Mats Lewan's Test Report

    @ IH Fanboy, you wrote:
    - "Ascoli65, does your model account for the T2 increase during "SSM" mode from about 17:52 to 18:04 ?"


    No, it can't. There are substantial differences between the measured and computed values of T2.


    The T2(mis) is a real value, coming from a physical object, which measures the temperature in a specific point, subject to several variations during the test. For instance at the beginning of the test, the sensing tip of the TC probe is surrounded by air, but then, at a later time, it is submerged by the coolant.


    On the contrary, the computed T2w refers always to the average temperature of the water (the suffix "w" of its label), which remains constant throughout the entire intermediate phase, because it strictly depends on the relief pressure assumed for the outlet valve.


    Anyway, the differences between the two curves are within -/+5 °C, and the model allows us to imagine possible reasons for these differences. The T2(mis) is maximum around 16:00, when the temperature of the inner casing (R) is maximum as well. This temperature starts to decrease as soon as the electric heating is switched off, the same does the T2(mis) which is immersed in the air-vapor mix, whose temperature depends also from that one of the external casing (C), so the T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point. Probably around 18:00, the water level approaches and submerges the TC tip and the T2(mis) increases again, stabilizing around the boiling point.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    - About the second Rothwell's point: "When a blacksmith takes a heavy piece of iron, heats it to incandescence, and then quenches it in water, very little water boils away. The metal instantly cools."


    I have no direct experience in this field, but anyway I could say:
    - first, I doubt that a blacksmith can easily handle a massive piece of iron of 40 kg;
    - second, this iron mass is hypothesized to be inside the inner box made by steel, and hence his surface is not directly in contact with the cooling water;
    - third, only a small part of the 26 kg of water pumped inside the fat-can could be evaporated, being the volume of the internal pool at least 20 liters.


    I have little experience of cooling hot iron while just playing with hardening of steel. I'm pretty sure 40 kg 800C would moan and buzz when submerged. Size of objects Jed refers to releases much less heat. When vaporizing submerged, the steam immediately condenses back to water because of surrounding cool water. That is a reason we will not see much steam released to air.


    When you drop instead water droplets to same object, steam production is much more visible (even melting snow with heated object will release lots more steam despite melting energy is needed before heating 0->100C and then further vaporizing energy).


    But as @Urban Eriksson said before, this energy release would be quite tricky to design because temp of hot core would change during the 'SSM'.
    How about other substances inside core. For example Magnesium has latent fusion energy of 368kJ/kg and melts at 650C so quite dense energy storage. Tuning of heat transfer around melting point would be easier because of constant temp.


    Just a thought.
    BTW: If you would want huge energy storage, you would heat 'hot core' even further. Magnesium has boiling point of 1091C and heat of vaporization 5554Kj/kg (15 times!). Maybe that would be too hard to handle in practice, but heck of density for energy storage and patentable by itself if solved :)

    Quote from Ascoli65

    whose temperature depends also from that one of the external casing (C)


    This phrase is confusing to me. Can you rephrase?


    Quote from Ascoli65

    , so the T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point. Probably around 18:00, the water level approaches and submerges the TC tip and the T2(mis) increases again, stabilizing around the boiling point.


    I do not see where T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point during the "SSM" mode. The lowest point to me appears to be well above 110 C. Can you clarify?

    @ Argon, you wrote (Mats Lewan's Test Report:(
    - "But as Urban Eriksson said before, this energy release would be quite tricky to design because temp of hot core would change during the 'SSM'."


    No, it's not so much difficult. The mechanism of evaporation at the saturation temperature, whose value strictly depends on the internal pressure imposed by the relief valve, takes care of maintaining the water temperature at a nearly constant value, even if the innermost temperatures change considerably.


