Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future. I
have had a chance to examine and think through the arguments. I'm not an
engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better analysis. It seems like
this explanation would work only if the plumbing connected to the water
tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir
near the top). If they connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would
be mixing and prevention of air pockets.
Jack
-
-
- F
- T
- V
- s
-
[image: Avatar]
*‒*
GoatGuy2Newcomer
13 hours ago
<http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html#sot_dee0c685b1afb34eb40f694d4a5fea575cec70b0>
Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being
performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the
'contract approved' one.)
Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result.
FIRST, you need to open the (
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf )
pdf file.
Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box
labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.
Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2
All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a
BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system.
Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50
steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat
emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there
are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank
water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
bottom half.
In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if
needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the
"condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which
thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done.
It all seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from
the patent diagram.
The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated
water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No
attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's
worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs
(which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the
misdirected one.
It is ingenious.
And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big
air blower.
To heat the small swimming pool.
Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast.
To at least 2 sig-figs.
More than enough to expose the rat.
Or to confirm the golden goose.
Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
Which of course he's never done.
Nor will he.
Because it exposes rats.
GoatGuy
