You appear to have recovered. I am happy for you.
-----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> To: Vortex-L <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Sep 21, 2011 4:19 pm Subject: [Vo]:Review of Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011 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/
