Power measurement methodology - questions on choice of methodology

1st Official Post

    Hello all,


    I've been wondering why, with all the discussions about doubts on the accuracy/reliability of high temperature measurements (thermal cameras, emissivity and so on), why the old tried and true method of Q = m * (h2-h1) is not being used as the certifiable method that everyone can agree upon to verify excess heat.


    My guess is that it requires more engineering to create a means of transferring heat to a liquid medium and using a thermal camera is an easier way.


    But if it is possible to test a 5-10 kW unit (or smaller) and make a small setup and the test shows a COP > 6... And the instruments have been calibrated...


    What more proof is needed? See the attachment of a suitable setup. Input power measurement is not shown. 2 circuits separated by a heat exchanger large enough to transfer enough energy to condense the steam back to water.
    And in the secondary loop, temperature T2 is kept below 90 C.


    Why is this setup not enough to show that LENR is real? What can go wrong with this setup that would give misleading results? All instruments being OK.

    • Official Post

    Hi. I am far from sure about pressure measurement in T1. Since the whole circuit appears to be without check valves, the pressure transducer P in that circuit will record the overall pressure in the whole circuit *. Since it includes a cooling/condensing system the overall circuit pressure will always be very low. Circuit T looks fine though.


    *This is of course, if you anticipate that T1 will contain steam and water.

    Hello Alan,


    The pressure transducer was put in as an afterthought. Maybe it can act as a safety shut-down precaution. It is not relevant for power measurements.


    The secondary side would be kept below 100 C, around 90 C for Q = m * Cp * ( T2 - T1) to remain valid with constant Cp. So I expect only liquid phase in this loop.


    I would like to hear input from any nay-sayers in regards to why this measurement methodology would not be sufficient. I see that Parkhamov's latest experiemnts use this same methodology.

    • Official Post

    I see no problems with the pressure transducer in a purely liquid phase circuit. In fact it is not required, particularly if the reservoir is vented (safety valves are always good in case of unexpected runaway) . However, I would shift the flowmeter to the hot side of the cooler. This is because at present the flowmeter in T will be measuring the exit temperature from the heat exchanger at a particular temperature (say 95C) and the flowmeter in T1 will be measuring water flow at say 50C. I think it better to position the flowmeters so they are measuring water volumes at similar temperatures, this will eliminate one source of dispute about measuring 'like for like' and 'does the accuracy of the flowmeter vary with temperature. I'm sure you can imagine where such arguments would go. Around and around, like the water in your system.

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.