Potapov Device Tests - Round 3 EarthTech International Scott Little H.E. Puthoff 10JUL95 Introduction For the 3rd series of tests, we modified our Potapov device (a Yusmar-1) by adding a "bypass" line that connects the vortex chamber to the outlet end of the cavitation tube and a diameter reduction at the outlet end of the cavitation tube. Both of these features can be seen in various photographs of the Potapov device (i.e. in Infinite Energy #2 and on John Logajan's web page). We used the photographs and information obtained during Chris Tinsley's visit to Moldavia to design these modifications. As of this report, we have tried one diameter for the bypass line and two different diameters for the reduced diameter outlet. None of the new tests show any detectable over- unity performance from the Potapov device. Apparatus Since this is our third report, a brief review of the apparatus is in order. The Potapov device is mounted in a vertical orientation (with the vortex chamber on top) above an open 55 gallon barrel. The outlet, which points straight down, is positioned so it is submerged a few inches under the water level in the barrel to prevent air entrainment. The Potapov device, which has a 2" ID inlet port, is fed by a 7.5 hp centrifugal pump. This pump has a 1-1/2" NPT (National Pipe Thread, an American standard) (1-1/2" pipe has a 1.59" ID) discharge port and is connected to the Potapov device with a straight 17" long pipe section which contains a 1-1/2" to 2" transition fitting. A 2" suction line runs from near the bottom of the 55 gallon barrel to the pump inlet port (which is 2" NPT). The pump must lift water about 22". The bypass line was constructed from 3/4" EMT thinwall electrical conduit which has an ID of 0.825". A conduit bender was used to fashion the line into a shape similar to that depicted in the photographs. The end of the vortex chamber was drilled and tapped to 3/4" NPT female and fitted with a standard EMT compression fitting with an O-ring in place of the usual ferrule. The other end of the bypass line was connected in a similar manner to the outlet end of the cavitation tube just before the diameter reduction. A 1/8" NPT port was installed in the bypass line very near its connection to the vortex chamber. A pressure/vacuum gauge was installed in this port. Two diameter reductions were used in the tests in this report. The first group of tests were performed with a 1- 1/4" outlet pipe which has an actual ID of 1.36". The second group of tests were performed with a 1" outlet pipe which has an actual ID of 1.04". Electrical energy consumed by the pump motor is measured with a GE type V-65-S 3-phase watthour meter which we have recently equipped with an electro-optical device to count revolutions of the eddy-current disc. For this particular meter, one revolution of the disc represents 10.8 watthours (38880 joules) of electrical energy delivered to the load. Procedure The test procedure described in the first report has changed somewhat because of the revolution counter we added to the watthour meter. Instead of the batch-style measurements described in the first report we are now able to run the pump continuously and simply take readings periodically as the system heats up. Each reading consists of simultaneously measuring the temperature of the water in the barrel and noting the revolution count on the watthour meter. The overall efficiency is then computed using adjacent pairs of these readings. For plotting purposes, the average of the two barrel temperatures is used as the bath temperature. Results In the data tables below, the various headings are: # = reading number count = count of the watthour disc revolutions T = temperature of the water bath (Centigrade) time = hour:minute:second clock time of the reading P(inlet) = gauge pressure in the feed pipe (psi) P(bypass) = gauge pressure in the bypass line (psi) With the 1.36" dia outlet pipe, we took the following readings with 358 pounds of water in the barrel: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 52.0 11:18:08 60 -5 2 90 55.0 11:29:40 60 -5 3 432 65.1 12:13:44 60 -5 4 537 67.50 12:27:20 60 -5 Computing the overall efficiencies, average temperatures, and average electrical power consumption for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp elec. power 1-2 58.3% 53.5 5.05 kW 2-3 51.6% 60.0 5.03 3-4 40.0% 66.3 5.00 The flow rate with this 1.36" dia outlet pipe was measured at 101 gpm. With a 1.04" diameter outlet pipe, we took the following readings with 356 pounds of water in the barrel: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 27.3 9:37:06 64 +5 2 98 31.8 9:49:50 63 5 3 217 37.0 10:06:00 25 3 4 287 39.8 10:19:20 24 3 5 369 43.2 10:35:20 24 3 6 595 51.5 11:17:00 25 3 Computing the overall efficiencies, average temperatures, and average electrical power consumption for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp elec. power 1-2 80% 29.6 4.99 kW 2-3 76% 34.4 4.77 3-4 70% 38.4 3.40 4-5 72% 41.5 3.32 5-6 64% 47.4 3.51 Shortly (~20 seconds) before reading 3 was taken, a sudden change in the pump sound was observed (it became noisier). Simultaneously, the feed pressure dropped from ~63 psi to ~25 psi and the electrical power consumption of the pump dropped significantly. Apparently, the pump had begun cavitating...or had sucked in a quantity of air. This new operating condition was fairly stable and readings 4, 5, & 6 were taken with the system in this new state. After reading 6, we stopped the pump, re-primed it, re-started it, and took three more readings: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 52.7 11:28:30 63 +5 2 99 56.0 11:41:40 63 5 3 241 60.2 12:00:45 63 5 Computing the overall efficiencies, average temperatures, and average electrical power consumption for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp elec. power 1-2 58% 54.4 4.87 kW 2-3 51% 58.1 4.82 The flow rate with this 1.04" dia outlet pipe was measured at 99 gpm with the pump operating normally. We were not able to measure the flow rate during the period of abnormal operation. The graph below shows all our previous results as well as these new results. For the new results, the 1.39" outlet data is plotted with an "r" and the 1.04" outlet data is plotted with an "s". . . 80- nvs O . n n V . s E . av R . a s A70- s a L . L . . s c E . a F60- F . sr I . xv a C . I . s r E50- s = 1.04" out, .825" bypass a N . r = 1.39" out, .825" bypass C . n = 106 gpm (P device) Y . a = 54 gpm (P device) . c = 65 gpm (P device) %40- x = 65 gpm+air (P device) r vc . v = 60 gpm (gate valve) . |.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|... 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE BATH TEMPERATURE (C) Error discussion The new measurement procedure is not expected to adversely affect the 2% relative standard deviation estimated in the second report. However, the addition of the bypass line appears to have slightly increased the scattering of the data points in the curve above. In the final analysis, it is the degree to which a particular data point fits this curve (or doesn't fit it) that is our indication of anomalous efficiency. Thus a slight increase in our estimate of the minimum detectable amount (MDA) of excess energy is indicated. (In future reports a regression analysis will be performed to determine the actual standard deviation of the data points so a more accurate determination of the MDA can be made). Conclusion There is no significant tendency for the new data points to lie above the curve defined by the other points. Therefore, our Potapov device still has not produced anomalous energy in detectable quantity. Discussion Our present flow rates (~100 gpm) are quite a bit larger than those recommended in the instruction book for the Yusmar-1 (33-55 gpm). However, our feed pressure (~60 psi) is not excessively high (the book recommends 46-71 psi for the Yusmar-1). In future tests we will probably arrange an additional restriction in the outlet pipe to lower flow rates while maintaining inlet pressure. The behavior of the bypass line is interesting. The low gauge pressures observed near the upper end of the bypass line indicates that the main vortex is creating a low pressure region in its center. Since the lower end of the bypass line is connected to the cavitation tube just before the diameter reduction (where the pressure should be relatively high), it is a virtual certainty that water is not bypassing the vortex through this line but rather recirculating through this line from the outlet end back to the center of the main vortex. It is possible that this flow of water into the center of the vortex is a vital requirement for the Potapov effect. In future tests we will probably try a smaller bypass line.