https://www.econologie.com/forums/post245606.html#245606
(the translation is very rough, but finally we can assume that the numbers are good).
1. The direct heating conductivity test
Classic test (insulated tube, heating at the bottom, thermometer at the top).
Theory:
The test measures the transfer by natural convection, therefore advantage to the least viscous liquid (water), having the most dilation (?) And the highest Cth (water).
The test roughly models a pure thermosiphon installation, which is unusual.
Conclusion page 9:
The difference between initial temperatures and stabilized temperatures suggests
that the conductivity of x-energy is a little lower than that of water, which is the opposite of
what was expected. (...) Despite
all, the differences in conductivity are not enough to cause a substantial variation in the
heat transfer or even a significant saving in heating processes.
I set aside this passage:
After about 70 minutes, the temperature of x-energy slightly exceeds that of water, which suggests a slight increase in temperature conductivity.
It can be added that, as the X conducts heat less well than water, the temperature on the heating resistance is higher. It's logic.
On the other hand, it is probably less viscous when it is hot, therefore more conductive.
2. Four tests for heat transfer between liquids
A bath of 5l of liquid 1 thermostated and isolated. We immerse in a 0.5l balloon of liquid 2 with a thermometer.
Theory:
On the curve,
- firstly, there is heat transfer between the bath and the ball. The balloon will rise faster in temperature if the Cth and conductivity (viscosity, etc.) of the bath is higher (more heat to give) and if the Cth of the balloon is lower (but as the balloon is much smaller, the effect is not clearly visible). So the water will be faster.
- secondly the heating resistance acts and all the products end at the same temperature.
Conclusion page 10:
The heat transfer from water to each of the liquids takes place a little
faster during the first twenty minutes than the transfer from x-energy to everyone
liquids. This perfectly matches the higher heating capacity of the water:
water provides more heat (more calories) than x-energy in the same period of time.
So, no surprises.
Follows a sales pitch:
However, after the initial heating period, the final heat transfer effect is almost
identical for each of the combinations. It's an unexpected result that makes a bad impression
at first glance: When no difference can be observed, no energy savings
cannot be expected. Despite everything, a careful consideration of these data offers another
point of view: If a liquid with a lower heating capacity finally gives the same effect
temperature, this would mean that this effect can be achieved with energy consumption
lower than with water which has a higher heating capacity.
(Basically, if we neglect the heating of the resistor, whose power consumption has not been measured, everything is fine. We can ignore this paragraph).
3. Direct heating tests of an air volume with hot water and hot x-energy
Cardboard box (0.2 cubic meter) with inside, fan and copper coil (8mm in diameter) traversed by hot liquid from the tank thermostatically controlled at 70 ° C used in the previous experiments. Thermostatic pump with sensor in the box.
A more detailed description and a diagram are missing. I will assume that the "boiler" is outside the "heated space" as well as part of the pipes. The circulator too, perhaps.
Conclusion:
the final effect of heating the air in the carton is independent of the liquid used. The water heats a little faster the first 15 minutes. Later, an effect identical to the two liquids is manifested. (...) The same air temperature can be reached with water and x-energy despite the fact that x-energy carries a lower mass of heat.
Again, nothing surprising.
The pump is probably quite powerful and the flow is sufficient, so in the case of the X, it just needs to run a little longer.
We would have seen a difference only if the pump had not had enough flow, which would have made the Cth of the liquid more critical.
4. Energy consumption test
(same experience as the previous one, over 24 hours).
It would be necessary to know how much (cold) liquid there is in the coil and the rest of the circuit before the start of the experiment to calculate the "hidden" thermal energy, but according to a quick calculation, it does not much compared to the results obtained.
So, on average over 24 hours, the thing heated with water consumed on average 218.4 W, that heated with the X consumed 188.6 W. Indeed there is a difference of 29.8W, which represents 13.6% (and not 15.8 % as on their paper). So does it work?
I see two hypotheses:
1) The power consumption of the circulator has not been measured; however, it heats the liquid ... either by friction (viscosity), or by heating the coil which heats the circulator which heats the liquid. In the case of X, the circulator will run longer (Cth lower) and force more (more viscous), therefore heat more. To find out if that could explain the difference of 30W or at least part of it, we would need more data. AMHA, not having measured it makes the study pretty ... branquignolle ...
2) As said above, each time the circulator stops, the pipes (except heated volume) and the boiler cool down and therefore the energy is lost. But once cooled, you don't lose anything. When the pipes are hot, at the same temperature you lose as much whatever the liquid. So AMHA, if there is an effect, you have to look for it there: when the circulator stops. As the product is more viscous and has a lower Cth than water, these losses will be reduced.
We can have the same effect with water by lowering the temperature in the pipes and opening the radiators a little more (tested in my old building).
Turkish studies linked in the same post are not serious: they find 37% savings (27% in reality because the calculation is wrong as for the other study), on a total consumption of ... 0.5 kWh. .. it is so little that the margin of error is enormous ...
So, basically, we still don't know how it works (apart from marketing).
> X-Energy does have a patent, it is filed, registered etc but no you will not be able to see it.
Patents are public.
