I suspect that the input flow rate was larger for the October 6 test when the pressure was low. It is fairly straight forward to calculate the amount of water fed into one of the ECATs during the 3.5 hour period of the 28 test. It should be 6.314 liters/hour * 3.5 hours = 22.1 liters. The 3.5 hour period is derived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test started at 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy The "Ottoman" E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October tests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), and how long it took for the output to register anything at all. Now add in the fact that the October 6th thermocouple was much closer that the MegaCat output thermocouple. ... Thoughts? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500 We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and several issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period since it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must open before water can escape. According to our previous logic, the thermocouple readings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water flow. There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed. We know that the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be air tight if performing properly. I hypothesize that warm air which is of high humidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it. All of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor becomes dominate. This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. This would of course make the temperature hover about that required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C. This sequence of events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling temperature that exists for a fairly long time before the standing water becomes overwhelmed. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. Dave
