Potapov Device Tests - Round 2 5JUN95 EarthTech Int'l Scott Little H.E. Puthoff Introduction After our preliminary report was published on the Internet in sci.physics.fusion, a great variety of suggestions, recommendations, and comments have been received. We would like to thank every contributor and assure all of you that we have given each response due consideration in choosing directions for additional testing. Special thanks go to Chris Tinsley for providing first-hand information about the desired operating parameters from his recent visit to Potapov's factory in Moldavia. We selected temperature, pressure and flow rate as the most important parameters to vary in the 2nd series of tests. We have covered a range of temperatures up to 70 degrees C and a range of flow rates from 54 to 106 gpm. The flow rate was altered by restricting the outlet from the Potapov device which did increase the inlet pressure somewhat. We have also conducted a control experiment in which the Potapov device was replaced with a simple valve, adjusted to provide a similar pressure drop. After performing the tests in this report, we discovered that our Potapov device, originally thought to be a Yusmar-2, is actually a Yusmar-1. The Yusmar manual recommends a flow rate of 8.0-12.5 cubic meters per hour (35-55 gpm) and a head pressure of 32-50 meters of water (46-71 psi) for the Yusmar-1. None of the results obtained thus far show any significant evidence of over-unity performance of the Potapov device. Procedure Please refer to the first report for a description of the testing apparatus used in these tests. As described in the first report, our Potapov device, consists of three major components; a vortex chamber, the main outlet tube (which may function as a swirl chamber), and the inlet transition cone. To restrict the flow rate, we installed an orifice immediately after the vortex chamber, between the vortex chamber and the main outlet tube (see Discussion below). In all of these tests, the bypass line was absent (see Discussion below). We conducted tests with two sizes of orifice; 15/16" diameter and 1-1/8" diameter (the main outlet tube has an inside diameter of 2"). The smaller orifice provided a flow of 54 gpm and a pressure of about 67 psi. The larger orifice yielded 65 gpm and about 65 psi. When the larger orifice was in place, we varied one of the tests by bubbling approximately 125cc/min of air into the open end of the suction line. This caused the inlet pressure to drop significantly (due, presumably, to the effect on the pumping efficiency) and it created a fine, milky froth in the collection barrel. A control experiment was conducted by replacing the Potapov device with a 1-1/2" gate valve adjusted to provide a similar pressure drop. In all of these tests, we ran the system for a sufficiently long period of time to warm the water bath up to 60-70 degrees C. During the run, observations were taken periodically according to the procedures outlined in the first report. Results In the table below, data from the first report is included for completeness. The heading abbreviations and units are as follows: F = flow rate (gallons per minute) P = pressure (pounds per square inch) Ti = initial bath temperature (degrees Centigrade) Tf = final bath temperature (degrees Centigrade) time = pump running time (minutes:seconds) Ein = electrical energy input (megajoules) Pin = electrical power input (kilowatts) Eout = heat energy collected in bath (megajoules) eff = overall efficiency (%) F P Ti Tf time Ein Pin Eout eff No restriction (tests in 1st report) ("n" on plot) 106 60 25.60 29.60 - 3.89 - 3.03 78 " 60 29.60 33.90 12:07 3.89 5.35 2.99 77 " 60 25.95 27.90 - 1.56 - 1.27 81 15/16" dia restriction ("a" on plot) 54 67 31.62 36.62 17:00 3.89 3.67 2.83 73 " 66 36.62 41.40 17:43 3.89 3.66 2.87 74 " 66 41.40 45.85 17:52 3.80 3.63 2.67 69 " 66 45.85 54.05 35:52 7.78 3.62 4.92 63 " 65 54.05 61.15 36:14 7.78 3.58 4.26 55 " 65 61.15 64.35 18.25 3.89 3.52 1.91 49 1-1/8" dia restriction ("c" on plot) 65 66 47.50 49.45 16:23 3.89 3.96 2.50 64 add 125cc/min air to pump inlet ("x" on plot) " 55 53.6 57.00 16:28 3.89 3.94 2.18 56 remove air input ("c" on plot) " 65 68.75 71.20 16:29 3.89 3.93 1.57 40 P device removed, gate valve substituted ("v" on plot) 60 65 26.35 28.75 8:39 1.94 3.74 1.56 80 " 65 38.30 40.50 8:41 1.94 3.72 1.43 74 " 65 54.80 56.45 8:43 1.94 3.71 1.07 55 " 66 68.00 69.20 8:50 1.94 3.66 .78 40 The plot below shows how the overall efficiency varies with the average bath temperature in these tests. . . 