I hope for the safety of the participants an automatic safety
pressure relief valve is in the system, preferably located right next
to and right before the drain cut-off valve. It appeared to me the
prior test showed signs of a flow restriction somewhere within the E-
cat, a restriction that closed with higher temperature, and that the
reduced flow reduced the water cooling effect and therefore caused
water stored within the E-cat to boil. As the flow is reduced the
pressure head to the pump is increased, thus further reducing flow,
creating a feedback loop. If true, then this alone is dangerous. It
is even more dangerous if warm or hot water will be fed back into the
E-cat.
It is critical that the water *flow* and temperature into the E-cat
be measured in the primary circuit. Now that warm or hot water will
be fed back into the E-cat this is even more true. Comparatively
fast dynamics may develop. This affects both safety and the quality
of the calorimetry, and the ability to interpret results. The new E-
cat, with a double layer of lead, and a large steel pressure vessel,
has a large thermal mass. If a momentary burst of steam occurs,
overwhelming the condensing heat exchanger, i.e. returning some
steam, then a massive pressure buildup in the primary circuit is
feasible. An emergency pressure relief value in the primary circuit
itself is needed, or simply a vent and reservoir prior to the input
pump to insure water is returned at atmospheric pressure.
A pressure transducer with alarm would not be a bad idea. If I were
present I would pay a lot of attention to a pressure gauge - so I
would have some chance of being able to leave before an excursion event.
Manually read accumulated flow water meters are inexpensive. At
minimum the accumulated flow should be directly measured in both
circuits as a backup to any instantaneous flow measurements.
I earlier provided references for sources for EU kWh meters. They
are not very expensive. Given the highly variable duty cycles of the
E-cat power supplies, a kWh meter recorded at least every 10 to 20
minutes, and at the time of any control events, is essential for any
credibility, as you note. A Clarke-Hess meter, though very
expensive, is of course the gold standard, because it picks up the
power in spikes, but is not essential if spikes are filtered.
There should be companies, agencies, or individuals willing to donate
quality instrumentation for a test like this. There are no doubt
companies like EarthTech International that would even do all the
calorimetry for free.
I hope good and continuous video taping is done.
The most stable configuration would clearly be to pump cold water
into the E-cat and dump the primary loop water coming from the heat
exchanger, measuring its heat content before dumping though. A
system of this kind, would then have two inputs to measure: (M1)
cold water into the E-cat and (M2) cold water into the heat exchanger
secondary. The system would have two heat outputs: (M3) hot water
out of the heat exchanger secondary, and (M4) hot water out of the
heat exchanger primary, which could and probably would involve a
substantial amount of power, meaning flow and temperature would have
to be measured. The measuring stations M1, M2 AND M4 then would
have to measure flow and temperature. Measuring flow at M4 could be
avoided if a steady state can be achieved for the water content of
the E-cat. Summing the two thermal outputs and the two inputs would
be essential if a clean and timely curve of (nearly instantaneous)
power out vs power in were desirable, or timely energy in vs energy
out curves. The thermal content of water stored in the E-cat itself
need not be taken into account until the end of the run where
continuing to run with cold water input is used to run out the
numbers for final total energy calculations after the reaction is
stopped.
A calorimeter setup like this should be thoroughly checked out in
advance of a live test run to work out any problems, and to obtain a
good calibration. This can best be achieved by using the E-cat
without hydrogen and preferably without fuel, in a control run. This
kind of control test not only would provide some level of confidence
in the accuracy and safety of the calorimetry system, but also some
prior working knowledge of the thermal characteristics of the E-cat
itself. Ideally in a control test the E-cat fuel container(s) would
include a resistor or resistors capable of replicating at least a
significant percent of the thermal output of the E-cat expected when
in a live test. The large thermal mass of the E-cat should provide
some degree of simulated "heat after death" for comparison with the
real thing. Calibrating a calorimeter can sometimes take longer than
expected.
Establishing the capabilities, safety, and operational quirks of a
calorimeter arrangement prior to a demonstration test, especially a
test requiring many people to travel long distance, is only common
sense. A test of this importance should not be rushed and hopefully
will not be underfunded.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
