@Thomas Clarke
Your right, but there is no heater coil current data for the active E-Cat. We don't know the currents exactly. All we know from the report is that they are in a range of 40 to 50 A. If you re-calculate the joule heatings (16 values for…
In the table below, taken from my comment, you see the Joule Heating and Total power come from the report. The difference in ratio is not explained, and anomalous.
@Tom Paulsen
The 9.85 A thing is totally wrong. This is where the essence of the Joule heat error occurs.
No, the 9,85 A is absolute correct. I think the errors occurred from the x3 and x6 multiplications. And in an AC system the current does not always flows through the C1 cable first an through the C2 cables next. It is symmetrically balanced, no need to complicate things.
The correct Joule heat for the "815 W" run is 40.83 W.
3 x C1 contributes 28.586 W
6 x C2 contributes 12.245 W
The delta by itself then has a wattage of 787.274 W
(There isn't really that many significant figures...)
@Tom Paulsen
With all due respect, if you want to do the three phase math, then please do the proper three phase math.
Use phase current, and line voltage in the delta. Separate the C1's from the delta, these get line current.
Really, the Joule heat watts are close enough. The other errors swamp these ones.
Tom,
I studied the report and know the values from the report. As I have shown, the joule heating values from the report are deadly wrong.
You may use my formulas and the total power values from the report to calculate the correct values (as i did for the example).
Tom,
I studied the report and know the values from the report. As I have shown, the joule heating values from the report are deadly wrong.
You may use my formulas and the total power values from the report to calculate the correct values (as i did for…
It does not matter they are wrong, as long as they are wrong the same way, since it is the difference in ratio that is anomalous.
I'm still waiting for you to note that difference in ratio. Unless your calculations assume they did a different calculation in the dummy and active cases. That might be, but it is not very likely?
I published the formulas, not only values. And I gave a simple explanation, so that most users can comprehend these. And I gave examples. I think that should do it for now.
@Tom Paulsen
And I have explained that 9.85 A is incorrect for a C2 cable at 19.7A RMS three phase.
The correct value is 19.7 / sqrt(3), which is 11.374 A.
The C2 cables will conduct to the other phases even when the connected C1 is not conducting anything for a portion of the time. In addition to the connected C1 conduction.
@Tom Clarke
I can't explain the ratio difference in the report. Maybe joule heat values for the active E-Cat were calculated with other formulas or with high currents, out of the mentioned range.
Using the (wrong) reported formulas for 25.5 A phase current (44A total) would amount to 11 W joule heating power. The report states 37.77 W.
The reason is speculative. But i think an error in a spreadsheet would be a more plausible explanation as 80A/9V NTC.
Look at the formula. I multiplied with sqrt(3) not with 3. That is the same as dividing by sqrt(3) and then multiplying by 3.
@Tom Paulsen
Got me on that one.
But the line current to the C1 does not get converted to phase current, since it is outside of the delta.
So it should be 3((19.7^2)(.004725)) = 5.09W
Band emissivity is:
eb = integral (e(v)*B(v)*P(v) dv / integral B(v)*P(v) dv
Mr Clarke ! You are mixing properties of the body and of the instrument calling that a definition of s property of the body! Are you writing your own science ?
Have you ever realized also that every pixel has his OWN B(V) ?
Calibration files serve just the purpose to eliminate the need to knowing the B(v) !
I think you are hopeless ! But try to read this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
You will read that the values are referred to Total Hemispherical Emissivity.
And if you read the big amount of literature and Emissivity Tables available you will see that they all have very similar numbers even for alumina so there is NOT a detector dependency on the numbers and nowhere is written "use this numbers ONLY with model XXX" !
No. The 19,7 A (and corresponding emissions) are not 3 times in the system, only 1.732 times.
@Tom Paulsen
Do it how you want. I don't care. I went through this 18 months ago.
Perhaps I should be more patient, since I was such a pain then, until I finally got it.
But not today.
Same goes for randombit0
Beware in advance that several of the delta-wye calculators on the net have faulty math, and therefore give bunk answers.
Further to the discussion of dots, I submit the following. Maybe it's nothing... but maybe another emissivity dot?
Sie picture thread part 1! they did not link i!!
.
A few days ago I posted the Clark spin-showstopper concerning the Rod-temperature.
