date:20150112

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Nice work Jeff,

You have made Mills more accessible, but I’m not sure he would agree with
everything that you have done here, due to the implications. This is also
very similar to what Michaud is showing – with the huge emphasis on 511 keV
value, which permeates the entire field of LENR… kinda’ like the smile of
the Cheshire cat… and it is all tied into Hotson/Dirac and the epo field.

And although you state: the “Transition State Orbitsphere” (TSO) is
created at orbit state n= alpha = 1/137.036 (i.e. FSC or fine structure
constant … where matter and energy are indistinguishable by any physical
property” according to [Mills] … yet, for some strange reason you stop
there, instead of actually identifying and analyzing that precise
mass-energy state as being relevant in itself – such as the end product of
“shrinkage”.

As far as I can tell, based on GUTCP, n = 1/137 (but *not* n =
1/137.035999) would be the theoretical *stable* atom end product of
hydrogen shrinkage. A hydrogen atom at orbit state n = 1/137 has an
angular momentum that is exactly equal to hbar (the reduced Planck constant
which has units of angular momentum). All electron stable circular orbits
for a hydrogen atom have hbar of angular momentum and is a requirement of
GUTCP.

I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage -
it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP
rules or postulates produce nice clean equations that show the TSO
being the birth. There is no clean neat calculation to get from say, n = 1
(or for that matter n = 1/4) to n = 1/137.035999. But there are nice neat
calculations to get from n = 1 to n = 1/137 based on the same postulates
and rules (at the same time there is data and experiment to back up the
rules, such as conservation of angular momentum and conservation of
energy). The best example of this is to look at the correspondence
principle write up that I put in Section 4, page 85 of
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf

(if the link changes, which it does if I update the pdf, then click on
summary here)
http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production

Every fractional orbit state drop creates a photon that perfectly follows
classical rules. Dropping to n = 1/137.035999 would release a photon
that didn't fit into the correspondence principle. So it's easier to think
of n = 1/137.035999 as the birth of the electron - at least in terms of
nice neat calculations. If an electron does shrink to n = 1/137.035999
then it needs some messy process (with no precise formula that has, for
example, part per thousand of accuracy) of releasing energy to get there ..
but I assume it could happen when atoms bounce around at high velocities
so that it could give up this tiny remainder of energy (the portion in
the decimal of 1/137.035999).

To cut to the chase, when you multiply this fundamental value of electron
or positron mass (511 keV) by alpha (along with a relativistic correction)
the result is essentially the same as the mass-energy signature of the DDL
– which is equivalent to dark matter (and is unlike Mills’ actual
prediction). The actual value as it is showing in dozens of cosmological
papers, appears to be 3.56 keV as opposed to 3.73 keV, which difference is
the relativistic correction. Are you unaware of the cosmology papers behind
this? They can only serve to boost your case.

As far as I know, the 3.5 keV bump that the comologists measure is not a
sharp line, and if it is real and based on hydrino shrinkage, then it is a
continuum photon with a range of frequencies with a cut off of a photon
having 3.5 keV. I don't focus on it because there are too many
inaccuracies of measuring the cutoff frequency - it's too imprecise.

If this 3.56 keV value is indeed the end of the road for ground state
hydrogen redundancy, then it should be the most important value in all of
physics, since it would explain dark matter as an isomer of hydrogen –
which is most of the mass of the visible Universe, so why not most of the
mass of the invisible? … yet everyone in LENR appears to be avoiding
cosmology like the plague. I hope that is not because it goes back to Dirac
and not to Mills, but of course – the similarity could all be a
“coincidence”.

Yet, since this particular value is the hottest topic in cosmology these
days, it is a mystery why observers here on vortex avoid connecting real
observation in another field with theory - to explain LENR as the energetic
creation of dark matter, and not a nuclear reaction. In the eyes of the
mainstream, if the 3.56 keV x-ray is verified in experiment, the field
could change almost overnight from “pathological” to “cutting edge”…

*From:* Jeff Driscoll

take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar
to what you

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-12 Thread Jed Rothwell

Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:


 I am not sure how Mizuno measured the 10.8 Watts of power used by the pump.


It says in the report: Mizuno used the WattChecker watt meter to measure
the electric power consumed by the pump, which is 10.8 W.



   I think the pump specifications indicate the pump uses about 22 watts.


No, as I told you, the specifications are written on the side of the pump,
and they are:

Iwaki Co., Magnet Pump MD-6K-N
Maximum capacity: 8/9 L/min
Maximum head: 1.0/1.4
100V 12W/60Hz, 12W/50Hz

This is also in the report.



 I plan to talk with the pump vendor technical staff to better understand
 the performance of this type of pump and the wattage vs voltage/amperage
 specs and the efficiency.


Please do not waste their time. The heat from the pump cannot possibly
affect the calorimetry, for the reasons I stated here and in the report.



 I do not have the same report that you have  identifying the pump
 specifications on page 24.  My version of your report, dated November 14,
 2014, does not include the specification you state exists . . .


For goodness sake download the latest version!

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf

If you do not see the November 14 version, click on Reload this page. Web
browsers sometimes fail to see they are not accessing the latest version of
a page. As a general rule for anything on the web, when in doubt, press
Reload.



 I think by baseline you mean a condition at which the energy introduced
 into the circulating system by the pump creates a temperature of the
 reactor and water bath and all the reactor internals that is the same and
 in equilibrium with a non-changing differential temperature between the
 ambient atmosphere and the water bath.