    The numerical model provides a simple way to figure out how such a mechanism could work. As shown in the upper right diagram in the first jpeg (Mats Lewan's Test Report), the temperature of the inner massive shield (S) drops from 560 to 140° C during the 3.5 hours of the so called SSM period. Proportional decreases are computed for the temperatures of the other metallic parts (B,R,A), which are in contact with the water. Consequently, the heat transferred to the coolant varies enormously during the same period, but the only effect is a strong and proportional reduction of the steam coming out from the relief valve, as can be seen in the lower left diagram in the cited jpeg. In this diagram, the QVvap curve shows the vapor flow rate exiting the relief valve (V). At about 18:30, this flow vanishes, because the heat dispersed by the external walls is sufficient to remove the residual heat absorbed by the still boiling water.


    In the meanwhile, the pump keeps pushing water inside the internal pool and around 19:00 this pool is filled, so that a liquid efflux (QVliq) necessarily onsets. This is the time when the first measurement of the primary flow is reported in the Lewan's report: "18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C."


    The onset of the liquid efflux entails a sudden new increase of the heat loss through the exit valve, as shown by the red curve on the upper right diagram of the second jpeg, which in a few minutes would have stopped the boiling. Here came the announcement of the "reactor" shutdown: "19:08 Hydrogen pressure was eliminated. Flow from peristaltic pump increased. All electric power switched off."


    The second, and last, reporting of a primary flow measurement came after a few more minutes, between 19:22 and 19:25: "Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C."


    - "How about other substances inside core. For example Magnesium ..."


    For what just said, there was no need to complicate the device. All the Ecat versions look conceptually very simple.

    @ IH Fanboy, you wrote (Mats Lewan's Test Report


    - "This phrase [whose temperature depends also from that one of the external casing (C)]
    is confusing to me. Can you rephrase?"


    I was talking about the temperature of the air-vapor mix, which fill the upper part of volume inside the external container (C). This fluid is in contact with the internal walls of (C), so its temperature depends also from the temperature of the casing (C), which, as shown by the model, stays always below the boiling point, which corresponds to the saturation temperature at the internal pressure. See here below.


    - "I do not see where T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point during the "SSM" mode. The lowest point to me appears to be well above 110 C. Can you clarify?"


    I always refer to the boiling point corresponding to the internal pressure. If the relief valve was set at 2 bar (abs), as I assumed in the numerical model, the saturation temperature was about 120 °C.

    @Ascoli65 Your theory seems plausible at least when I didn't check the numbers. Especially temp curve seems fit to both LENR or elctric heater. The steam production period in test should have been longer to bring it beyond any doubts.


    BTW. I haven't checked the report before since I understood quite early that Mr Rossis strategy with big words and early demos were also to keep competition passive and out of reach of investor money (very first E-Cats had short SSM and very low temp, remember?).


    I hope all this comes to conlusion wihin next few months for everybodys good. But thaanks for your efforts on checking the report.

    IH Fanboy wrote: - "Ascoli65, does your model account for the T2 increase during "SSM" mode from about 17:52 to 18:04 ?"


    Ascoli 65 wrote: "No, it can't. There are substantial differences between the measured and computed values of T2."


    IH Fanboy: I appreciate your candor, and I think this is the primary weakness of your model.


    Ascoli 65 wrote: "so the T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point. Probably around 18:00, the water level approaches and submerges the TC tip and the T2(mis) increases again, stabilizing around the boiling point."


    Quote from Ascoli65

    If the relief valve was set at 2 bar (abs), as I assumed in the numerical model, the saturation temperature was about 120 °C.


    The TC(mis) curve is quite complex during the "SSM" and intriguingly increases at times. Your T2w curve during the "SSM" steadily decreases, as one would expect in a "hot core" heat dispersion model.


    Now, I guess I can sort of follow your conjecture that the tip of the TC might be getting submerged or not submerged at certain times based on your assumption of 2 bar pressure, and that somehow would show the increases in temperature during the "SSM." But that does seem like grasping to me--so many assumptions on top of assumptions. Do we have any indication from Matts, the report, the data, what the relief valve was actually set at? It seems like this would have been an important piece of information to capture.

