Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Analyzing the E-cat calorimetry
Options
-
02-01-2012 11:28pm#1Almost a year has elapsed since the first public demonstration of the E-cat, a device that, according to the inventors, should generate large amounts of energy using LENR reaction between nickel and hydrogen. Meanwhile, a dozen of tests has been performed on different E-cat models. This device has been also discussed in this forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056463191.
However, some aspects are still not well understood. One of the most important is the calorimetry, ie the analysis of the balance between input and output energies.
To understand the results of calorimetric data is useful to use a mathematical model of the device. In the attached jpeg a model of September 7, 2011 test is proposed. The test is described in this report from Matts Lewan http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 .
This is a very simple model built on Excel spreadsheets. The E-cat has been split into 5 parts only: shield (S), base (B), cover (R), heat exchanger (A) and the outer container (C). Each was assigned a value of thermal capacity, the value of which is congruent with a total weight of the device of 80 kg, assuming that the material is steel. The jpeg lists the heat transfer coefficients for the heat exchange among the parties, and toward the internal water (2) and the outside environment (1). This last coefficients depend on the water height inside the E-cat.
The heat supplied to the model, shown on the upper right diagram, is just that due to the electric power supply according to the values indicated in the Lewan report. The flow of water from the pump (P) to the container is also congruent with the data recorded by Lewan.
The total internal volume has been set to 30 liters. The outflow check valve (V) is set at 1.8 bar (2.8 bar total). Between 23:10 and 23:15 this value is set to zero (P total = 1 bar) to simulate the opening of the discharge valve (not included in the model as a separate valve).
The diagram at the bottom left of the jpeg shows the flow of water pumped toward the ecat and what comes out of the check valve. The leakage of liquid water starts at 20:40. Between 22:15 and 22:45 a portion of water comes out in the form of steam. There is also a large outflow of steam between 23:10 and 23:15 during the simulation of the discharge valve flow. For the energy balance, it was assumed that the outflow steam is dry.
The lower diagram on the right show the evolution of the temperatures in the model. The water temperature (T_2w) calculated from the model follows very well the measured one (T_2 (mis)). The drop in temperature following the opening of the discharge valve is also well represented. After the closure of this valve the water temperature starts to rise again as in the experiment.
This model seems to explain well the temperature values recorded during the test without considering other sources of energy apart that of electricity. Hence it would seem that there would be no need to hypothesize the presence of LENR reactions, nor the presence of occult sources as chemical fuel or elecrtic batteries.
I would appreciate any comment on this model.0
Comments
-
This model seems to explain well the temperature values recorded during the test without considering other sources of energy apart that of electricity. Hence it would seem that there would be no need to hypothesize the presence of LENR reactions, nor the presence of occult sources as chemical fuel or elecrtic batteries.
Are you saying, the energy produced by the E-cat, is actually heat retained in it's elements?0 -
Hi krd,
this is what the model says: all the energy needed to explain the trend of the outlet temperature would come from the electric heaters.
A new jpeg, showing some significant power and energy trends, better illustrates the results of the model. The power diagram shows that for most of the preheating phase, when the resistances are fed, the electric power supply (W_R) is much larger than the heat removed by the outflow (W_V).
Much of this heat accumulates in the water remained inside the vessel (H_2w) and a smaller part, though still large, is stored in the metal, mainly in the shield (H_S). When the water temperature reaches the saturation value, corresponding to the back pressure of the valve, excess power cannot further be stored by the water and the outflow partially vaporizes beginning to absorb the heat stored in the metal. This heat is also used to maintain the water temperature during the short period of the so called self-sustained phase.
Finally, when you open the drain valve, the heat of vaporization comes mainly from the cooling of the liquid remaining in the vessel. When the valve is closed, the liquid in the vessel starts to rise again at the expense of the thermal energy of the metal.
The lower diagram also shows that the energy budget is closed. In fact the sum of the outflow enthalpy (H_V), that one of remaining water (H_2w) and heat in the shield (H_S) equals the incoming total energy (E_in), which is the sum of the electrical energy (E_R) plus the enthalpy associated with the incoming flow.0 -
Hi krd,
this is what the model says: all the energy needed to explain the trend of the outlet temperature would come from the electric heaters.
I think you're right. The first time I saw Rossi's device, I had the feeling he was up to something very much like the model you have. Other people in the past have done very similar "devices"
I followed one of his demonstration videos and did some calculations - they showed an impressive net gain. But I wasn't taking into account how much heat the device would take hold, or if it had been preheated. When you take that into consideration, looking at some of your figures, it explains where the extra energy came from - and also tells me, that they video presentation was not that honest, because he makes no mention of the casing in his calculations.
I don't know whether he's a fraud or whether he's deluded.0 -
I do not know either, but I do not care: for me, as you rightly said in the other thread, it is primarily entertainment....
I followed one of his demonstration videos and did some calculations ...
I don't know whether he's a fraud or whether he's deluded.
I especially like to investigate the calorimetric aspects of the tests.
What video and test were you referring to?0 -
The total internal volume has been set to 30 liters. The outflow check valve (V) is set at 1.8 bar (2.8 bar total). Between 23:10 and 23:15 this value is set to zero (P total = 1 bar) to simulate the opening of the discharge valve (not included in the model as a separate valve).