Exactly. This is shown in Fig. 19. Heat is measured based on the difference
shown with the purple arrow in Fig. 7. The bottom of that arrow points to
the temperature of the water which already includes heat from the pump.



 In any case a good description of baseline conditions is warranted.


What is the matter with the description on p. 24? It does not seem
complicated to me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

I have not followed this debate closely, but I assume Jed is correct.
So Dave, how do you address this statement:

The steady state baseline includes the heat from the pump, any diversion
from the baseline indicates excess heat.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:

Dave,

as promised and while you still insist saying that we were deeply wrong,
we have put on-line two different updates

1)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/further-measurements-on-the-md-6k-n-pump-used-by-tadahiko-mizuno/

2)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/analysis-of-jed-rothwells-report-about-his-calorimetry-performed-on-mizunos-cell/

The first one shows how you are terribly wrong with your calculations
based on the kinetic energy only. We show that your assumption are
completely wrong just referring to usual pump working diagram. In the pump
under test you can not have simultaneously maximum head and maximum flow
rate; the working point we chose was such that we had almost the same
working conditions Mizuno had. Please take your time to read our post
before commenting. The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump
body very close to the water so it is really easy to understand that,
despite what Jed says, the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water;
it is this the power we measure and it is by far much more that the
mechanical power (3 W maximum from the data sheet).

But, let me say that the second link is even more interesting [you have to
go to the end of the article, the Appendix]: we set up a software
simulation tools and were able to replicate by simulation the Mizuno's
measurement. It was enough to evaluate the overall thermal transmittance of
the system that is constant at least for the considered temperature range.
If we simulate the Mizuno's curve starting from a time instant when the
reactor is no more generating excess heat, it is possible to evaluate the
only source of heat: the pump. We have to use only the room temperature as
provided by Mizuno's data and the system starting temperature. The pump
power turns out to be about 4 W.

So we get comparable results by using very different methods

1) Pump theory and data sheet

2) Experiment

3) Simulations

All the rest are only free words.

We are going to apply the simulation to all the Mizuno's experiments to
see if we can get those curves without any excess heat.

Regards and take it easy.

Please, consider to read all the articles in our site concerning the
Mizuno's experiment.

Gigi aka Giancarlo

2015-01-12 19:09 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

Bob,

You have uncovered a pump specification that proves that the replication
work by Gigi and allies is not accurate. They report to have determined
that approximately 4.5 watts of thermal power is being absorbed by the
circulating water under their test condition. This amount of reported
power is clearly more than the pump should add and they need to explain why
we should accept their data as accurate.

Also, I have performs extensive calculations within a spreadsheet that is
based upon the lift head versus fluid flow rate of this model pump. It is
capable of delivering less than 1 watt of fluid power into the water
coolant under the best of conditions. My actual calculation is .75 watts
at 6 liters per minute which I rounded off for convenience to 1 watt. I
included both potential as well as kinetic energy related powers.

Any additional power imparted to the water must come from pump friction
and thermal leakage through the construction materials. Without further
careful measurements we or Gigi can not assume that the pump used by
Mizuno is operating at its specification limit of 3 watts. Of course the
measurement of 4.5 watts by Gigi is certainly not representative of a pump
that is in good condition.

The pump manual has several warnings about how easy it is to damage it
and that strongly suggests that Gigi and his team has done just that in
order to obtain their non representative performance. No one but Mizuno
knows the status of his pump during those tests so the only conclusion that
can conservatively be drawn is that the skeptical report by Gigi and team
should not be considered valid.

The pump manual states that the water reservoir must be at least 1 foot
above the pump input port in order to prevent possible air intake along
with the coolant water. Operation under conditions that do not meet this
requirement can damage the pump according to the manual. Unfortunately, in
both of the cases being discussed this was not done. The setup used by
Gigi very clearly shows the pump mounted above the Dewar by several
inches. The same appears true for Mizuno's experiment.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-12 Thread Daniel Rocha

Gigi, were you part of Defkalion Europe?

2015-01-12 18:52 GMT-02:00 Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com:

I have not followed this debate closely, but I assume Jed is correct.
So Dave, how do you address this statement:

The steady state baseline includes the heat from the pump, any diversion
from the baseline indicates excess heat.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com
wrote:

Dave,

as promised and while you still insist saying that we were deeply wrong,
we have put on-line two different updates

1)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/further-measurements-on-the-md-6k-n-pump-used-by-tadahiko-mizuno/

2)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/analysis-of-jed-rothwells-report-about-his-calorimetry-performed-on-mizunos-cell/

But, let me say that the second link is even more interesting [you have
to go to the end of the article, the Appendix]: we set up a software
simulation tools and were able to replicate by simulation the Mizuno's
measurement. It was enough to evaluate the overall thermal transmittance of
the system that is constant at least for the considered temperature range.
If we simulate the Mizuno's curve starting from a time instant when the
reactor is no more generating excess heat, it is possible to evaluate the
only source of heat: the pump. We have to use only the room temperature as
provided by Mizuno's data and the system starting temperature. The pump
power turns out to be about 4 W.

So we get comparable results by using very different methods

1) Pump theory and data sheet

2) Experiment

3) Simulations

All the rest are only free words.

We are going to apply the simulation to all the Mizuno's experiments to
see if we can get those curves without any excess heat.

