On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I could have made a mistake, but by my calculations, if the power
> increases at a constant Pdot = 160 W/s, then 13.5 L of water (per
> unit) will begin to boil in t = sqrt(2Q/Pdot) = 40 minutes, not 90.
> And the power at 90 minutes will be 160*90*60 = 864 kW, and at
> 13:22, it will be 160*144*60 = 1.4 MW.

> On the other hand, if boiling begins at 11:00, then the power
> increase should be Pdot = 2Q/t^2 = 31 W/s, giving a power of
> 31*144*60 = 270 kW at 13:22.

Indeed, I got that wrong, 160 W/s doesn't make sense, but 45 W/s may
fit.  Here are parameters that seem to fit:

0) Let time t0 be the start of the warmup period.  I have selected the
earliest time at which the output temperature exceeds its 5th
percentile.  This is the 717th record in the XLS file and the
timestamp is 11:00:04.

1) At t0, total reactor power (electrical + alleged nuclear) is P0 =
0.

Note: Actually, I think P0 > 0 because the output temperature is
30 degrees.  P0 is probably small, maybe 12 kW, given that the energy
consumption in self-sustaining mode was 66 kWh over 5.5 h.

2) I still think the pump was turned on at 13:22:50 or t0 + 10000
seconds, because we have a nice linear increase in input temperature
starting right at that moment, that also coincides with the sharp input
temperature drop.  This also fits with the water clog theory.

I assume that at this point the power is P1 = 450 kW approximately.

3) So power went from ~0 to 450 kW in 10 000 seconds or an increase
rate of beta = 45 W/s.

4) Assume all this power goes into heating a thermal mass C expressed
in J/K.  The formula

  T_out = 27.34 + 2.124e-6 (t - t0)^2

is a good fit.  Call alpha = 2.124e-6 [K/s^2] the rate of increase of
temperature increase.  Then E = C T_out and thus P = dE/dT = C dT_out/
dt = 2 alpha C.  Thus we have :

  beta = 2 alpha C

5) With beta = 45 W/s and alpha given above, we deduce :

  C = beta / (2 * alpha) = 10.6 MJ/K.

6) The quantity of water required for this thermal mass is 2523 kg.
The reactor is, of course, not pure water, so that's an upper limit.

7) Given that we have 321 submodules, this is 7.9 l per submodule, a
reasonable amount.  I still find that quantity a bit high.  Do we know the
water-containing volume of the e-Cats?

> Since the ecats are not full, water will not flow out of them when
> the pumps are turned on and turning them on only adds a volume flow
> rate of 675L/h = .19 L/s, or 1.8 mL/s per module, which is a tiny
> fraction of a per cent of the total volume flow rate. In fact, since
> adding cool water will remove heat otherwise going into steam, the
> total volume flow rate of steam stays the same (at 490 kW).
> Therefore this increase in the temperature of the input reservoir
> cannot correlate with the pump turning on as you describe.

Water did not necessarily flow out directly.  I'd like to invoke the
"water clog" theory (see my other post).  To resume:

(a) You have 2523 liters of water boiling in the e-cats.

(b) The heaters are not fully immersed.

(c) Therefore each submodule has a portion of its heating surfaces
that is exposed and heating steam.

(d) Steam has about 1/25th the thermal conductivity of water.

(e) Therefore the exposed portion is significantly hotter than the
unexposed portion.

(f) When pumps are turned on, water is added and the level rises until
evaporation.

(g) Thus the contact area between water and the heating elements
increases momentarily.

(h) In addition, the formerly exposed and hotter area of the heating
elements is now in contact with water.

(i) The cold water picks up some energy, but that's only about 15% of
the vaporization energy.  The rate of steam production still increases
significantly, because heat transfer is proportional to area of
contact and increases dramatically with the temperature difference.
(By a couple of orders of magnitude over 30 degrees above the boiling
point, see the graph I posted.)  Of course these are all transient
effects.  The extra water also takes up some volume.

(j) Because there is a water clog somewhere (I guess in the
condenser), the pressure increases.

(k) The increased pressure finally overcomes the lukewarm water clog,
which goes back into the reservoir.

I concede that point (i) should be analyzed in further detail.

> There are many other problems, but these two are significant enough
> to leave it at that.

I'm listening.

> Finally, Rossi and his engineer claim a constant input flow rate for
> the full 5.5 hours, and this is not an assumption about which they
> could be reasonably be mistaken (like the output flow rate, or the
> effectiveness of their trap).

They don't explicitly claim that.

They manifestly computed the flow rate of 675.6 l/h by dividing 3716 l
by 5.5 h, because they state that the regulated flow rate is 700 l (2
x 350 l/h).

If the pumps did turn on at 13:22:50 (presumably automatically, maybe
based on the water level), then the flow time would have been 4.69 h
for a rate of 792 l/h, not too different from 675.6 l, and the average
power would be close to 570 kW.  Note that the installed power is 1070
kW.

> What's the point of analyzing the measurements, if you're going to
> ignore some of them and make up your own?

The report does not go into too much detail, is often ambiguous and it
contains small errors.  We don't have the plans for the 1 MW demo, so
minor adjustments and reasonable hypotheses are needed to make sense
of it.

So far I haven't found anything significantly wrong with the 1 MW
demo.  Also I still don't understand your "instantaneous power
transfer discontinuity" argument.
-- 
Berke Durak

Reply via email to