The diagram at the bottom left of the jpeg shows the flow of water pumped toward the ecat and what comes out of the check valve. The leakage of liquid water starts at 20:40. Between 22:15 and 22:45 a portion of water comes out in the form of steam. There is also a large outflow of steam between 23:10 and 23:15 during the simulation of the discharge valve flow. For the energy balance, it was assumed that the outflow steam is dry.
.
Could you explain what you refer to by the discharge valve? I have always assumed that only a check valve is present at the output with the 1 bar opening level.
Also, does your model allow you to adjust the output vapor/liquid flow rate to any value you choose? How does this relate to the actual measurements made by Mats Lewan?
Also, is it possible for you to show a magnified view of the water temperature of the ECAT before the valve compared to the model expected value? The current view is too small to compare.
Also, is it possible to show the eneryg being released at the final output point and through the case as a function of time?0 -
Advertisement
-
What video and test were you referring to?
I think the videos posted in the last thread.
It's different to the demonstration Matts Lewan had.
I just followed the video taking notes and then did calculations to see if the electric input matched what it would take to turn, I think, about 7 litres of water into steam. My calculations are close to what Rossi gets. There seems to be a substantial energy generation.
It's just how much electrical power over a period to turn a quantity of water into steam.
But what's completely discounted - no figures, or calculations for the actual device itself. He says nothing about the state of the device before the test. If it's been running for hours before the test, then it's going to be hot enough to boil lots of water. If it starts from cold, the device will probably absorb a lot of heat before it would seem to generate power.
In the demonstrations there was a lot I didn't see. I didn't know he was messing around with pressure valves. If the device takes in water, and the valves are closed. It will work just like a pressure cooker. Heat will build up in the other components. And then when he runs a "test", it will seem the device is generating energy.
There are claims the device can produce more heat, than can be explained by the heat capacity of the device, but has anyone ever seen this?
It's typical in frauds of this kind of thing in the past, that the observer is only allowed take limited measurements. And those limited measurements will always show "free energy".0 -
I was reviewing your model and the output diagram you attached. Please let me know what you think of the calculations that follow.
At time 22:35 the AC power is removed and I see that the peak temperature of your model is obtained. This peak is at 310 C and the AC power was 213 Volts * 11.7 Amps = 2492.1 Watts. As I would expect, this amount of power is applied to the water bath of the ECAT immediately. Your chart shows this because the temperature difference between the next series item is 310 - 190 = 120 C. This times 20 W/C gives 2400 watts which is rounded off.
Now Mats Lewan measured 3.08 grams/second input flow rate so it takes 3.08 grams/second * 4.18 joules/gram-C * 70 C = 901.2 watts to heat it up to approximately operating temperature by his figures.
We have left 2492.1 - 901.2 = 1590.9 watts to vaporize water. This yields 1590.9 joules/second / 2260 joules/gram = .704 grams/second. This is calculated per your figure. Why do you not show any vapor at this time being outputted? Please explain where the heat is going if it does not vaporize water.
Next, I see that at time 23:10 the internal temperature has dropped immensely. You chart suggests that the temperature delta driving heat is only 10 C at that time. That translates into 200 watts of power heading into the water from the core. This would be insufficient to bring the new water up to operating temperature as that requires 901.2 watts.(See above). This is not consistant with the observations.
Please help me to understand your model as it seems to do a good job of demonstrating the initial time period. Perhaps there is an error in the calculations that I have made. Review my post and let me know what is going on.0 -
It is the valve placed at the bottom of the case, which is opened at the end of the test as shown in the video from Lewan (http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece ) at 6:42. Actually it is the inlet valve that has been used at the end as a discharge and drain valve. The video fades out at 8:00. So we do not know how long this valve remains open.Could you explain what you refer to by the discharge valve? I have always assumed that only a check valve is present at the output with the 1 bar opening level.
The first jpeg I posted below shows the position of this valve and the trends of the related variables in the last half an hour. As shown in the upper diagram, the opening of the lower valve has been modeled by suddenly lowering the counter-pressure at the check valve (p_V) for 5 minutes. That is a simplistic solution, because actually the valve has been opened in 2 steps and it does not take into account the counter-pressure due to the discharging flow. But nonetheless the vapor flow (q_Vv) has a qualitative trend very similar to the real one, according to the noise intensity heard from the video. Another difference with reality is that the liquid flow (q_Vw) stops as the pump is switched off at 21:10. In the reality some liquid would be entrained by the vapor flow, due to the position of the valve.
Notwithstanding these differences, the water temperature calculated by the model (T_2w) follows quite well the actual measurements (T_2(mis)), as shown in the lower diagram, including the new heating up of the water due to the residual heat received from the metallic parts.
No, the model calculates by itself the outputs flow rates, but of course they depend on the input flow rate, and, after the vessel is filled, the sum of liquid and vapor flow rates equals the input one, as you can see in the left-lower diagram of this slide: 7set_mod-A_input.jpg. The same diagram shows the input flow, whose values were chosen to be consistent with the data of Lewan related to water consumption.Also, does your model allow you to adjust the output vapor/liquid flow rate to any value you choose? How does this relate to the actual measurements made by Mats Lewan?
The second jpeg posted below shows the comparison between the measured temperature (T_2(mis)) and the corresponding value reconstructed from the model results (T_2(ric)). The needing of considering a reconstructed value comes from the fact that the temperature probe is well fitted among the heat exchanger fins, therefore so long as the water level and temperature are low the probe measures the HX temperature (T_A) and only after the water level has exceeded a transition zone, assumed to be between 10 and 15 cm, the probe acquires the water temperature (T_2w).Also, is it possible for you to show a magnified view of the water temperature of the ECAT before the valve compared to the model expected value? The current view is too small to compare.