Regards and take it easy.

Please, consider to read all the articles in our site concerning the
Mizuno's experiment.

Gigi aka Giancarlo

2015-01-12 19:09 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

Bob,

Also, I have performs extensive calculations within a spreadsheet that
is based upon the lift head versus fluid flow rate of this model pump. It
is capable of delivering less than 1 watt of fluid power into the water
coolant under the best of conditions. My actual calculation is .75 watts
at 6 liters per minute which I rounded off for convenience to 1 watt. I
included both potential as well as kinetic energy related powers.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To:

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-12 Thread Jed Rothwell

Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:


The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to
 the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what Jed says,
 the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water . . .


You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If your
graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you are
using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or perhaps
you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with rising
water temperature, as you did before.

In the second paper you wrote:

GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the test
and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential temperature
increase equal to +2.5°C. . . .

No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time. If
it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor
would no longer be collected.


The pump power turns out to be about 4 W.


Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises
the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because
nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is
true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a
baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore
this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Dave,

as promised and while you still insist saying that we were deeply wrong, we
have put on-line two different updates

1)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/further-measurements-on-the-md-6k-n-pump-used-by-tadahiko-mizuno/

2)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/analysis-of-jed-rothwells-report-about-his-calorimetry-performed-on-mizunos-cell/

The first one shows how you are terribly wrong with your calculations based
on the kinetic energy only. We show that your assumption are completely
wrong just referring to usual pump working diagram. In the pump under test
you can not have simultaneously maximum head and maximum flow rate; the
working point we chose was such that we had almost the same working
conditions Mizuno had. Please take your time to read our post before
commenting. The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very
close to the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what
Jed says, the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water; it is this
the power we measure and it is by far much more that the mechanical power
(3 W maximum from the data sheet).

So we get comparable results by using very different methods

1) Pump theory and data sheet

2) Experiment

3) Simulations

All the rest are only free words.

We are going to apply the simulation to all the Mizuno's experiments to see
if we can get those curves without any excess heat.

Regards and take it easy.

Please, consider to read all the articles in our site concerning the
Mizuno's experiment.

Gigi aka Giancarlo

2015-01-12 19:09 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

Bob,

The pump manual has several warnings about how easy it is to damage it and
that strongly suggests that Gigi and his team has done just that in order
to obtain their non representative performance. No one but Mizuno knows
the status of his pump during those tests so the only conclusion that can
conservatively be drawn is that the skeptical report by Gigi and team
should not be considered valid.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Jed--

I have researched the pump characteristics further and find that this pump
has a low efficiency and would use at most about 3 watts of power in
heating the circulating water. This is consistent with what you have
stated.

I am not sure how Mizuno measured the 10.8 Watts of power used by the
pump. I think

RE: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.

2015-01-12 Thread Jones Beene

From: Jeff Driscoll

 

Ø  I wouldn't focus too  much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage - 
it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP rules 
or postulates produce nice clean equations that show  the TSO being the birth…

 

Well – if you want to believe that Mills got everything right – then that might 
be true, but I do not buy it due to the litany of failures, glossed over as if 
they never happened. 

 

Another valid perspective is that “America’s genius” missed quite a very of the 
more important details which explain anomalous heat from hydrogen, and that he 
did not get everything right. If he had, BLP would not have suffered through 
the dozens of disappointments over the last 24 years in getting a product to 
market. He is further away now than ever.

 

An immediate commercial product is something that Parkhamov’s experiment could 
stimulate this year, assuming it will be quickly replicated… and why not assume 
that, since it took him only weeks to pull it off.

 

But the main thing that Mills did foresee, and perhaps he deserves the “big 
prize” for it (once it is proved beyond doubt) - is simply that the electron of 
a hydrogen atom can become stable in a redundant ground state.

 

Once that is accepted – it implies that ONLY the lowest of these redundant 
states is going to be the stable end-point, and since this ultimate stable 
state corresponds to the recent cosmological findings of dark matter – DDL, it 
all adds up to the possibility that Mills is partly right and partly wrong.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Jed is correct, when the pump is turned on and everything reaches steady
state, (using his example) the pump is putting in 4 watts of power to the
tubing, the reservoir and the LENR chamber and all these tubes and the LENR
chamber emit 4 watts of thermal power to the ambient at steady state. Then
when the LENR experiment is turned on, any delta T can be attributed to the
LENR device, not the pump (assuming the pump doesn't change speed).

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:


 The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to
 the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what Jed says,
 the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water . . .


 You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If
 your graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you
 are using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or
 perhaps you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with
 rising water temperature, as you did before.

 In the second paper you wrote:

 GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the test
 and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential temperature
 increase equal to +2.5°C. . . .

 No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time. If
 it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor
 would no longer be collected.


 The pump power turns out to be about 4 W.


 Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises
 the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because
 nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is
 true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a
 baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore
 this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement.

 - Jed




-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

[Vo]:Ultra-thin nanomaterial is at the heart of a major battery breakthrough

2015-01-12 Thread Roarty, Francis X

http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=38660.php

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Dear Giancarlo,

Thanks for publishing your report in English so that many of us that do not 
speak Italian can understand it.  There is no disagreement between the method 
that I used to calculate the kinetic transport power and what you would have 
calculated with the same numbers since we used the same basic principles.  I 
relied upon the information from Jed about the mass flow rate of the pump where 
he stated that Mizuno had told him that it was 8 liters per second.  If you 
match that rate with your 5 mm pipe as you have stated as a plan for 
replication of Mizuno's experiment then you will obtain my results.