80- nv O . n n V . E . av R . a A70- a L . L . . c E . a F60- F . I . xv a C . I . E50- a N . C . n = 106 gpm (P device) Y . a = 54 gpm (P device) . c = 65 gpm (P device) %40- x = 65 gpm+air (P device) vc . v = 60 gpm (gate valve) . |.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|... 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE BATH TEMPERATURE (C) Errors The same error considerations discussed in the first report apply to these measurements. Thus the expected maximum error in the observed efficiencies is +/- 2.6%. A statistical error analysis has not been performed but a rough estimate of the standard error in these energy measurements is 2% relative. It is common practice when measurement errors exhibit a Gaussian distribution to define detection limit as 3 standard deviations. Our excess-energy detection limit, for the overall system, is therefore about 6%. In all of the tests we have performed, a calculation of the flow work done on the Potapov device shows that it is absorbing about 50% of the total energy used to drive the system. This means that the Potapov device would have to produce approximately 12% excess energy for us to observe a 6% overall energy excess. Thus our excess-energy detection limit for the Potapov device is approximately 12%. When the observed efficiencies are compared to the mean bath temperature (as in the plot above) an additional error due to ambient temperature variations affects the correlation. The magnitude of this error has not been quantified but it should be relatively small since ambient variations are only about 2 degrees C. Conclusions These measurements reflect the overall efficiency of the Potapov device when used to heat a relatively large quantity of water in an open barrel. By overall efficiency, we mean the heat energy added to the water divided by the electrical energy used to drive the system. The steady decline in this efficiency with increasing water temperature is clearly due to thermal losses which increase directly with water temperature. The data indicates that our Potapov device, as tested, does not produce anomalous energy in detectable quantity. Within the measurement precision of our tests, the Potapov device heats water just as efficiently as a simple restriction (the gate valve). Discussion It has become apparent that there are a great many possible combinations of flow, pressure, temperature and piping arrangements that could be tested. Regarding the piping arrangements, there are three issues that seem most important at this time. 1. It appears likely that the flow restriction should be located not between the vortex chamber and the main outlet tube (as we did in the tests described above) but at the far end of the main outlet tube. 2. The exact configuration of the bypass line is a mystery. We are considering fabricating and installing a bypass line that closely resembles those seen in various photographs of the Potapov device. 3. The arrangement of the circulation loop. It has been suggested that a closed loop (as opposed to our open system) will result in dramatically different pumping requirements which could significantly increase the energy delivered to the Potapov device. We are considering changing to such an arrangement. Regarding the pressure and flow requirements, the discovery that we actually have a Yusmar-1 means that most of our tests have been above the recommended flow rates. We will make the necessary adjustments in future tests. It is true that our pressures never quite reach the 50 meter (71 psi) upper figure given in the table of specifications but all of our tests have been within the recommended pressure range (46-71 psi). This report shows only a set of operating parameters under which the Potapov device does not produce at least 12% excess energy. We continue to seek the correct operating parameters for over-unity performance of our Potapov device. Any such information would be greatly appreciated. We welcome and benefit from criticism of our testing procedures. Please address all inquiries and comments to: EarthTech International 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 voice 512-346-3017 FAX little@eden.com