Are the numbers and slow temperature gradient not entirely consistent with
overflowing E-Cats as well? You take a great deal of time and expend a great
deal of effort constructing intellectually fascinating models.
Consider, though, if the E-Cats are overflowing, and the actual steam
vaporization is lower than the rate at which new water is introduced, the
"kettle boiler" construction is completely irrelevant. The incoming water will
be displacing the water at boiling, regardless of its phase.
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:58:26 -0500
There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis I put forward. I have
been following a discussion about the large power output rise in a short time
that some suggest is not possible. I do not know whether or not that is a real
problem but the following theory easily eliminates that issue. First, the
pooled water is being evaporated by the initial hot vapor entering the steam
pipes. This shows up as the relatively long shoulder period that is visible
just before the "big bang" in temperature reading of the thermocouple within
the steam pipe. The evaporating pooled water at low pressure holds the
temperature down until it is dispersed. At that time, the much hotter vapor
that is collected within the ECATs can begin to escape the output valve and
quickly raise the steam pipe temperature since it is no longer restrained by
the pooled water. I think this makes perfect sense and matches the temperature
data collected.
Now, the power output does not have to instantly show up as 470 kW since the
water level within the ECATs is not overflowing. Why would it not be
reasonable to assume that the water level continues to rise more slowly as time
progresses until the final 470 kW is achieved? If the output now exceeds 470
kW then the average levels within the ECATs will start to decline. Of course,
I suspect that the ECATs are actually operating in the driven mode for most of
the large initial temperature pulse since the report mentions 66 kWh of input
throughout the 5.5 hour test period. So, the water levels within the ECATs
compensates for the unusual power requirements and essentially every
measurement can be explained.
The quality of the steam has been suggested to be low. This is not the case
since kettle boilers that have a reasonable space above the liquid to hold
vapor deliver high quality steam. Anyone who wants to prove this to themselves
can study boilers and determine that this is true.
With this latest theory, I suggest that a coherent description exists which
fits the data that was collected during the October 28 test. The bottom line
is that the 1 MW system test demonstrated a working cold fusion device.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 12:43 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would
> immediately begin to condense upon every surface.
Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that
the external temperature was around 15 degrees.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
And that will also cause temperature and pressure to rise and then
possibly push water that obstructs smaller pipes, clearing the way and
creating a pressure/temperature drop.
> 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.
If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring
water from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ; the corresponding amount
of water is 1102 kg. Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l
of water per sub-module. Each module is about 30 x 40 x 50 cm3 or 60
l. So each sub-module is less than 20 l. Having 3.43 l of water in a
20 l sub-module sounds perfectly reasonable without them being full.
That also gives a good safety margin, since the power per module when
running at 470 kW is 1.46 kW. That will evaporate 2.23 kg of water in
one hour, enough time to find or fix a problem or shut the thing down.
So Dave's theory is that condensed water in the pipes causes clogs
and thus pressure and thus temperature fluctuations. I like that idea, but
maybe someone knows better.
--
Berke Durak