I do not have a pump and 16 meters of 10 mm inside diameter tubing before me to 
determine exactly what flow rate is obtained.   It is going to be necessary for 
you to either obtain a matching pipe or for us to verify exactly what flow rate 
is being measured by Mizuno before a final answer can be established.   Jed 
apparently believes that the friction within the 16 meter tubing is not 
sufficient to reduce the unloaded pump fluid flow rate to a value that is 
anywhere close to the 2.31 liters per minute that you are proposing.   In your 
report, you state that you are matching the performance seen by Mizuno as far 
as fluid flow rate is concerned but I strongly doubt that this is occurring.

If you make additional calculations you will see that the pressure required at 
the pump output is (10 mm/5 mm)^4 or 16 times as large when achieving the same 
flow rate for a 5 mm tube as compared to a 10 mm  tube.  This is a dramatic 
difference and you find that you quickly run out of head room when using the 5 
mm tube for your test.   Just this reason alone should be sufficient for you to 
realize that your replication attempt is failed.  And, as further supporting 
evidence, the pumping power needed to reach the 8 liters per minute flow rate 
when using a 10 mm tube is only .192 watts which is well within the operational 
range of the MD-6.

We can approach the power required to match Mizuno's flow rate from another 
direction if you wish.  The mathematics implies that the power required to 
drive a certain ratio of flow rates varies as that ratio to the third power.  
In your case that means (8/2.31)^3 or 41.53 times less than to reach 8 liters 
per minute.  To take your example: 41.53 * .074 watts = 3.07 watts.  (your 
numbers).  So again, you would need to have 3.07 watts of pumping power 
delivered to the water stream in order to reach 8 liters per minute of mass 
flow rate just as I have shown.

Giancarlo, you are the one that must defend your procedure to show that it 
truly replicates the experiment conducted by Mizuno.  I am merely demonstrating 
why you have failed to do so.  Unless you can prove that you are not damaging 
the operation of the pump in some manner by your technique then you can not 
expect me or anyone else to take seriously your claim that you have proven that 
there is no additional power being generated by Mizuno's device.

Why are we expected to accept the notion that a pump that is being driven into 
overload by high pressure operation per your demonstration is not adding 
significant additional power into the water stream?  The forces acting upon the 
pump are very much increased by your choice of pipe diameter and it does not 
take much imagination to expect the internal bearings to overload in a manner 
that generates significant heating as a consequence.

I can not say with certainly that your technique is completely without merit, 
but you are also left with many issue to resolve before you can claim a good 
reproduction of the cooling system used by Mizuno.  And, since you see powers 
that fail to match those derived from the experiment, it suggests that you are 
making some major error.

If we continue to discuss this subject in additional dept, I believe that we 
will eventually come to a mutual understanding with respect to your effort.  I 
remain neutral in my acceptance of whether or not excess power is being 
generated by the Mizuno experiment and I hope that you remain flexible.

I await your response to this posting and perhaps we should begin considering 
additional tests that you can perform to help verify the facts.  I like the 
horizontal flow demonstration that you used to measure the mass flow rate for 
the 5 mm tubing.  Can you do the same with 10 mm as a beginning step?

Best Regards,

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised









Dave,


as promised and while you still insist saying that we were deeply wrong, we 
have put on-line two different updates

1) 
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/further-measurements-on-the-md-6k-n-pump-used-by-tadahiko-mizuno/

2)

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Jeff,

I could agree entirely with you. I've have some problems with the internal
and external calorimeter time constants that are too short. But let's go on
and assume that what you say is completely right.

Now can you tell me where in the Mizuno's results (excel files and figures)
you see this behaviour? I do not see it, so if you tell me which is the
right curve we can discuss about it.

2015-01-12 22:58 GMT+01:00 Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com:

 Jed is correct, when the pump is turned on and everything reaches steady
 state, (using his example) the pump is putting in 4 watts of power to the
 tubing, the reservoir and the LENR chamber and all these tubes and the LENR
 chamber emit 4 watts of thermal power to the ambient at steady state. Then
 when the LENR experiment is turned on, any delta T can be attributed to the
 LENR device, not the pump (assuming the pump doesn't change speed).

 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:


 The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to
 the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what Jed says,
 the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water . . .


 You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If
 your graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you
 are using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or
 perhaps you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with
 rising water temperature, as you did before.

 In the second paper you wrote:

 GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the
 test and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential
 temperature increase equal to +2.5°C. . . .

 No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time. If
 it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor
 would no longer be collected.


 The pump power turns out to be about 4 W.


 Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises
 the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because
 nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is
 true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a
 baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore
 this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement.

 - Jed




 --
 Jeff Driscoll
 617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Dave,

you said nothing about simulations that should be a confirmation of our
experiments. But I think that we can do something more: what will convince
you that we are right and Mizuno is wrong?

Regards

2015-01-12 23:17 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

 Dear Giancarlo,

 Thanks for publishing your report in English so that many of us that do
 not speak Italian can understand it.  There is no disagreement between the
 method that I used to calculate the kinetic transport power and what you
 would have calculated with the same numbers since we used the same basic
 principles.  I relied upon the information from Jed about the mass flow
 rate of the pump where he stated that Mizuno had told him that it was 8
 liters per second.  If you match that rate with your 5 mm pipe as you have
 stated as a plan for replication of Mizuno's experiment then you will
 obtain my results.

