horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water temperature. Not the temperature of output of primary circuit. You are correct, it should be the value what you thought it to be, but this is the main flaw in the test. This also means that we do not have any means to know what was the efficiency of heat exchanger, because we do not know how much heat went down the sink from open primary circuit. Primary circuit should have been closed.
Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E-Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining. Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. But your calculations were absolutely brilliant. It was something that I wanted. It also confirmed my estimation of 100-150 MJ for total output, including 30 MJ of electricity. Although I did consider also something for the innefficiency of heat exchanger. for Mats Lewan, I would like to ask did anyone measure the temperature of primary circuit after the heat exchanger? This would be very important bit of information. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> kirjoitti: > The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: > > http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece > > http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 > > A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf > > Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. > > The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have made all the difference. > > First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T would have improved reliability of the power out values. > > Second, the lack of hand measurements of the cooling water temperatures Tin and Tout periodically was unfortunate, especially when large values of delta T was present. The thermometers should be relocated down the rubber hose a short distance and insulated. > > Third, a kWh meter could have been fairly cheaply purchased or obtained and read at the same time the other electric meters were used. > > Fourth, a filter to smooth any pulsed current demand from the E-cat power supply could have been used, or an oscilloscope used to ensure no such pulses were imposed on the input current. > > Fifth, the flow meter volumes could have been manually recorded at the same times temperature readings were recorded. > > > GENERAL COMMENTS > > A control calibration run was not made, as evidenced by a 0.8°C minimum error in the delta T for Tin and Tout. > > No kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy. It is far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by > > P(t) = d E(t)/dt > > than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and integrate to obtain E(t). > > Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the time stamped volume data. It is much more accurate, depending on flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as: > > f(t) = d V(t)/dt > > than to integrate: > > V(t) = integral f(t) dt > > (or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional sporadic short interval flow measurements. This is the value of using volume meters. This appears to actually be a small point in this case, however, because fortunately overall flow volume was measured, and total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear to be an issue, at least compared to the other issues. > > The flow rate chosen was too large, resulting in a max delta T of about 8°C and thus unreliable accuracy in the heat measurements. The measurements might have been more reliable if the thermocouples had not been placed on insulated metal parts, i.e. connected directly, metal to metal, to the heat exchanger itself. They should have been separated from the heat exchanger by low conductivity material, such as a short length of rubber hose, to avoid thermal wicking problems through the metal. The same applies to the output temperature measurement for the E-cat. This is the same problem as before, when the thermometer was buried in the earlier E-cats, but compounded. This makes the temperature data highly unreliable. > > From the report: > > "Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C." > > "18:53 Tin = 24.3 °C Tout = 29.0 °C T3 = 24.8 °C T2 = 116.4 °C" > > "18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C." > > "19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C" > > "Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C." > > These values indicate a significant problem with temperature measurement. The most serious problem is the output temperature recorded for the "condensed steam". Perhaps that was a repeated recoding error. The "condensed steam" is measured leaving the heat exchanger at a temperature lower than room temperature by at least 5°C, and lower than the Tin of the exchanger by 1°C. > > It is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may introduce water into output stream, as before. If the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject to thermal wicking, the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. This sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for increased temperature from the > Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam input. In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power quickly momentarily rises. This kind of mystery can be, should be, unravelled using a dummy or inactive E-cat during calorimeter calibration sessions. > > If the heat exchanger were 70% efficient as estimated by some individuals, then the "condensed steam" water temperature should have been above Tin. Given a delta T of the cooling water of 32.4°C - 24.2°C = 8.2°C, we might expect a "condensed steam" temperature more like 34.8°C, not 23.2°C if the coupling of the two circuits were imperfect. The insulated condenser itself and the insulated flow lines do not appear to be a significant source of loss of energy, and thus low measurement efficiency. Further, the low temperature of the "condensed steam" water upon output from the primary circuit indicates no loss of energy in the heat exchange process due to dumped heat in the form of "condensed steam" going down the drain. > > Based on all the above, the temperature measurements lack the degree of credibility required to make any reliable assessment of commercial value. > > Noted in report: "15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V." > > The power measurement during this period may be highly flawed, depending on the circuits involved and where the measurement was taken. Filtering between the power measurement and E-cat is essential, unless a fast response meter, like the Clarke-Hess is used. > > Even if it is real, a COP of 3 is marginal for commercial application. It is much more difficult to achieve self powering with a cop of 3 vs 6. Unfortunately the temperature data is unreliable, and the COP does not look to be anywhere near the advertised 6 or even 3. Further, the temperature tailed off after less than 4 hours of no power input. The device should not have been shut down there, but re-energized. To be shown to have any commercial value the device should be shown producing net energy for an extended period, like the 24 hours originally touted for the test. The claim was the E-cat can run for 6 months without refueling. This test was not useful as demonstration of commercial value. > > As in the numerous prior demonstrations of the E-cats, we are left tantalized by the indication of possible excess energy, and disappointed that with a little extra effort the evidence might have finally been at hand. > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > >
