On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:11 AM, David Roberson wrote:
It has been suggested that it is not possible to obtain the rapid
increase in output power measured for the Rossi ECATs. The reason
stated is that the core would have to have its temperature
multiplied by a factor of 6 or so to deliver the needed power.
This belief is based upon a misunderstanding of the heat equation
and its solutions. You can find a reference to this information in
Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation. This is a
partial differential equation that is not very easy to understand
but ties the distribution of heat within a system to time. One
look at this complexity and you can see why it is confusing.
It is correct to assume that the temperature gradient immediately
feeding the ECAT water storage must be increased by the 6 to 1(or
whatever you need) ratio. I doubt that anyone would argue that
point, but that does not imply that this gradient must exist all
the way to the ECAT core modules. Maybe some of the Vortex members
are thinking about the stead state temperature distribution. In
that case, the temperature gradient would become smoother and
follow a curve based upon the heat flow through the area
encountered along its flow path.
In the steady state solution we would expect the core temperature
to in fact rise by the ratio of the output powers as has been
argued since it is the source of all of the heat energy. The ECAT
core temperature is not required to operate under steady state
conditions until a very long period of time has elapsed. This long
period is not being allowed by definition due to the rapid power
change observations argued against.
Consider this thought experiment. The cores of one ECAT are heated
within 5 minutes to a high temperature by the electrical heating
element leading to the generation of LENR heat. The cores are now
at a temperature that allows the total output to be 9 kW where they
continue to supply energy into the heat sink. The water initially
knows nothing of this power since a significant delay exists as the
heat makes it way toward the water. The gradient of temperature
facing the water is zero until the leading edge of the heat wave
reaches that position in space. Since the gradient is zero, no
power is being delivered to the water. Next, time elapses and the
heat begins to flow into the water and increase its temperature. A
gradient is now established to allow the heat flow and this
gradient rapidly increases as the power delivered to the water
increases. The gradient began at zero and will increase as needed
to allow the heat flow required. There is no reason why this
gradient change is restricted to a value as low as 6 to 1, and I
would expect it to be far larger until the system stabilizes.
Horace Heffner has been generating a finite element model of the
heat flow within his assumed ECAT scam device and will be able to
demonstrate this effect to anyone who does not understand the
mechanisms involved. I recall a time domain chart he published to
vortex that shows his expected gradient of temperatures along the
heat sink. This graph should be used as reference.
Horace, please take a small amount of your time to explain the
effect that I refer to since you have the finite element model that
reveals the solution to the partial differential equation. A
demonstration is worth a million words in this case.
Dave
Hi Dave,
I am unable to contribute much to discussion at this time. I
haven't been reading vortex, so my remarks may not be relevant. I
found this post by scanning for my name. I'll comment briefly.
Yes, finite element analysis (FEA) in general typically consists of
solving partial differential equations with boundary conditions, by
discrete approximation means In the case of dynamic thermal FEA, the
equation being solved, in some form, is the heat equation you
reference. In the case of the E-cat, the heat equation applies to
any heat conducting layers between the reactor and resistance heaters
and the water. The boundary conditions essentially amount to the
thermal (electrical) power input on the hot side, and the temperature
gradient near the solid/water surface. The higher the near-water-
surface gradient, the greater the heat transfer power to the water,
ignoring the effects of steam bubbles etc. The following graph
demonstrates these principles:
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph6S.png
The power in on the left side (X=0) matches the Pin for the 6 Oct
Rossie experiment. The thermal gradient at the water end (X=15) is
represented by the slope of the temperature curves at for the various
times, which is shown with magnification. You can see the effect of
the water side gradient in the Pout curve (blue) in this graph:
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph2S.png
The power out corresponds in time to the changing of the thermal
gradient through time.
The following graph shows the temperature curve family in the case
where there is perfect insulation inserted at X=15, between the
thermal conducting slab and the water:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph7Sx.png
Thermal output power at any given time can be highly variable, and
delayed in time from the generation of the heat in the reactor.
Except that dynamic FEA is likely necessary to determine maximum
operating temperature of the reactor, given the dynamics of the power
input, the thermal gradient is of limited interest concerning total
energy production. For this reason I have consistently advocated
well calibrated dual method calorimetry that determines a complete
energy balance for each test, and have suggested various inexpensive
methods of achieving that, such as ice calorimetry, one barrel and
two barrel steam condensation, combined flow condensation, etc.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50611.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48555.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51875.html
I think the format of spread sheet I used for the Rossi data, e.g.:
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf
is useful for both calibration runs and controls, as well as live
runs. Its focus is on consistent power, energy and COP data.
To see what professional level dual calorimetry actually looks like
check out:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf
Curiously, Rossi had everything needed for fairly good calorimetry at
the 1 MW test. He had two large plastic water reservoirs. Little
extra was needed to sparge/condense the primary steam/water into the
reservoirs, and then to use the air-water condensers in a secondary
circuit to cool the reservoirs and measure the thermal output. Just
some extra copper pipe and fittings, and perhaps an extra water
meter, were all that was required.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
