The graphs show total energy output. How was this calculated?Crawdaddy wrote:As a followup to the above post.
Explain these graphs in the context of thermocouple placement:
http://imgur.com/a/oix51#WI8FO
10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
-
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
- Location: Canada
And there it is. That is really all we have, right? That we know water was boiling in there for 3.5 hours. Sure, heat production, nobody is questioning that. But how much? Do you not agree Mat is admitting we don't know?parallel wrote:Some comments from Mat Lewan who wrote the NyTeknik report may be helpful:But in any case, feeling the water boil after over three hours of self sustained operation, I couldn't doubt that there was heat production in the Ecat.
Mats Lewan, Ny Teknik 8 Oct 2011 17:04
-
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
- Location: Canada
Thanks P
I have seen the graph but if delT is not accurate then what do we know?
It boiled for 3 hours after power off. How much steam was boiled off and what energy did it remove from the system, what was left?
The delT is critical to the calculations and this data in my opinion is questionable.
A discussion is currently in progress on the thermocouple placement, I don't have time to do an FEA to
nail it and there may be complications with gaskets etc. Lets see what they come up with and go from there.
I have seen the graph but if delT is not accurate then what do we know?
It boiled for 3 hours after power off. How much steam was boiled off and what energy did it remove from the system, what was left?
The delT is critical to the calculations and this data in my opinion is questionable.
A discussion is currently in progress on the thermocouple placement, I don't have time to do an FEA to
nail it and there may be complications with gaskets etc. Lets see what they come up with and go from there.
I doubt the measurement accuracy of the heat generated too. But come on, the error is most unlikely to be large enough to disprove the effect. I don't believe there is any doubt that the E-Cat produces large amounts of heat well beyond the energy that was applied to start it up. We're talking about kW not milli-watts.
-
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
- Location: Canada
You may be right, I can't call you on it because I don't know.parallel wrote:I doubt the measurement accuracy of the heat generated too. But come on, the error is most unlikely to be large enough to disprove the effect. I don't believe there is any doubt that the E-Cat produces large amounts of heat well beyond the energy that was applied to start it up. We're talking about kW not milli-watts.
What is your take on the maximum dT error.
What is your justification for the estimate.
The analysis above is based on the dT readings at face value, are they wrong.
These details are important considering the huge effect of a degree or two.
It might look sound if you have no knowledge of heat transfer issues.Am wrote:He might (to quote Georgio), "Only have a degree in Japanese", but his reasoning is still sound: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52546.html
I see everyone there is still concentrating on the thermal gradient on the collector, while completely neglecting that you have a radiating body at 120C and a thermal probe wrapped under THE SAME thermal blanket at few cm distance from each other, yet no one is questioning if this could influence the sensor......
I can tell you what the delta T is when the input energy is at a maximum, since that is measured, you can find it in the data and graphs that I linked). How, given the well known laws of heat transfer (which you should really look up), can a system like this one generate the observed increases in delta T? Shouldn't the delta T, be greatest at the instant before the input energy is shut off if no cold fusion is occurring?sparkyy0007 wrote:If you can tell me how much energy comes out of the box,Crawdaddy wrote:sparkyy0007
Is it your contention that there are two thermocouple placements that could explain the observed data?1.8 tons of water did not go through the box and we don't actually know how much cooling occurred if we don't have an accurate Tin / Tout.
How does thermocouple placement explain the constant delta T while the resistive heater was off?
Please explain how the device was heard to boil for hours after the power was cut. Since the observers looked inside the box we know there is no complicated heat storage mechanism. In fact the enormous surface area inside the e-cat would bring the entire device to the same internal temperature almost as soon as the power was turned off.
All you have to realize is that the rate of heat transfer between two materials is given in W/m^2/K to understand that without any input energy the temperature of a system like the e-cat will decay exponentially. Your unsubstantiated observation of thermocouple placement does not address this fundamental truth of thermodynamics.
How does your argument address the observed temperature stability over many hours?
without the Tin Tout data, I will comply. Without that I can't answer these questions.
My contention is the validity of this data based on the problems discussed and if little
energy actually left the box then thermal storage from an internal hot source is a possibility whether it was boiling or not.