 I do not have a pump and 16 meters of 10 mm inside diameter tubing before
 me to determine exactly what flow rate is obtained.   It is going to be
 necessary for you to either obtain a matching pipe or for us to verify
 exactly what flow rate is being measured by Mizuno before a final answer
 can be established.   Jed apparently believes that the friction within the
 16 meter tubing is not sufficient to reduce the unloaded pump fluid flow
 rate to a value that is anywhere close to the 2.31 liters per minute that
 you are proposing.   In your report, you state that you are matching the
 performance seen by Mizuno as far as fluid flow rate is concerned but I
 strongly doubt that this is occurring.

 If you make additional calculations you will see that the pressure
 required at the pump output is (10 mm/5 mm)^4 or 16 times as large when
 achieving the same flow rate for a 5 mm tube as compared to a 10 mm  tube.
 This is a dramatic difference and you find that you quickly run out of head
 room when using the 5 mm tube for your test.   Just this reason alone
 should be sufficient for you to realize that your replication attempt is
 failed.  And, as further supporting evidence, the pumping power needed to
 reach the 8 liters per minute flow rate when using a 10 mm tube is only
 .192 watts which is well within the operational range of the MD-6.

 We can approach the power required to match Mizuno's flow rate from
 another direction if you wish.  The mathematics implies that the power
 required to drive a certain ratio of flow rates varies as that ratio to the
 third power.  In your case that means (8/2.31)^3 or 41.53 times less than
 to reach 8 liters per minute.  To take your example: 41.53 * .074 watts =
 3.07 watts.  (your numbers).  So again, you would need to have 3.07 watts
 of pumping power delivered to the water stream in order to reach 8 liters
 per minute of mass flow rate just as I have shown.

 Giancarlo, you are the one that must defend your procedure to show that it
 truly replicates the experiment conducted by Mizuno.  I am merely
 demonstrating why you have failed to do so.  Unless you can prove that you
 are not damaging the operation of the pump in some manner by your technique
 then you can not expect me or anyone else to take seriously your claim that
 you have proven that there is no additional power being generated by
 Mizuno's device.

 Why are we expected to accept the notion that a pump that is being driven
 into overload by high pressure operation per your demonstration is not
 adding significant additional power into the water stream?  The forces
 acting upon the pump are very much increased by your choice of pipe
 diameter and it does not take much imagination to expect the internal
 bearings to overload in a manner that generates significant heating as a
 consequence.

 I can not say with certainly that your technique is completely without
 merit, but you are also left with many issue to resolve before you can
 claim a good reproduction of the cooling system used by Mizuno.  And, since
 you see powers that fail to match those derived from the experiment, it
 suggests that you are making some major error.

 If we continue to discuss this subject in additional dept, I believe that
 we will eventually come to a mutual understanding with respect to your
 effort.  I remain neutral in my acceptance of whether or not excess power
 is being generated by the Mizuno experiment and I hope that you remain
 flexible.

 I await your response to this posting and perhaps we should begin
 considering additional tests that you can perform to help verify the
 facts.  I like the horizontal flow demonstration that you used to measure
 the mass flow rate for the 5 mm tubing.  Can you do the same with 10 mm as
 a beginning step?

 Best Regards,

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 3:44 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Dave,

  as promised and while you still insist saying that

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Ill have to leave that to you and others,

I assumed Jed was making a point that Dave didn't understand.

I don't know the details of Mizuno's experiment.



On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jeff,

 I could agree entirely with you. I've have some problems with the internal
 and external calorimeter time constants that are too short. But let's go on
 and assume that what you say is completely right.

 Now can you tell me where in the Mizuno's results (excel files and
 figures) you see this behaviour? I do not see it, so if you tell me which
 is the right curve we can discuss about it.

 2015-01-12 22:58 GMT+01:00 Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com:

 Jed is correct, when the pump is turned on and everything reaches steady
 state, (using his example) the pump is putting in 4 watts of power to the
 tubing, the reservoir and the LENR chamber and all these tubes and the LENR
 chamber emit 4 watts of thermal power to the ambient at steady state. Then
 when the LENR experiment is turned on, any delta T can be attributed to the
 LENR device, not the pump (assuming the pump doesn't change speed).

 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:


 The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to
 the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what Jed says,
 the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water . . .


 You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If
 your graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you
 are using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or
 perhaps you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with
 rising water temperature, as you did before.

 In the second paper you wrote:

 GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the
 test and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential
 temperature increase equal to +2.5°C. . . .

 No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time.
 If it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor
 would no longer be collected.


 The pump power turns out to be about 4 W.


 Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises
 the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because
 nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is
 true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a
 baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore
 this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement.

 - Jed




 --
 Jeff Driscoll
 617-290-1998





-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

No, never.
I'm only an amateur that follows LENR from the outside.

My job is different: I run a company working in the railway field (power
converters): nothing to do with LENR.

2015-01-12 22:02 GMT+01:00 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com:

Gigi, were you part of Defkalion Europe?

