people, there is a duty to rise to the
highest possible standard of data acquisition to avoid the extensive
damage failure of such a highly visible public affair can have on
what little research is now funded, and to reach that high standard
as quickly as possible.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