The Rods are mainly heated by heat transport (conducting!! ) over the cables (See picture, hot cables inside rod) Also the E-Cat Caps Temperature has roughly doubled. They are also heated by conduction, especially the outer ones!!
Ecat dummy Temperature: 720K Ecat Test 1520K later 1670K Thereoff we may calcualte the additional heat emmited!
Radiation dummy scale set to 1*0.7 Radiation load test scale set to 2.24 =20*0,39 --> Factor 10 of additional Radiation!
Thus all figures in the report are in line with the temperature expected.
The Emissivity factor for Alumina used according bto the report at T 1440 was 0.39!!!
Tom,
I studied the report and know the values from the report. As I have shown, the joule heating values from the report are deadly wrong.
You may use my formulas and the total power values from the report to calculate the correct values (as i did for…
The Problem with Clark is the * "spin doctors manual page one". Never conceed an error, declare it as neglectable, step over it.
In response to my post Clark declared (following *) that the sparky waves would cause extra Ohm heating because the peaks are square weighed...
Quote from Tom Paulsen: “Tom,
I studied the report and know the values from the report. As I have shown, the joule heating values from the report are deadly wrong.
You may use my formulas and the total power values from the report to calculate the…
Regarding Ampere dummy/test we must assume that during the dummy test run only 'one phase' (230V) was active and the mouse heater (super waves was not set on)
During the Test they used a star setup with 400V 20* 1.73 and the additional mouse 13 Amps.
Theroff all Jouleheating in the repoprt is nonsense...
Summary: The Emissivity used to calculate the radiation was correct = 0.39 see table in the report. if somebody has written somethings else (0.9 was used) its a pure and fantastic invention. From the heat-conduction we conclude that it somewhat more than doubled which is in line with the somewhat higher 2.2 T during the later test phase.
PS: Mr. Putin is heavily looking for nativ English spoken Spin doctors...
PS 2): The heating coil material is mentionned in the report just read it again... (Its wired around the core <-- its inductiv...)
there is no need to derive emissivity from books if one calibrates, which was not done in the Lugano test in the high temperatures range.
Calibration can be done with stickers at lower temperatures, and with thermocouples at hotter temperature.
Why thermocouples weren't used is explained in a deeply unsatisfactory way: was the reading too low and attributed to the poor contact?
Remember MFMP did use thermocouples in the ridges of an ecat faithful replica. And cross checked with a pyrometer.
They managed to get a Type K thermocouple inside the reactor.
Definitely Type K, based on the extension cable, and verified in the report anyways.
eb = integral (e(v)*B(v)*P(v) dv / integral B(v)*P(v) dv
(I wish this site let us do latex formulae, as in Mathjax )
See this site, which is pretty good:
Quote from WyttenbachA few days ago I posted the Clark spin-showstopper concerning the Rod-temperature.The Rods are mainly heated by heat transport (conducting!! ) over the cables
Yes
Quote(See picture, hot cables inside rod) Also the E-Cat Caps Temperature has roughly doubled.
Not sure where you are going with this, but between dummy and active (first 10 days - the bit Wyttenbach likes):
dummy = 450C = 720K
active = 710C = 980K
A factor of 1.36 (for all the equation Kelvin is the relevant scale to use, not Centigrade).
Quote
They are also heated by conduction, especially the outer ones!!
Ecat dummy Temperature: 720K
Ecat Test 1520K later 1670K
No the higher temperature is wrong because the thermography is wrong as has been recognised for a long time. You could argue the thermography is right - but you can't use a "wrong thermography temperature" argument to prove the thermography right! That would be circular. (The lower temperature is roughly correct because they calibrated some of the data, and at this temperature the error is much smaller).
Quote
Thereoff we may calcualte the additional heat emmited!Radiation dummy scale set to 1*0.7 Radiation load test scale set to 2.24 =20*0,39 --> Factor 10 of additional Radiation!Thus all figures in the report are in line with the temperature expected.
This is getting silly. Of course, if you miscalculate the temperatures as the Report authors did, your figures are in line with theirs! The difference between their analysis and mine (also GSVIT and Bob Higgins) is just one thing - how you determine the alumina temperature.
Quote
The Emissivity factor for Alumina used according bto the report at T 1440 was 0.39!!!
