Yes, but the October 6th test provides some idea of what the Megawatt output may have looked like, had the E-Cats indeed started empty. I was looking for a corollary indication that the E-Cats were full at test commencement.
David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > >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 <[email protected]> >To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >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: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy >From: [email protected] >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 > > >
