Potapov Device Tests - Round 5 EarthTech International Scott Little H.E. Puthoff 20JUL95 Introduction For the 5th series of tests on our Yusmar-1, we adjusted the outlet and bypass apertures to precisely 0.50A and 0.20A respectively where A is the area of the pump discharge port. With these apertures we explored a range of flow rates from well below the recommended minimum to well above the recommended maximum. No evidence of over-unity performance was observed. Apparatus The original bypass line (made from 3/4" EMT thinwall conduit) was fitted with a machined sleeve with an inside diameter of 0.711" which makes its area precisely 0.20 times the area of the pump discharge port (1-1/2" pipe) which is 1.59" inside diameter. The sleeve is approximately 1.5" long and is located in the very end of the bypass line where it attaches to the main vortex chamber of the Yusmar-1. The rest of the bypass line was left at the original inside diameter which is 0.825". The outlet end of the Yusmar-1 was fitted with another machined sleeve, also about 1.5" long, whose inside diameter is 1.124" making its area precisely 0.50 times the area of the pump discharge port. This sleeve was located flush with the main diameter reduction so that the entire reduction occurs essentially as a single step. About 8" beyond this diameter reduction, the adjustable valve described in the last report was attached so that the total flow rate could be adjusted. Procedure The test procedure followed in the energy balance measurements is identical to that described in our 3rd report. However, we did make a small alteration to our test procedure to shorten the time required for each series of observations at a particular flowrate. After a given pair of observations were taken (from which an efficiency is computed), the immersion heater was operated along with the Yusmar to rapidly bring the water temperature up to the next desired value. When that value was reached, the immersion heater was turned off and a new pair of observations were made with only the Yusmar device running. In this manner, we were able to measure the Yusmar's heating efficiency over a wide range of temperatures without having to wait for the Yusmar to heat the water all the way by itself. A casual observation of the voltage developed across the electrodes we installed showed substantially the same behavior as reported previously. We therefore did not record voltages during these tests. 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) ? = observation not made With a 26 gpm flowrate and 322 pounds of water in the barrel: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 31.85 11:09:02 69 +65 2 98 36.5 11:30:25 69 65 3 0 44.3 11:59:50 68 65 4 104 48.3 12:23:56 68 65 5 0 60.4 12:51:44 68 65 6 104 63.25 13:14:50 66 65 Computing the overall efficiencies, and average temperatures for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp (degrees C) 1-2 73% 34.2 3-4 61% 46.3 5-6 43% 61.8 With a 38 gpm flowrate and 324.5 pounds of water in the barrel: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 29.4 16:20:00 65 +55 2 108 34.6 16:41:25 65 55 3 0 47.7 17:06:21 67 55 4 107 51.5 17:28:04 66 55 5 0 59.9 17:46:20 65 55 6 127 63.2 18:12:00 66 55 Computing the overall efficiencies, and average temperatures for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp (degrees C) 1-2 76% 32.0 3-4 56% 49.6 5-6 41% 61.5 With a 53 gpm flowrate and 347 pounds of water in the barrel: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 43.25 8:53:20 67 +50 2 127 48.2 9:16:29 67 50 3 0 60.9 9:42:38 66 50 4 113 63.6 10:03:22 65 50 Computing the overall efficiencies, and average temperatures for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp (degrees C) 1-2 66% 45.7 3-4 40% 62.3 With a 62 gpm flowrate and 343.5 pounds of water in the barrel: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 28.45 10:28:35 64 +35 2 132 34.6 10:49:47 64 38 3 0 41.9 11:04:32 64 38 4 143 47.6 11:27:48 64 38 5 0 61.0 11:56:57 62 39 6 125 64.1 12:16:56 63 40 Computing the overall efficiencies, and average temperatures for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp (degrees C) 1-2 78% 31.5 3-4 67% 44.8 5-6 42% 62.6 With a 99 gpm flowrate and 356.5 pounds of water in the barrel: # count T time P(inlet) P(bypass) 1 0 29.6 14:38:55 60 +8 2 156 36.4 14:59:47 58 8 3 0 43.1 15:12:56 58 7 4 140 48.4 15:31:55 58 8 5 0 67.4 16:08:45 57 8 6 107 69.4 16:23:11 57 8 Computing the overall efficiencies, and average temperatures for each pair of readings we get: pair efficiency avg temp (degrees C) 1-2 76% 33.0 3-4 66% 45.8 5-6 33% 68.4 All of these data points are plotted below along with the data presented in our 2nd report for the gate valve (all the other data points have been removed for clarity). . . 80- v O . # V . o* E . x v R . A70- L . L . #*+ . E . x F60- F . I . o v C . I . E50- N . C . Y . . x = 26 gpm ox# %40- o = 38 gpm + v . + = 53 gpm . # = 62 gpm . * = 99 gpm * . v = 60 gpm (gate valve) 30- . |.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|... 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE BATH TEMPERATURE (C) Error discussion In this series of tests, we made a number of the observations in duplicate in order to check our measurement procedure. The computed efficiencies for these duplicate observations (made as close together in time as possible) typically agreed within 1% relative. Despite this precision, we still observe a significant scatter (visible in the graph above) in the correlation between overall efficiency and average bath temperature due probably to several factors which can vary throughout a given run (e.g. ambient temperature). We roughly estimate our minimum detectable amount of excess energy from the Potapov device to be in the 15-20% range. Since only about 50% of the total input energy is delivered to the Potapov device in our setup, such an excess would result in an 8-10% increase in the measured overall efficiency. Conclusion There is no visible tendency for the new data points to lie above the curve defined by the "v" points which were obtained by replacing the Potapov device with a simple restriction. In fact, the new data points tend to lie a bit below that curve probably because of the bypass line which increases the surface area available for heat loss. The bypass line was not present during the gate valve runs. Even though we have followed the flow aperture recommendations of the inventor (Potapov) precisely we still do not see any hint of excess energy even when the device is operated over a range of flow rates that extends well on either side of the recommended range (35-55 gpm). Discussion At this point, we feel that we have given our Potapov device a reasonable opportunity to show at least a hint of the large over-unity performance that has been claimed. It appears that the device does not perform as claimed but, of course, we could still be missing some critical combination of operating parameters. Rather than continue searching for such a combination, we will now attempt to communicate our findings to Dr. Potapov and ask for his assistance with further testing.