Feel free to normalize the delta T data to equal the input energy at the instant the power to the device was shut off (the absolute lowest value that makes any sense). Given that the innards of the e-cat were revealed to be a giant, large surface area heat exchanger in contact with a thin three core reactor (only one of which was working), claims of some well insulated chamber of stored heat are physically impossible as well as being ruled out by thermodynamics.
The reactor may not be real but the notion that the observed data could arise through thermocouple placement is untenable.
-
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
- Location: Canada
Crawdaddy
What are you looking for?
If you have reliable data, do it your self and post it.
viewtopic.php?p=71131&highlight=#71131
What are you looking for?
If you have reliable data, do it your self and post it.
Check tomclarkes post here, he is right.How, given the well known laws of heat transfer (which you should really look up), can a system like this one generate the observed increases in delta T? Shouldn't the delta T, be greatest at the instant before the input energy is shut off if no cold fusion is occurring?
viewtopic.php?p=71131&highlight=#71131
Last edited by sparkyy0007 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Parallelparallel wrote:I doubt the measurement accuracy of the heat generated too. But come on, the error is most unlikely to be large enough to disprove the effect. I don't believe there is any doubt that the E-Cat produces large amounts of heat well beyond the energy that was applied to start it up. We're talking about kW not milli-watts.
delta T=4.2 deg. Recognized by participants of the test measurement error of 1 degree and may be more as nobody there professionally estimated that.
Both those values are comparable. And measured and then calculated heat of half of kW or 5 kW is an order of magnitude of difference.
Again we see badly conducted experiment.
And you did not answer
How about required for selling in USA 1MW plant license?
Or not required on selling of easy transportable radiation source?
Still seems real?
Rossi _could_ add value if he knew anything about instrumentation & heat and mass transfer. Or in presenting anything technical to peers. He has repeatedly demonstrated his complete incompetence in these areas.Betruger wrote:Rossi is nothing but an obstacle to the only real valuable thing here. What the "e-cat" is made of.
The e-cat may truly have some interesting things going on, but with Rossi at the helm the world will never know.
My small collection of engineering degrees and instrumentation experience sides with Sparkyy0007 and Giorgio on this.parallel wrote:sparkyy0007You are quite wrong (again.) Apart from many more years of experience than you in an industry that relied on temperature measurements, I once instrumented a whole plant to find out what was happening in detail. This involved measuring more than a 1000 different temperatures every three minutes for months.From your polite response it is obvious you have no experience with cheap multi-channel thermometers.
I have no interest in educating you on the particulars and limitations of these instruments.
You don't know what you are talking about.
-
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
- Location: Canada
Actually, a quick look at the Vort seems to indicate abandoning the dT data over these problems and they haven't even noticed the ground loop problem yet.Giorgio wrote: It might look sound if you have no knowledge of heat transfer issues.
I see everyone there is still concentrating on the thermal gradient on the collector, while completely neglecting that you have a radiating body at 120C and a thermal probe wrapped under THE SAME thermal blanket at few cm distance from each other, yet no one is questioning if this could influence the sensor......
Even Jed is backing off the T data.
I am hopefull of a real test coming soon to end this either way.
-
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
We all (humans) have many limitations.Gandalf wrote:My small collection of engineering degrees and instrumentation experience sides with Sparkyy0007 and Giorgio on this.
But let's think rationally.
What do you think why the weight after test was more than before?
Doesn't cause doubts? Error in weighing?
May or may not that air enters into device in self-sustain mode reacting with nickel hydride?
If yes, some steam produces together with some nickel oxide and a lot of heat.
For note Nickel Hydride is very flammable and when burning provides a lot of heat.
Nickel-Metal Hydride
Material Safety Data Sheet
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebse ... D7SSSSSS--
Hydrogen+Nickel formulation is also exothermic chemical reaction.7.1 HANDLING
No smoking while handling this material. This product is considered to be an article which does not release or otherwise result in
exposure to a hazardous chemical under normal use conditions.
Plus error in temperature measurement having an order comparable with delta t.
Any way, there no any well stated data providing evidence of nuclear reaction occurrence.
No evidence of radiation at last.