Hi Robert, If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures.
The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has. I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of 11kg/hr. I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate for the October test.. Colin On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon < robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. > At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the > average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the > entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have > resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak. > So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss > through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, "What's the floor?": > Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C. > We know some water was boiling, due to the "sound", "feel" and relative > temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine > how much. > This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts > or 2.5 kw. > > Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI > P18 > >pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making > >124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) > >http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest > at > >maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. > >http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece > > > >If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw > >(1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s > >24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was > >dropping. > > > >At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C > >and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power > output > >of 4.5kW. > > > >So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be > >delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly > >overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet > >thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could > be > >a lot more. > > > >On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > > > >> At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > >> It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses > to > >> Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the > usual > >> drain). > >> He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. > >> > >> > >> The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow > >> results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. > >> > >> He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of > >> sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic > pump > >> was increased. > >> > >> We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's > >> walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says "about 1 hour ago we went > into > >> self-sustaining mode". > >> > >> >