That is correct. All of this can be found in my report, where I explain the thermography error. Or, you could get the same explanation, with experimental backup, but less redoing of the calculations, from GSVIT. Your point is?
QuoteThe Problem with Clark is the * "spin doctors manual page one". Never conceed an error, declare it as neglectable, step over it.In response to my post Clark declared (following *) that the sparky waves would cause extra Ohm heating because the peaks are square weighed...
Wyttenbach. I was just explaining how power works in electrical circuits. Which many others here understand well, but you did not because you were using average currents to calculate power.
It is irrelevant to my analysis where although there is some uncertainty over possible input measurement errors I reckon it is likely there is no such error and indeed I assume this. The experiment has a whole load of possible errors which add uncertainty - I have noted them in my report. Since the "no error" analysis certainly shows a COP of 1.07 and no "COP acceleration with temperature" in other words an electric heater, since the inherent errors are much larger than 7%, you might like the idea of additional errors if you think that in fact Rossi's device does produce excess heat!
Since you are obviously confused over what I'm saying can I suggest you read my comment? it is all set out there nicely and logically? Without any heat of the moment errors?
Quote from WyttenbachRegarding Ampere dummy/test we must assume that during the dummy test run only 'one phase' (230V) was active and the mouse heater (super waves was not set on)During the Test they used a star setup with 400V 20* 1.73 and the additional mouse 13 Amps.Theroff all Jouleheating in the repoprt is nonsense...
I have no idea what is your point here. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. no-one is saying the Joule heating is relevant to anything. It is much too small to have any significant effect on COP calculations. Some of us like to dot is and cross ts because you gain extra validation that way and sometimes you discover something new.
If you read my comment, you will see the one conclusion I make about Joule heating (which now Tom Paulson agrees) is that there is an anomalous factor of 3 between the dummy and active tests. Something changed. Options that have been suggested by other people:
(1) Reversed clamp causes power read in active test to decrease by 3
(2) ECW intelligent (not quite an oxymoron) favourite: change in test setup from Wye to Delta
(3) SiC heating element changes resistance by factor of 3.
Only (1) has any significance for the COP and I do not personally think it is possible - it would make the real COP much too low.
(2) and (3) both mean this anomaly has no real significance, although (2), most plausible to me, does mean a change in test setup not disclosed in the report which would be bad practice. (3) is contradicted by randombit0 - when she talks about "wire" and "Kanthal alloy", but at the same time she says this is correct. Personally I don't have a strong view between (2) and (3) and this remains for me a minor mystery which however appears to have no other significance.
Quote from WyttenbachSummary: The Emissivity used to calculate the radiation was correct = 0.39 see table in the report. if somebody has written somethings else (0.9 was used) its a pure and fantastic invention. From the heat-conduction we conclude that it somewhat more than doubled which is in line with the somewhat higher 2.2 T during the later test phase.PS: Mr. Putin is heavily looking for nativ English spoken Spin doctors...PS 2): The heating coil material is mentionned in the report just read it again... (Its wired around the core <-- its inductiv...)
You have not yet got to first base here, because you are still not understanding the difference between total emissivity (0.4) and band emissivity (0.9) in alumina at 1400C.
More generally your summary is useful. Wood through the trees and all that.
(1) I think you are now agreeing that the rods add nothing to this analysis, and if you believe the Report temperatures you can believe their COP, though paradignmnoia will jump in with the large errors there, and of course I agree with him. You can rest assured that my only big disagreement with the Report is this matter of temperature and the way they used the wrong emissivity value with the Optris to determine that.
(2) So all the stuff about electrical measurements, Joule heating, etc, while fascinating, cannot be as you say "spin" because my conclusion from it all (again see my comment published 9 months ago for clarity) is that probably none of it matters.
(3) I think you just don't get it. Some people, like me and (I think) paradigmnoia and a few others, just like working these things out. The details are fascinating. 80% of the posts on here have nothing to do with what is the "real" COP in the Lugano test. They are just trying to understand little details that we all know do not change that.
PS - trivia - if the heating coil is really "wound" as you say then it cannot be SiC and therefore (3) is out and you side with me (2) that there was an undisclosed electrical setup change from Wye to Delta in the test. Surprising because the report says the dummy test was Delta (not Wye) and the real test setup is assumed also to be delta. This remains a mystery, but one probably of no significance...