2015-01-12 18:52 GMT-02:00 Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com:

I have not followed this debate closely, but I assume Jed is correct.
So Dave, how do you address this statement:

The steady state baseline includes the heat from the pump, any diversion
from the baseline indicates excess heat.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com
wrote:

Dave,

as promised and while you still insist saying that we were deeply wrong,
we have put on-line two different updates

1)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/further-measurements-on-the-md-6k-n-pump-used-by-tadahiko-mizuno/

2)
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/analysis-of-jed-rothwells-report-about-his-calorimetry-performed-on-mizunos-cell/

But, let me say that the second link is even more interesting [you have
to go to the end of the article, the Appendix]: we set up a software
simulation tools and were able to replicate by simulation the Mizuno's
measurement. It was enough to evaluate the overall thermal transmittance of
the system that is constant at least for the considered temperature range.
If we simulate the Mizuno's curve starting from a time instant when the
reactor is no more generating excess heat, it is possible to evaluate the
only source of heat: the pump. We have to use only the room temperature as
provided by Mizuno's data and the system starting temperature. The pump
power turns out to be about 4 W.

So we get comparable results by using very different methods

1) Pump theory and data sheet

2) Experiment

3) Simulations

All the rest are only free words.

We are going to apply the simulation to all the Mizuno's experiments to
see if we can get those curves without any excess heat.

Regards and take it easy.

Please, consider to read all the articles in our site concerning the
Mizuno's experiment.

Gigi aka Giancarlo

2015-01-12 19:09 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

Bob,

You have uncovered a pump specification that proves that the
replication work by Gigi and allies is not accurate. They report to have
determined that approximately 4.5 watts of thermal power is being absorbed
by the circulating water under their test condition. This amount of
reported power is clearly more than the pump should add and they need to
explain why we should accept their data as accurate.

Also, I have performs extensive calculations within a spreadsheet that
is based upon the lift head versus fluid flow rate of this model pump. It
is capable of delivering less than 1 watt of fluid power into the water
coolant under the best of conditions. My actual calculation is .75 watts
at 6 liters per minute which I rounded off for convenience to 1 watt. I
included both potential as well as kinetic energy related powers.

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

Jed,

I think you did not catch the importance of time constants in your
calorimeter.
I do not know how to explain it in more details. You will continue to say
no forever.


Do you think that simulation are a valid tools as far as they reproduce
exactly the experiments?

2015-01-12 22:10 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:

 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:


 The major result is that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to
 the water so it is really easy to understand that, despite what Jed says,
 the pump motor delivers a lot of heat to the water . . .


 You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If
 your graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you
 are using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or
 perhaps you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with
 rising water temperature, as you did before.

 In the second paper you wrote:

 GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the test
 and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential temperature
 increase equal to +2.5°C. . . .

 No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time. If
 it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor
 would no longer be collected.


 The pump power turns out to be about 4 W.


 Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises
 the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because
 nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is
 true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a
 baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore
 this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

I agree completely with Jed as long as the ambient is kept at a constant 
temperature.  Any constant source of power introduced into the system will 
eventually result in a fixed delta between the device coolant temperature and 
the ambient.  The time constant associated with the transient delta is quite 
long according to Jed's data but if enough time constants pass, the temperature 
will settle down at a fixed value and remain constant.

Any new power applied as a step will result in a ramp to the temperature curve 
much as is seen during his testing.  I do have a concern about what occurs when 
the ambient changes.

I consider the change in ambient as being the equivalent of an input power 
application who's value is proportional to the ratio of the rapid change in 
ambient degrees to the total change above the normal stable ambient.  For a 
simple example assume that 1 watt of power is leaking into the test system as a 
result of pump power.  When settled out we can assume that the coolant resides 
at a temperature that is 4 degrees greater than ambient due to the long term 
application of  the 1 watt leakage.

Now if the ambient rapidly changes by 1 degree I believe that this is exactly 
the same as a signal appearing that is 1 watt * (1 C/ 4 C) = .25 watts.  The 
pulse nature of the input drive power and the resulting LENR heating is spread 
over a relatively large duty cycle enhances the effect of the input.  In this 
case for a 10% drive duty cycle our leakage would behave like a 2.5 watt valid 
signal.

I may be mistaken in this model and perhaps Jed can clear up any errors.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised



I have not followed this debate closely, but I assume Jed is correct.
So Dave, how do you address this statement:

The steady state baseline includes the heat from the pump, any diversion from 
the baseline indicates excess heat.





On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote:








Dave,


as promised and while you still insist saying that we were deeply wrong, we 
have put on-line two different updates

1) 
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/further-measurements-on-the-md-6k-n-pump-used-by-tadahiko-mizuno/

2) 
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/analysis-of-jed-rothwells-report-about-his-calorimetry-performed-on-mizunos-cell/


The first one shows how you are terribly wrong with your calculations based on 
the kinetic energy only. We show that your assumption are completely wrong just 
referring to usual pump working diagram. In the pump under test you can not 
have simultaneously maximum head and maximum flow rate; the working point we 
chose was such that we had almost the same working conditions Mizuno had. 
Please take your time to read our post before commenting. The major result is 
that we measured 43°C in the pump body very close to the water so it is really 
easy to understand that, despite what Jed says, the pump motor delivers a lot 
of heat to the water; it is this the power we measure and it is by far much 
more that the mechanical power (3 W maximum from the data sheet).