The sudden down step at the beginning of the T_2w curve comes from having considered the inflow water temperature at a constant value of 22 °C.
The total released energy has already been given in this slide 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg (see the red curve of the lower diagram) and explained in the corresponding post.Also, is it possible to show the eneryg being released at the final output point and through the case as a function of time?
The heat dissipated through the case (C) is easy to calculate on the basis of the data you find in the first slide 7set_mod-A_input.jpg. In fact the heat loss is obtained multiplying the delta T between the case (T_C) and the ambient (T_1) and the overall heat transfer coefficient (K_C1) between (C) and (1). It gives a peak value of about 50 W (= 160 K x 0.3 W/K), and a total energy of 135 kWh.0 -
The model calculates the sensible heat starting from an inlet flow temperature of 22°C, as I said in the previous post, up to the saturation temperature, which at that time is more than 130°C, so the delta T is much higher than 70°C, and the sensible power (W_Vw) is about 1500 W as you can see in the upper diagram in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg slide.At time 22:35 … Lewan measured 3.08 grams/second input flow rate so it takes 3.08 grams/second * 4.18 joules/gram-C * 70 C = 901.2 watts to heat it up to approximately operating temperature by his figures.
You did not look carefully at the flow rate diagram (portata) in 7set_mod-A_input.jpg slide. At 22:35 there is about 0.5 g/s of outflowing vapor (q_Vv). It carries away nearly half of the total output power (q_V) as shown in the power diagram in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg slide.We have left 2492.1 - 901.2 = 1590.9 watts to vaporize water. This yields 1590.9 joules/second / 2260 joules/gram = .704 grams/second. This is calculated per your figure. Why do you not show any vapor at this time being outputted? Please explain where the heat is going if it does not vaporize water.
No, sorry. At 23:10 there is no more input flow because the inlet line is used for discharging the water. The energy needed for vaporization is taken at expenses of the water entalpy as it has been shown in the diagrams in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg and 7sep_mod-A_discharge_phase.jpg slides.Next, I see that at time 23:10 the internal temperature … would be insufficient to bring the new water up to operating temperature …0 -
The model calculates the sensible heat starting from an inlet flow temperature of 22°C, as I said in the previous post, up to the saturation temperature, which at that time is more than 130°C, so the delta T is much higher than 70°C, and the sensible power (W_Vw) is about 1500 W as you can see in the upper diagram in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg slide..
I agree with your calculation here. I was using Mats Lewan's data.
[/QUOTE]You did not look carefully at the flow rate diagram (portata) in 7set_mod-A_input.jpg slide. At 22:35 there is about 0.5 g/s of outflowing vapor (q_Vv). It carries away nearly half of the total output power (q_V) as shown in the power diagram in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg slide..[/QUOTE]
OK, I now see the graph that you refer to and that looks good. I was looking at the first chart and must have not been able to see the fine point.
[/QUOTE]No, sorry. At 23:10 there is no more input flow because the inlet line is used for discharging the water. The energy needed for vaporization is taken at expenses of the water entalpy as it has been shown in the diagrams in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg and 7sep_mod-A_discharge_phase.jpg slides.[/QUOTE]
I assumed that you would understand that I was refering to the instant in time just before the input flow was stopped. So use 23:05 and answer the same question. I do not want to play games and I hope you feel the same way about this exercise.0 -
Advertisement
-
I do not want to play games and I hope you feel the same way about this exercise.
You'll end up driving yourself insane. You haven't even got started on how thick the shielding would need to be, to stop a lethal dose of gamma radiation (if there's LENR taking place), for anyone standing in the room, while the device is operating.0 -
... I assumed that you would understand that I was refering to the instant in time just before the input flow was stopped. So use 23:05 and answer the same question. ...
OK, I understand now.
Let us consider the period between 23:05 and 23:10. Look at the lower diagrams in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg. You are right saying that the total heat released to the water (W_X2) by all the 4 metallic parts in contact with it (X=B,R,A,C) is much lower than the entalpy of the outgoing flow (W_V=W_Vw) . But we should also take into account the trend of the pool water temperature. During these 5 minutes a mass of about 250 g gets into the vessel (=3,08 kg/h x 5/60), less than 1% of the water inventory. The unbalance in the heat flow to the water determines the slow decreasing of the water temperature that you can see in the lower diagram of 7sep_mod-A_discharge_phase.jpg slide. Such a decreasing starts at about 22:45 when the heating heat (W_X2) becomes lower than the outflow entalpy (W_V).0 -
You'll end up driving yourself insane. You haven't even got started on how thick the shielding would need to be, to stop a lethal dose of gamma radiation (if there's LENR taking place), for anyone standing in the room, while the device is operating.
If we are to assume current high temperature physics theory explains the LENR effects then you are correct in presuming that the radiation is a big problem. Of course if we only rely upon what is well know at the present time, then new discoveries are not possible. A review of the papers at LENR-CANR.org is an excellent place to begin if a person wants to understand other experiments that have been well documented.
