I tried early on to reconcile the heat exchanger readings with what could be occurring in the E-Cat. The placement of the thermocouple makes any power calculation based on the the delta T highly suspect. So, to avoid detrimental reliance on the amplitude of the heat exchanger secondary readings, it was time to concentrate on only the changes in the readings (the "spikes"). Trying to graph this, I, like you, was frustrated by the lack of data points. Still, looking at apparent increases while the E-Cat temp was decreasing, it was counter intuitive. My realization was this: if the E-Cat is boiling at a lower rate than water input, (say .5 grams/sec evaporation, with 3 grams/sec from the pump), an overflow may appear to be a large increase in power out. Horace Hefner also pointed out that slugs of water, due to a differing specific heat from steam, could cause large fluctuations in the energy seen at the heat exchanger. Not knowing the E-Cat volume, the pump input (it varies with back pressure, and wasn't at Max), and the E-Cat output volume, it seemed that absolutely all of the parameters that are necessary for any chance at reasoned assumptions were unknowns. I began graphing with "tolerance bands"representing uncertainties, and it quickly ran wild. It's great that you are trying to correlate this, and I wish you the best of luck. Your attempt to balance the E-Cat water level was a valiant one, though; it's only by trying that you get a grasp of the number of uncertainties. Kudos.
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >That is OK Robert, I was just pointing out the analysis I conducted. I think >it was pretty reasonable. > >I was thinking along that line myself. The question about pressure in the >condenser gave me pause at first until I realized that any significant >pressure at the ECAT end would purge the water fairly easy. I expect to see a >little differential that would keep the water moving toward the sink. I do >not think it takes much at the flow rate we are seeing. It would be >interesting for someone to calculate the water friction within the plumbing to >see just how high that is. > >I am confident that a check valve is in series with the output of the ECAT. >This type of valve always has a pressure drop due to a spring working against >a ball on a shoulder. It prevents reverse water or steam flow. In my >opinion, that is the main reason for the pressure increase within the ECAT as >the flow increases. And this is reflected as an increase in T2 required to >achieve extra flow. I have been trying to determine the function relating the >pressure and temperature within the ECAT versus power delivered to the heat >exchanger. That is elusive so far since we do not have an accurate power >measurement except at a couple of points. We need better data to complete a >good understanding. > >I would appreciate it if you could help me obtain the function we both desire. > >Thanks, > >Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> >To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 7:30 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production > > >It appeared in the water dump at the end of the September video, that the >E-Cat >ressure was above 1 ATM. > was merely asking if you were considering that a pressure increase could be >riving an increase in boiling temperature. No is a perfectly valid answer, it >as just something that I had been entertaining. >If the core were releasing enough energy to boil 1 gram/second of water, and >ondensation or overflow begins accumulating in the hose, the pressure could >lowly increase, raising boiling temperature, and decreasing the amount of >roduced vapor (without an increase in core power required). >t was the premise that I'd been using to explain the T2 increase. >David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: >> >The ECAT is not dry during this time, in fact it is filled with water. A >small >egion of vapor probably exists above the water. > >I do not agree that T2 can change without energy being absorbed by the water. >ll indications are that the water is in good contact with the probe. > >Of course the pressure will change with T2. That is expected for a saturated >iquid with vapor above. The entrance to the heat exchanger is maintained at >ne atmosphere +/- since any extra pressure would expel the water from the >pipe. >o one mentioned anything except smooth flow visible during the test. I asked >ats Lewan about this issue regarding his measurement of water flow. > >There will be a direct relationship (function) between the pressure and >emperature(T2) within the ECAT and output power delivered to the exchanger and >ther loss items. We are seeing incorrect indications at the exchanger output >resently because of thermocouple placement. The real power at the output is >uch more reliable. > >There is no superheated steam. > >If you look at the T2 readings as a function of time you do not see any >unusual >ast variations that can not be explained. It is well behaved and changes very >lowly as extra heat is added to the water. The pressure changes are virtually >ll due to the temperature changes. Actually, there is one region that I >cannot >xplain. That is where the relatively low temperature at T2 starts to rise >most >f the way through the test. > >Dave > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> >To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 6:44 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production > > >You are placing a lot of stock on minor variances of the T2 temperature. >ave you considered that no energy increase is necessary to increase the T2 >robe temperature? It is highly unlikely that the E-Cat is bone dry, and the >team is being superheated. It is much more likely that the fluctuations in >utput temperature are caused by changes in the E-Cat pressure. >ith the same, unchanged input power, a small increase in back pressure (water >illing up the heat exchanger output house, or accumulating at hose bends) >would >>ause an increase in T2 temperature, and a decrease in the amount of water >aporized. >ince we have no measure of the amount of water being boiled, this change would >e opaque. >nd, of course, the thermocouple at the output could see spikes from small >hanges in the grams/second of water or water vapor. (this is assuming that its >lacement has rendered the amplitude of its reading meaningless) > >