But, let me say that the second link is even more interesting [you have to go 
to the end of the article, the Appendix]: we set up a software simulation tools 
and were able to replicate by simulation the Mizuno's measurement. It was 
enough to evaluate the overall thermal transmittance of the system that is 
constant at least for the considered temperature range.

If we simulate the Mizuno's curve starting from a time instant when the reactor 
is no more generating excess heat, it is possible to evaluate the only source 
of heat: the pump. We have to use only the room temperature as provided by 
Mizuno's data and the system starting temperature. The pump power turns out to 
be about 4 W.


So we get comparable results by using very different methods


1) Pump theory and data sheet


2) Experiment


3) Simulations


All the rest are only free words.


We are going to apply the simulation to all the Mizuno's experiments to see if 
we can get those curves without any excess heat.


Regards and take it easy.


Please, consider to read all the articles in our site concerning the Mizuno's 
experiment.


Gigi aka Giancarlo




2015-01-12 19:09 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

Bob,

You have uncovered a pump specification that proves that the replication work 
by Gigi and allies is not accurate.  They report to have determined that 
approximately 4.5 watts of thermal power is being absorbed by the circulating 
water under their test condition.  This amount of reported power is clearly 
more than the pump should add and they need to explain why we should accept 
their data as accurate.

Also, I have performs extensive calculations within a spreadsheet that is based 
upon the lift head

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

It appears as if Jed and Mizuno have the situation under control.  I will be 
relieved when the variations in ambient are taken out of the picture since that 
will make analysis of the system much simpler.

You might be correct that I got the direction of the pseudo input wrong.  It is 
so easy to get mixed up when you think about these types of systems.  Allow me 
to present the logic that I used to derive the behavior observed when an 
ambient temperature step takes place.

First, it is assumed that the ambient is steady and the temperature of the 
coolant has settled down and no longer is changing value with time.  If power 
is leaking into the system from the outside such as by means of the pump 
network then the coolant must obtain a temperature above the static ambient.  
This is required in order for the heat to flow outwards from the test system 
into the outside world.

In this case heat is flowing across the delta in temperature at a rate that is 
proportional to that delta.  Since the coolant is hotter than the ambient, heat 
is flowing from the coolant to the ambient.  If the ambient now undergoes a 
step upwards the difference between the static coolant and the new ambient is 
less than before.  Since a lower delta is now measured, less heat flows 
outwards from the coolant to the ambient.

Before the step, all of the heat associated with the pump power was flowing 
through the insulation and to the ambient environment.  Now, once that step 
takes place, the delta become smaller and less heat flows outwards.  The 
difference in heat flowing is directed into the thermal capacity of the coolant 
and test device.  This then should cause the temperature of those components to 
rise.  I believe this behavior would be the same as would be observed by a real 
signal adding its heat currents into the calorimeter.

A check to this thought is established by considering where the ultimate 
coolant and device system temperature stabilizes.  Eventually, that combined 
temperature rises until the same temperature delta as before the step is 
reached.  If that happened to be 4 degrees before a +1 degree step, the coolant 
temperature should move in the same direction as the step beginning at the 
hypothetical 3 degrees of delta slowly upwards to 4 degrees where it stabilizes.

Perhaps I am overlooking something in my mental model that someone will point 
out.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised



David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


I agree completely with Jed as long as the ambient is kept at a constant 
temperature.


When ambient changes a great deal over a short time, calorimetry becomes too 
complicated. You need to throw away those results. Or use them for a limited 
purpose. Mizuno has reduced fluctuations and I hope he soon eliminates the 
overnight temperature change. 




I consider the change in ambient as being the equivalent of an input power 
application who's value is proportional to the ratio of the rapid change in 
ambient degrees to the total change above the normal stable ambient.


Do you mean when ambient temperature falls? This would look like input power . 
. . but only if you do not record the ambient temperature! As long as you see 
it is falling, you know this is not actually input power. The hard part is when 
you have actual power plus a falling ambient. It is difficult to separate them 
out. It is not worth the effort. Just toss out the data.


If ambient temperature rises (and you don't notice) it looks like heat 
vanishing in a magic endothermic reaction.


 

Now if the ambient rapidly changes by 1 degree I believe that this is exactly 
the same as a signal appearing that is 1 watt * (1 C/ 4 C) = .25 watts.


Well, it is not the same because we have a record of the ambient temperature. 
As I said, suppose you take a glass of warm water and put it outside in 
January. The difference between ambient and the water suddenly increases by 20 
deg C. That does not mean a heat source appeared out of nowhere. It means the 
water does not instantly cool off.


With this system, if I have derived Newton's cooling coefficient right, 1 W 
going into the water should produce a 1.5 deg C temperature difference.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

I missed the simulation for some reason.  Where can I find that?  Sorry if I 
overlooked it.

Do you have data that shows the mass flow rate when a 10 mm tube is attached to 
the pump output?  I assume that a large pipe is on the suction port.

You need to attach a full length 10 mm tube to the pump and measure the flow 
rate and heating as a main step.  There are far too many variables associated 
with operation of the pump with the 5 mm pipe.  I have pointed out several 
problems that need to be addressed.  If you do this and also measure the AC 
power into the pump and then clean up the pump bearings so that the frictional 
losses are low then that will go a long way toward proving your position.

Do you have any method of verifying that the frictional losses are as low as 
those of the pump used by Mizuno?  The fact that you measure 4.5 watts versus a 
specification of 3 watts maximum suggests that something is wrong with your 
procedure.  How do you explain that difference?