My main interest in reviewing the model associated with this thread is to determine whether or not it is possible to duplicate Rossi's results without having LENR occur. That determination is still not completed and the model suggested so far appears to be about as good as can be easily obtained. Several important questions remain unanswered. There is a big problem associated with the power supplied to the water at the 23:05 time mark. Unless a lot of additional power appears out of nowhere then the model does not represent what was measured by Mats Lewan.
The model suggests that no boiling would occur at that time mark since there is a requirement of 1500 watts to bring the input water flow of ~3 grams/second up to the operating temperature and we only see 200 watts less any additional heat losses. We need to explain this issue before the model can be shown to represent real life conditions.
There are other requirements that must be met before the model can be accepted as sound. So far it appears to match the initial heating period to a first order. It is not easy to verify all of the intricate behavior that a system such as this exihibits, but we are off to a good start.
I hope that you are wrong in your assessment that this process will result in permanent brain damage.0 -
If we are to assume current high temperature physics theory explains the LENR effects then you are correct in presuming that the radiation is a big problem. Of course if we only rely upon what is well know at the present time, then new discoveries are not possible. A review of the papers at LENR-CANR.org is an excellent place to begin if a person wants to understand other experiments that have been well documented.
I'm kind of curious about some of this stuff too. I'm curious to know if it's possible for the coloumb barrier to drop under some condition that would allow low energy fusion. I haven't studied physics in a very long time - I forgotten most of what I knew, and some things I never covered.There is a big problem associated with the power supplied to the water at the 23:05 time mark. Unless a lot of additional power appears out of nowhere then the model does not represent what was measured by Mats Lewan.
I think what's happening there is a valve is being closed, and the water is reaching that spike because it's under pressure. Have you ever used a pressure cooker. If you forget to shut the valve, it doesn't get that hot inside the cooker. If you do shut the valve it does get very hot, very quickly.
Now. If had a pressure cooker, sitting on an electric ring, and I forgot to shut the valve. The casing of the cooker, and the little water in it, would eventually get very hot. Then if I switched off the electric ring, (put the device in self sustaining mode), and closed the valve. Within 5 minutes, if I opened the valve, I'd get a gush of very hot steam.I hope that you are wrong in your assessment that this process will result in permanent brain damage.
Have you ever been to a STEORN demonstration?0 -
OK, I understand now.
Let us consider the period between 23:05 and 23:10. Look at the lower diagrams in 7sep_mod-A_energy_balance.jpg. You are right saying that the total heat released to the water (W_X2) by all the 4 metallic parts in contact with it (X=B,R,A,C) is much lower than the entalpy of the outgoing flow (W_V=W_Vw) . But we should also take into account the trend of the pool water temperature. During these 5 minutes a mass of about 250 g gets into the vessel (=3,08 kg/h x 5/60), less than 1% of the water inventory. The unbalance in the heat flow to the water determines the slow decreasing of the water temperature that you can see in the lower diagram of 7sep_mod-A_discharge_phase.jpg slide. Such a decreasing starts at about 22:45 when the heating heat (W_X2) becomes lower than the outflow entalpy (W_V).
I clearly see that the temperature of the water within the ECAT is dropping during this point in time according to the model. It is not apparent that the ECAT water would be boiling under this condition. The heat required to bring the input flow up to the bath temperture must come mainly out of the bath itself if the external power entering the water is less than the input requrement. Is this not the equivalent of pouring cold water into a boiling pot of water? The boiling stops immediately as I recall. Mats mentioned that he could hear or feel the water boiling vigorously inside the device during that time period.
Also, how do we explain how Mats collected only 1.6 to 1.8 grams/second of liquid water in a pot while this is happening? It is difficult to believe that the small amount of vapor that is exiting according to the model would be able to hide the missing liquid water. Doesn't the model suggest that all 3 grams/second of liquid water is exiting the port? I suspect that some of the water flashes into vapor once it leaves the higher internal pressure of the ECAT, but this should be a relatively small amount.
What would you expect to happen if the water level within the ECAT is not completely full during the later time period? I would think that the boiling would then be possible since vapor would exist above the water. Mats would of course hear and feel the boiling and mainly vapor would exit the device as is seen. I know that this would not match your model, but might fit the observed facts better. Have you given this possibility adequate consideration during your research?0 -
I'm kind of curious about some of this stuff too. I'm curious to know if it's possible for the coloumb barrier to drop under some condition that would allow low energy fusion. I haven't studied physics in a very long time - I forgotten most of what I knew, and some things I never covered.
There are several theories about how the barrier is overcome. One of the main ones is the W&L theory which you can find in the LENR-CANR.ORG library. In this theory a high energy electron joins one of the nearby protons and becomes a low momentum neutron which easily goes into nearby nuclei.I think what's happening there is a valve is being closed, and the water is reaching that spike because it's under pressure. Have you ever used a pressure cooker. If you forget to shut the valve, it doesn't get that hot inside the cooker. If you do shut the valve it does get very hot, very quickly.
Yeah, and it can blow up if you are not careful. There appears to be some form of restriction valve in the output section of the ECAT, but it does not seem to be activated except by internal pressure.Now. If had a pressure cooker, sitting on an electric ring, and I forgot to shut the valve. The casing of the cooker, and the little water in it, would eventually get very hot. Then if I switched off the electric ring, (put the device in self sustaining mode), and closed the valve. Within 5 minutes, if I opened the valve, I'd get a gush of very hot steam. ?