    Hi @Ascoli65


    Now I see from your graphs that you indeed have a rapidly declining energy output by steam (Efflusso gassoso) during the SSM period, predicted by your model. You further say that the peaks of the delta T in the secondary circuit correlate to changes (or features) of the "efflusso". One could perhaps see a problem that in the end of the SSM perdiod, when the energy output is zero (no steam), there is still a deltaT of 5 degrees in the secondary circuit confirmed by several measurements (looks like about 30 minutes). How do you explain that? Another thing I wonder about is that the inlet TC of the secondary seems to be rather constant throughout the test, while you (if I got it right) assume that the outlet TC is affected by the leaking heat from the heat exchanger. What is the explanation for that?


    Regards,


    Urban

    @ Argon, you wrote (Mats Lewan's Test Report:(


    - "Your theory seems plausible at least when I didn't check the numbers. Especially temp curve seems fit to both LENR or elctric heater. The steam production period in test should have been longer to bring it beyond any doubts."


    I don't know which specific curve you are referring to. Anyway, all those coming from the numerical model are based on the electric heating alone, and I have no doubts that the other measured curves can be suitably explained without considering any other energy source, beyond the electric one.


    - "I haven't checked the report before since I understood quite early that Mr Rossis strategy with big words and early demos were also to keep competition passive and out of reach of investor money"


    I don't care of the Rossi's strategy and motivations. He is not a scientist salaried by the Italian State. I'm concerned about the public scientists and academics who certified or endorsed the energy performances claimed for his devices. They were hired to research (at the best of their possibilities), divulge, defend, and, if necessary, restore (as soon as possible) the scientific truth. They have no excuses.

    - "very first E-Cats had short SSM and very low temp, remember?"


    I don't know since when you are following the Ecat story, maybe you could find useful giving a look to a synopsis with the tests performed in 2011 (http://i.imgur.com/rB93G1X.jpg). For those ones in the upper two rows, no SSM at all was claimed. The so called SSM operation was claimed only for the tests in the lowest row.


    - "But thaanks for your efforts on checking the report."


    You welcome. It's been a pleasure to answer your kindly questions.

    Urban Eriksson wrote "the inlet TC of the secondary seems to be rather constant throughout the test, while you (if I got it right) assume that the outlet TC is affected by the leaking heat from the heat exchanger. What is the explanation for that?"


    The outlet of the heat exchanger secondary goes to a piece of tubing that is a single block with the primary steam inlet at 120°C. To place the thermocouple on this block although on the outlet poses serious doubts. Check the last frames of the video on ny teknik. It should nave been placed at some distance, e.g. on a brass junction after few cm of rubber hose. Note on the contrary how carefully far from the exchanger is the secondary inlet TC.


    @ IH Fanboy, you wrote (Mats Lewan's Test Report
    - "The TC(mis) curve is quite complex during the "SSM" and intriguingly increases at times. [...] Do we have any indication from Matts, the report, the data, what the relief valve was actually set at?"


    The T2(mis) curve shows only a single major increase at around 18:00, that IMO can be explained by the TC tip getting submerged by the water.


    For the other minor increases, please, read what Bob Higgins wrote on his analysis of the October 6 test (1): "At 220 minutes, the steam reaches about 120C which is about 1 bar of pressure (over ambient) and the output is probably mostly steam. At 350 minutes, the steam is down to about 116C which may make it oscillate in the pressure valve: valve closes, pressure builds up, valve opens and outputs a burst of steam, valve closes. The data is too coarse to show this possible temperature/pressure oscillation. [...] If oscillation occurs due to a pressurization valve, it could cause the temperature measurement in the reactor (green curve above) to be wrong. There could be intermittent measurements of steam and water and the steam temperature could be oscillating."


