May 24, 2013

E-Cat第三者試験結果 PART2:3月のTEST(その5)



E-Cat HT2 performance calculation
According to the engineering definition, COP is given by the ratio between the output power of a device and the power required by its operation, thereby including, in our case, the power consumed by the control electronics.

For the E-Cat HT2 one would therefore have (assuming a 10% uncertainty in the powers):

E-キャットHT2用に、それゆえ、次となる (パワーの10%の不確実性を仮定して):
COP = 816/322 = 2.6 ± 0.5 (36)

In order to compare this figure with the COP value obtained in the December test (5.6; see (19)), one must first of all consider that the two values were obtained in different experimental contexts: (19) gives the ratio between power emitted and power consumed by the E-Cat HT only, without the TRIAC power supply, whereas (36) includes power consumption by the E-Cat HT2's control device instrumentation.

12月試験で得られたCOP値とこの数値を比較するために(5.6;参照(19))、最初にすべての2つの値は異なる実験コンテキストで得たことを考慮する必要があります : (19)が、放出されたパワーとE-キャットHTだけによって消費されるパワーの間の比を与える、TRIAC電源なしなのです、一方、(36)は、E-キャットHT2の制御装置インストルメンテーションの消費電力を含む。

The expression useful for such a comparison is therefore the following:

COP = 816/283 = 2.9 ± 0.3 (37)
Thus, (19) and (37) give the performances specific to prototypes E-Cat HT and E-Cat HT2, respectively  regardless of the electronic circuits (also prototypes) used to control them.

このように、(19)と(37)は、プロトタイプ E-キャットHTそしてE-キャットHT2に特有のパフォーマンスを与える、それぞれ、それらを制御するために使用される電子回路(または、プロトタイプ)にかかわらずである。

Since the main goal of the present paper is a specific investigation of E-Cats as physical systems, these are the most meaningful expressions for our purposes.

The reasons for the appreciable difference between the value obtained in December and the one found in March are probably to be sought in the tendency of the COP to increase with temperature, a fact which was noticed even in the November test.


In that occasion, reaching a certain critical temperature threshold was enough to cause the reaction to diverge uncontrollably and destroy the device.


Considering that, in December, the E-Cat HT's average temperature was 438 °C, vs an average of 302 °C for the E-Cat HT2 in March, a higher COP for the former device with respect to that found in the latter was by no means unexpected.

In any event, inasmuch as the quantity of the charge contained in the first device is not known, a comparison between the two tests is not strictly appropriate.


It is possible that the two coefficients of performance differ only because the quantity of powder used in the two tests was different.