I expect to see something similar to what you describe. The water flashes into a small amount of vapor and a lot of remaining water when the pressure is released. This most likely is occuring along with the other effects. I just hope that Rossi is not trying to scam us with some of his tricks. He certainly seems to use misdirection as a tool to confuse potential competitors.Have you ever been to a STEORN demonstration?
I have not been following the Steorn story at all. From what I have read, it is not worth the effort.0 -
There are several theories about how the barrier is overcome. One of the main ones is the W&L theory which you can find in the LENR-CANR.ORG library. In this theory a high energy electron joins one of the nearby protons and becomes a low momentum neutron which easily goes into nearby nuclei.
I was wondering do things like that happen. If they do happen, the probability may be very low - and I would expect it to be a known spontaneous phenomenon. Someone should have noticed by now. People have been bombarding materials with electrons for over a hundred years at this stage. Although I don't know the full theory - you would have to see gamma radiation, you would have to see neutrons, you'd also have to see chernekov radiation.I expect to see something similar to what you describe. The water flashes into a small amount of vapor and a lot of remaining water when the pressure is released.
Which is actually consistent with opening the valve on a radiator when the radiator is hot - if you've ever tried it.This most likely is occuring along with the other effects. I just hope that Rossi is not trying to scam us with some of his tricks. He certainly seems to use misdirection as a tool to confuse potential competitors.
The tricks may be for the benefit of his own illusions.
All he may have is a steam engine - and he's fooled by its' little quirks. Things that may have been known to train drivers and steam engineers of the 19th century.I have not been following the Steorn story at all. From what I have read, it is not worth the effort.
Don't even think of going near it - and as far as I am aware, further discussions of Steorn are banned from here..........I did actually get a Steorn T-shirt.0 -
The time it takes for boiling to stop depends on the flow rate of the pouring water. Making the comparison with the volume inside the vessel, it is like pouring some drops of water into a boiling pot. It continues to boil for a while, until the temperature of the metal is higher than the boiling point.I clearly see that the temperature of the water within the ECAT is dropping during this point in time according to the model. It is not apparent that the ECAT water would be boiling under this condition. The heat required to bring the input flow up to the bath temperture must come mainly out of the bath itself if the external power entering the water is less than the input requrement. Is this not the equivalent of pouring cold water into a boiling pot of water? The boiling stops immediately as I recall. Mats mentioned that he could hear or feel the water boiling vigorously inside the device during that time period.
The same for the model. You can see on the temperature diagrams that the temperatures of the metallic parts remain higher than the boiling value. Also, consider that they are averaged values. So it is very likely that boiling zones remain over many metallic surfaces inside the vessel up to the opening of the discharge valve. That is what Lewan felt (but in the September report he did not wrote “vigorously”).
This fact is consistent with the model and the normal physics. When Lewan collected the water, the internal temperature was at 119°C. Each gram of water had 80 J (= 19 x 4,18) extra entalpy with respect to the ambient pressure, which, after flashing, generates 0,03 g (= 80/2675) of dry vapor. The volume of this vapor is 50 cm3 (= 0,03 x 1670), that is 50 times more the volume of the hot liquid. If half of this liquid is entrained by the vapor flow the volume fraction of liquid droplets in the vapor would be only 1%. This is perfectly consistent with what we see in the Lewan video at 4:16 ( See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode).Also, how do we explain how Mats collected only 1.6 to 1.8 grams/second of liquid water in a pot while this is happening? It is difficult to believe that the small amount of vapor that is exiting according to the model would be able to hide the missing liquid water. Doesn't the model suggest that all 3 grams/second of liquid water is exiting the port? I suspect that some of the water flashes into vapor once it leaves the higher internal pressure of the ECAT, but this should be a relatively small amount.
The model does consider a decreasing in the internal level after the opening of the discharge valve as you can see in the water level diagram, but it does not matter for answering your question.What would you expect to happen if the water level within the ECAT is not completely full during the later time period? I would think that the boiling would then be possible since vapor would exist above the water. Mats would of course hear and feel the boiling and mainly vapor would exit the device as is seen. I know that this would not match your model, but might fit the observed facts better. Have you given this possibility adequate consideration during your research?
What Lewan heard and felt has been already explained in the first part of this post. But we do not know what he saw: his video shows only the vapor flow at 21:50, when the resistors were still switched on. Anyway, we can trust him, if he says that he saw some vapor exiting at the outlet after the discharge phase (he is very reliable in what he directly see). It is consistent with the second jump in the “Serie 2” curve (the red one) in the diagram at the end of his report. (Contrary to what is said in the note, the two jumps are in coincidence of the two opening of the outlet tube just downward the liquid trap, and are due to some hot vapor directed downwards in the bucket.) At that time, the water temperature inside the vessel was newly increased of few degrees due to the residual heat of the metallic parts. This fact easily explains some dry vapor exiting the outlet, but for sure it had not the same intensity of the one at 21:50.
So we can see that the model explains, at least up to now, all the quantitative data and the qualitative observations of the September test.0 -
Actually I do not think that for 14th June test with Krivit, you are referring to, one can take into account the heat absorbed during any period of preheating. As you can see on the attached list of tests that took place last year, the E-Cat types used until June were throughflow types. Those E-Cats were very light and could not absorb significant thermal energy. Instead, from July onwards, there were used a tank type with heavy and voluminous interior where water could be maintained at high temperatures even after the resistor shutoff, due to the heat absorbed from the water itself and the metal masses....