    His nice schematic diagram of the Ecat (2), linked in the cited Vortex mail, shows the pressure regulator set at 1 bar (gauge, of course), that is 2 bar (abs).


    The author of the mail, Alan Fletcher, says that Higgins sent his analysis to Lewan, so we can be sure that the relief valve was there, and was set at 2 bar (abs).


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg52921.html"
    (2) http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111012_bh_plots0002.png

    Quote from Ascoli65

    The author of the mail, Alan Fletcher, says that Higgins sent his analysis to Lewan, so we can be sure that the relief valve was there, and was set at 2 bar (abs).


    Well, I think that requires a bit of a logical leap. Merely sending an analysis to Lewan doesn't make the analysis accurate. But, I must say, the conjecture regarding the oscillating internal pressure / temp during "SSM" caused by a relief valve does seem plausible.

    @ Urban Eriksson, Hi.


    Your well posed questions (Mats Lewan's Test Report) have been correctly answered by andrea.s, but I would like to add something more, even if I tend usually to not consider the data from the secondary circuit, for the reasons already described by Andrea, apart to highlight the quite good qualitative agreement between the trends of the efflux (gas+liquid) and of the secondary delta T.


    I explain myself the residual delta T of about 5 °C measured around 19:00, in between the two primary effluxes, with the thermal inertia of the left side (with reference to the photos posted by Andrea) of the heat exchanger. Consider also that the heat exchanger was wrapped with a thick thermal isolation. The reason of this isolation it's not so clear, given the high transit speed of the secondary fluid and the proximity of the TC to the outlet, unless it was to maintain as long as possible the local heat accumulated when the vapor efflux was greater.


    With respect the secondary TC inlet, I have not even care of it. For the evaluation of the October 6 test, I rely mostly on the primary circuit, and ... on the tertiary fluid.

    @ IH Fanboy,
    you wrote (Mats Lewan's Test Report) :
    - "Well, I think that requires a bit of a logical leap. Merely sending an analysis to Lewan doesn't make the analysis accurate."


    I didn't refer to the entire analysis of Higgins.


    You asked me, if I was aware of any confirmation from Lewan on the set pressure of the relief valve. The Vortex mail I cited shows that Higgins and Lewan were in touch, and Higgins reported some estimations not yet disclosed by Lewan, including the internal pressure: "Reactor water leakage, FL = 2.0 liters / h at 2 bar internal [Lewan, est.]".


    But if you need a first hand confirmation, the logical gap is completely filled by AR himself (1): "The pressure in the primary was around 1 bar. Warm Regards."


    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516&cpage=2#comment-95380

    Quote from Shane D.

    Cobraf has been quiet for a while. Here though "Cammilo" (real name in one of his links), tells of his first hand experience with the Ecat https://translate.google.com/t…ost%3D1087826&prev=search :


    The cited test was performed on a FatCat, the Ecat model tested in the second half of 2011 (1), and was carried out shortly after the Pordenone meeting held on October 2012, as revealed in another comment on Cobraf.


    The tester reports two features that he consider extraordinary and unexplainable:

    (a) the complex maneuver to trigger the reaction, with successive ON pulses and OFF pauses;

    (b) the 15 minutes of self-sustaining at the end of 5 hours of heating.


    Both this features can be easily explained, assuming that the FatCat was essentially an electric heater surrounded by a huge mass (several tens of kg) of metal, enclosed in a water tank with a relief valve at the outlet:

    - the maneuver (a) allows to store as much heat as possible in the metallic mass, while avoiding exceeding the limit temperature of the internal resistance;

    - the self-sustaining (b) is the direct consequence of the heat stored in the metallic mass which is released by steam, whose temperature is kept at a constant value for a while thanks to the controlled release of the steam through the relief valve, which maintains a constant pressure inside the tank.


    More info and jpegs at (2) and in the subsequent comments of this thread.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…t/?postID=22374#post22374

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.