But what's completely discounted - no figures, or calculations for the actual device itself. He says nothing about the state of the device before the test. If it's been running for hours before the test, then it's going to be hot enough to boil lots of water. If it starts from cold, the device will probably absorb a lot of heat before it would seem to generate power.
I do not believe that in the throughflow types there were any pressure valves. More likely the explanation of the 7th July test results, is that the effective flow rate, while Krivit was videoing the test, was much less than 7 liters per second.In the demonstrations there was a lot I didn't see. I didn't know he was messing around with pressure valves. If the device takes in water, and the valves are closed. It will work just like a pressure cooker. Heat will build up in the other components. And then when he runs a "test", it will seem the device is generating energy.
The claims of the presence of excess heat in the various tests are numerous, but none of them passes a careful analysis of the documents. For any test for which a sufficient number of information (reports, photos, videos, ...) are available, it is always possible to justify the temperature trends taking into consideration only the electric power absorbed by the network.There are claims the device can produce more heat, than can be explained by the heat capacity of the device, but has anyone ever seen this?
If possible, I would like keep this thread out of such considerations. There are already many other forums who do care. As already said, I think the most interesting aspects are the technical analysis and calorimetric calculations. There is a lot to say about those.It's typical in frauds of this kind of thing in the past, that the observer is only allowed take limited measurements. And those limited measurements will always show "free energy".0 -
the E-Cat types used until June were throughflow types. Those E-Cats were very light and could not absorb significant thermal energy.
This is true. Though I simply assumed by the size of the device it couldn't absorb significant thermal energy. I'm not sure if it could or not. Just by the size, I made the assumption. I could be wrong.I do not believe that in the throughflow types there were any pressure valves.
I didn't see any. It seemed to be a very straightforward throughflow.More likely the explanation of the 7th July test results, is that the effective flow rate, while Krivit was videoing the test, was much less than 7 liters per second.
It's 7 litres per hour, with the smaller throughflow.The claims of the presence of excess heat in the various tests are numerous, but none of them passes a careful analysis of the documents. For any test for which a sufficient number of information (reports, photos, videos, ...) are available, it is always possible to justify the temperature trends taking into consideration only the electric power absorbed by the network.
For my calculations on the throughflow I get 4830 Watts output for 748 W, Rossi gets 4,906.1 Watt output for a 770 Watt input.
That test, the inflow reservoir is measured before and after the test period - 7 litres had been turned into steam by the device in one hour.
The electrical input stays more or less constant throughout the test. Either the device is generating power, or it's retained heat in the device.If possible, I would like keep this thread out of such considerations. There are already many other forums who do care. As already said, I think the most interesting aspects are the technical analysis and calorimetric calculations. There is a lot to say about those.
He's kind of infuriating. I would like to see him do a test that is absolutely unambiguous - like run the device for several days. With independent observes. If the power output is more than the power input, then he has a generator.
If it works, at some point we'll see that test. If it doesn't we, never will.0 -
Advertisement
-
>>>Also, how do we explain how Mats collected only 1.6 to 1.8 grams/second of liquid water in a pot while this is happening? It is difficult to believe that the small amount of vapor that is exiting according to the model would be able to hide the missing liquid water. Doesn't the model suggest that all 3 grams/second of liquid water is exiting the port? I suspect that some of the water flashes into vapor once it leaves the higher internal pressure of the ECAT, but this should be a relatively small amount. <<<
.....This fact is consistent with the model and the normal physics. When Lewan collected the water, the internal temperature was at 119°C. Each gram of water had 80 J (= 19 x 4,18) extra entalpy with respect to the ambient pressure, which, after flashing, generates 0,03 g (= 80/2675) of dry vapor. The volume of this vapor is 50 cm3 (= 0,03 x 1670), that is 50 times more the volume of the hot liquid. If half of this liquid is entrained by the vapor flow the volume fraction of liquid droplets in the vapor would be only 1%. This is perfectly consistent with what we see in the Lewan video at 4:16 ( See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode)....
Your response is interesting and I would like to analyze it further. I reviewed the video again as you suggested and see the water flowing freely into the bucket with vapor exiting as well. The amount of water entrapped is what I question.
Why is it by coincidence that ~50% of the water happens to be entrapped in this situation when the amount could potentially vary from 0% all the way up to 100%? Please direct me to some documentation that supports the figure. What would be entrapped if say the temperature difference were 50 C? Or how about a difference of 1 C? This is a very important piece of the puzzle and I would appreciate an answer other than trust me. Good documentation of this effect will go a long way toward proving your theory.
I viewed the vapor flowing out at the time and did not think that it had the appearance of containing a lot of water. The flow rate just did not seem to be adequate and I would have expected the momentum effects of such a large quantity of fast moving water to be demonstrated in some manner as the flow collided with the jar edge. It actually appeared to me like a modest amount of water flow(1.6 grams/second) along with a weak vapor stream.0 -
I can not believe that the flow rate is 7 L/h, this value is in contradiction to what you can see in the photos and videos, which are the most reliable information sources.It's 7 litres per hour, with the smaller throughflow.
I brought these images into the new attached jpeg. The graph shows 3 lines. The blue one refers to water supply in the reservoir. As you can see there are 2 prolonged lowering of its value. I think they are the water refilling footprints: when fresh water is poured in the reservoir mouth, where the probe is placed, the probe itself and the surrounding before water cool down for some time water mixes well again.
As shown in the jpeg, the blue curve shows only 2 fillings, both in the morning, before the arrival of Krivit in the laboratory. These fillings are made at a distance of 2 hours of each other and since the reservoir seems to have a volume of 10 liters, the average flow rate at that time could not have been greater than 5 L/h. Perhaps at some time, it may have reached 7 L/h, but only for a short time. In addition it should be noted that the blue curve of the water is superimposed by the red curve of the room temperature. This likely indicates that the probe tip in the tank re-emerged and that it was measuring the ambient temperature too.
In the afternoon, when Krivit filmed the steam coming out of the tube, the situation was different. For a long period of 4 hours there was no refilling at all. So the average flow could not exceed 10/4 = 2.5 L/h.
In addition, the blue and red curves remain separated. This means that the probe into the reservoir remains in the water and so the level does not drop much. In fact, from one frame of video shot by Krivit few minutes before filming the steam, it would seem that the level in the tank is dropped only 1/10 or so of its height and then the average flow in the afternoon may have been as low as 0.25 L/h.
Where did you get this information? I also read the claimed flow rate of 7 L/h, but I have not seen or heard anywhere that the reservoir was measured before and after the test period.That test, the inflow reservoir is measured before and after the test period - 7 litres had been turned into steam by the device in one hour.
I believe in a third hypothesis. The water flow was so low that 750 W of electric power consumption were more than enough to get a trickle of steam almost dry.The electrical input stays more or less constant throughout the test. Either the device is generating power, or it's retained heat in the device.0 -
I can not believe that the flow rate is 7 L/h, this value is in contradiction to what you can see in the photos and videos, which are the most reliable information sources.
It's the June the 14th 2011 test, with the smaller throughflow e-cat. You can see him do his calculations in the video below. There's two videos, one doing the test, the other doing the calculations.Where did you get this information? I also read the claimed flow rate of 7 L/h, but I have not seen or heard anywhere that the reservoir was measured before and after the test period.
If you watch the video, he's not claiming a rate of flow of 7 L/h. He's claiming that 7 litres have been transferred in the period of the test.
At about 3 minutes on the first video, he explains how the water transfer is measure is by weighing the feed in reservoir.I believe in a third hypothesis. The water flow was so low that 750 W of electric power consumption were more than enough to get a trickle of steam almost dry.
Yes, it would be enough to get a trickle of steam. But not the 7 litres he's claiming.
From what I can see, there is few possible explanations of how 7 litres may be getting transferred.
1. The device has a lot of retained heat from being run for hours before the test.
2. The device has some principle that I'm not aware of that allows water to be evaporated at much lower energy.
3. It's a working low energy nuclear reactor.
4. He's lying.0 -
Did you look at the jpeg I posted before? 6jun_flow_rate.jpgYes, it would be enough to get a trickle of steam. But not the 7 litres he's claiming.
Please, tell me what do you think about it.
In then meanwhile I will look again at the videos you posted.0 -
I am not an expert on steam. I hardly know what comes out of the boiling pot before pouring the spaghetti. So I'm sorry, but I can not answer exactly your questions and I can not even ask you to believe me, because I am not an authority on the subject.Why is it by coincidence that ~50% of the water happens to be entrapped in this situation when the amount could potentially vary from 0% all the way up to 100%? Please direct me to some documentation that supports the figure. What would be entrapped if say the temperature difference were 50 C? Or how about a difference of 1 C? This is a very important piece of the puzzle and I would appreciate an answer other than trust me. Good documentation of this effect will go a long way toward proving your theory.
I have only seen that in the video from Lewan, water poured into the carafe in the midst of a cloud of steam that rises out of the carafe and goes into the environment. If Lewan tells me that in the carafe has remained a quantity of fluid corresponding to a range of 1.4 to 1.8 g/s, I believe him. I could have asked what was the exact procedure used to weigh the water in the carafe, or how much time passed before weighing or how long the water was collected or if the carafe was carefully dried before collecting the water, and so on. But no matter. I faced 2 options:
first: believing that the lack of water depends on the presumed microdrops carried away by the steam that I see comes out copiously from the carafe, or
second: believing that all the missing water has become dry steam, and therefore that a correspondant excess heat was developed inside the E-Cat.
My common sense suggests to me the first option is infinitely more likely than the second one, especially if the only alternative source for this excess energy is some controversial nuclear phenomenon.
I can roughly estimate by eye the height of a tree, but I am not able to do the same with the quality of steam. However, the steam flow up out of the carafe is evident. It is true that its speed is low, but the section of the carafe mouth is much larger than the cross section of the pouring water, so I'm not surprised that the vapor drag away about half the water.I viewed the vapor flowing out at the time and did not think that it had the appearance of containing a lot of water. The flow rate just did not seem to be adequate and I would have expected the momentum effects of such a large quantity of fast moving water to be demonstrated in some manner as the flow collided with the jar edge. It actually appeared to me like a modest amount of water flow(1.6 grams/second) along with a weak vapor stream.
But at this point I would like to know if the estimate of the steam that comes out of the carafe is the last scrap of evidence that could support the hypothesis that this device produces some excess heat.0 -
Did you look at the jpeg I posted before? 6jun_flow_rate.jpg
Please, tell me what do you think about it.
In then meanwhile I will look again at the videos you posted.
I like your JPG.....if it's correct. He's not transferring anything like 7 litres/h.
0.25 litres/h.. wouldn't even be a very efficient water boiler.
I think it could be possibility number 4: He's lying.
Or another possibility
5. He's insane.0 -
I am not an expert on steam. I hardly know what comes out of the boiling pot before pouring the spaghetti. So I'm sorry, but I can not answer exactly your questions and I can not even ask you to believe me, because I am not an authority on the subject.
.
My father had an interest in steam (he was a chemical/industrial engineer). I can vaguely remember him trying to explain something to me - that I didn't really understand. Under certain conditions, steam can behave explosively. It's not violating any law of thermodynamics. I never understood the details. My father thought it would be an idea for a steam engine. Steam, that's not at such a high temperature being mixed with air - and the reaction releases the steam's energy explosively. I think it's something he had seen, that was a problem in steam machinery.0 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascoli65
Did you look at the jpeg I posted before? 6jun_flow_rate.jpg
Please, tell me what do you think about it.
In then meanwhile I will look again at the videos you posted.
I like your JPG.....if it's correct. He's not transferring anything like 7 litres/h.
0.25 litres/h.. wouldn't even be a very efficient water boiler.
I think it could be possibility number 4: He's lying.
Or another possibility
5. He's insane
Sorry I am having such a hard time getting the quotes to work correctly. I keep getting asked to sign on anytime I try to post and that gets very annoying. One day I hope to have it work correctly.
Rossi has used a pump on many occasions that is rated at 12 liters/hour. He tends to run it at about half that rate which would be in line with his statements. I think it is a bit unfair to second guess his statements based upon the temperature readings of the thermocouple since he claims to weigh the water. No one has proved that the temperature readings reveal water additions.
We must have better evidence than this to either support or detract from his data. If you wish to call him a scammer, that is fine, but how are we to ever get results that everyone will accept? Perhaps you should use the test that was more carefully documented by the Swedish scientists for calculations.
I am not happy with the way Rossi has handled the demonstrations of his ECAT. I suspect that we will not know the truth until later this year when products are made available for open review.0 -
But at this point I would like to know if the estimate of the steam that comes out of the carafe is the last scrap of evidence that could support the hypothesis that this device produces some excess heat.
It is premature to make a conclusion at this point. The water flow measurement are the easiest way to prove excess energy so it must be handled first. Also, an indept look at the model will be necessary to ensure that it makes sense. And of course, I would need to have a copy of the Excel spread sheet to have confidence that there are no tricks used to modify parameters. Further, I will need to ensure that the heat capacity of the materials are reasonable and the thermal resistances are not unacceptable. This is not an easy task.
I assume that everyone realizes that the model most likely will only show that it is possible for the energy output to be originating with the input but can not prove that there is no excess energy as a result of LENR. It is just one possiblity among at least two.
I appreciate the work that Ascoli65 has done in creating his model. I have always worried that Rossi has done things to enhanse the test readings and this model will help to discover how much leway he has. I want to know the truth about this particular system and if Rossi is scaming, we need to know it as soon as possible.
I have done much more work with the October 6 test and have barely taken a look at the September 7 test that we are discussing. If we are to use my knowledge wisely, then we should go back to the October test and concentrate upon those results. Is it possible to do that and not continue to pursue this one? I am fairly convinced that the October 6 test shows excess energy. This September test does not seem to be long enough for any real proofs.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it could be possibility number 4: He's lying.
Or another possibility
5. He's insane.
As I had said, it would be my intention to limit this discussion to the subject of calorimetry, however, as starter of this thread and as Italian, I feel compelled to express my PERSONAL OPINION about the backstage of this story.
I do not think that an insane person can attract all the attention a year now has been given to the E-Cat from all over the world. It is also impossible that an insane can keep in touch for many years with important U.S. departments as DoE and DoD, hold meetings with representatives of NASA or MIT, giving interviews to newspapers and televisions, earning the support of many experts in the CF/LENR field, including a Nobel prize winner, and be invited by a Senator of Massachusetts to visit the State House, as told in this article: http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/28/hope-skepticism-for-cold-fusion/w7FgGyI9Zx432chxuD5BEL/story.html. I think that all this is out of the reach of any single person, even very healthy.
Nor I would say that he is a liar. He has certainly said many things that have proven untrue in the light of other evidences, but I would rather say that he has played its part on the scene. He looks to me as an artist, a decent actor. Unfortunately for us, the film was shot in Italy and most of the actors, conscious or unconscious, are Italian, including a special appearance (and alas painful) of some physicists of the University of Bologna. But, in my strict opinion, authors, producers and director of the film lie elsewhere. Where, I do not know, but I feel that valuable clues on where to start looking are provided by a clear detail in the picture accompanying the article cited above, and especially by his statements at the end of the interview with Krivit (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaEV9h3OclA from 12:00 onwards).
So I would not focus the attention on Mr.Reds, but rather on who possibly hired him to play this part. Perhaps these same people are planning the sequel. Maybe they have already chosen the new actor and decided in which other Country will be shot. Who knows.
Here, I end this brief digression. I understand that this matter is very intriguing, but it is too rough and I want to keep it as much as possible out of this thread, whose topic concerns only the technical aspects of calorimetry. This is to avoid happening again what already happened to me here, http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3219628&postcount=83 .
If someone wants to develop this topic, I would prefer that he did it elsewhere, possibly by opening a new and separate thread.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
Advertisement