Also, the difference between what you measure and what Mizuno and Jed measures 
may be nothing more than those associated with operation in a different pump 
pressure range and a damaged pump.  These types of questions remain unanswered.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised



Dave,


you said nothing about simulations that should be a confirmation of our 
experiments. But I think that we can do something more: what will convince you 
that we are right and Mizuno is wrong?


Regards



2015-01-12 23:17 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com:

Dear Giancarlo,

Thanks for publishing your report in English so that many of us that do not 
speak Italian can understand it.  There is no disagreement between the method 
that I used to calculate the kinetic transport power and what you would have 
calculated with the same numbers since we used the same basic principles.  I 
relied upon the information from Jed about the mass flow rate of the pump where 
he stated that Mizuno had told him that it was 8 liters per second.  If you 
match that rate with your 5 mm pipe as you have stated as a plan for 
replication of Mizuno's experiment then you will obtain my results.

I do not have a pump and 16 meters of 10 mm inside diameter tubing before me to 
determine exactly what flow rate is obtained.   It is going to be necessary for 
you to either obtain a matching pipe or for us to verify exactly what flow rate 
is being measured by Mizuno before a final answer can be established.   Jed 
apparently believes that the friction within the 16 meter tubing is not 
sufficient to reduce the unloaded pump fluid flow rate to a value that is 
anywhere close to the 2.31 liters per minute that you are proposing.   In your 
report, you state that you are matching the performance seen by Mizuno as far 
as fluid flow rate is concerned but I strongly doubt that this is occurring.

If you make additional calculations you will see that the pressure required at 
the pump output is (10 mm/5 mm)^4 or 16 times as large when achieving the same 
flow rate for a 5 mm tube as compared to a 10 mm  tube.  This is a dramatic 
difference and you find that you quickly run out of head room when using the 5 
mm tube for your test.   Just this reason alone should be sufficient for you to 
realize that your replication attempt is failed.  And, as further supporting 
evidence, the pumping power needed to reach the 8 liters per minute flow rate 
when using a 10 mm tube is only .192 watts which is well within the operational 
range of the MD-6.

We can approach the power required to match Mizuno's flow rate from another 
direction if you wish.  The mathematics implies that the power required to 
drive a certain ratio of flow rates varies as that ratio to the third power.  
In your case that means (8/2.31)^3 or 41.53 times less than to reach 8 liters 
per minute.  To take your example: 41.53 * .074 watts = 3.07 watts.  (your 
numbers).  So again, you would need to have 3.07 watts of pumping power 
delivered to the water stream in order to reach 8 liters per minute of mass 
flow rate just as I have shown.

Giancarlo, you are the one that must defend your procedure to show that it 
truly replicates the experiment conducted by Mizuno.  I am merely demonstrating 
why you have failed to do so.  Unless you can prove that you are not damaging 
the operation of the pump in some manner by your technique then you can not 
expect me or anyone else to take seriously your claim that you have proven that 
there is no additional power being generated by Mizuno's device.

Why are we expected to accept the notion that a pump that is being driven into 
overload by high pressure operation per your demonstration is not adding 
significant additional power into the water stream?  The forces acting upon the 
pump are very much

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised

2015-01-12 Thread Jed Rothwell

David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I agree completely with Jed as long as the ambient is kept at a constant
 temperature.


When ambient changes a great deal over a short time, calorimetry becomes
too complicated. You need to throw away those results. Or use them for a
limited purpose. Mizuno has reduced fluctuations and I hope he soon
eliminates the overnight temperature change.


I consider the change in ambient as being the equivalent of an input power
 application who's value is proportional to the ratio of the rapid change in
 ambient degrees to the total change above the normal stable ambient.


Do you mean when ambient temperature falls? This would look like input
power . . . but only if you do not record the ambient temperature! As long
as you see it is falling, you know this is not actually input power. The
hard part is when you have actual power plus a falling ambient. It is
difficult to separate them out. It is not worth the effort. Just toss out
the data.

If ambient temperature rises (and you don't notice) it looks like heat
vanishing in a magic endothermic reaction.



 Now if the ambient rapidly changes by 1 degree I believe that this is
 exactly the same as a signal appearing that is 1 watt * (1 C/ 4 C) = .25
 watts.


Well, it is not the same because we have a record of the ambient
temperature. As I said, suppose you take a glass of warm water and put it
outside in January. The difference between ambient and the water suddenly
increases by 20 deg C. That does not mean a heat source appeared out of
nowhere. It means the water does not instantly cool off.

With this system, if I have derived Newton's cooling coefficient right, 1 W
going into the water should produce a 1.5 deg C temperature difference.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant

2015-01-12 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe

Nice pictures!

With data fitted theory you still can make predictions when you
interpolate, I use it all the time. No need to throw away anything. But it
is
dishonest of society to ignore Mills, as I pointed out there is nothing
written that are pointing towards an error e.g. ed. 2014 page 12 equation
134 is
wrong or such, he has worked so hard with this that we should give such
detailed critique or else critique is politics more than science. Even
Rathke
misses this point and that makes his work the work of a vicious politician.
Or someone who wants to please one for the sake of getting golden stars.

Mark my words, if Einstein worked at the patent office today he would
remain there, do we want such a society.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same
the same thing. It's a mystery ...

Allow me to point to some additional, beautiful images of excited Rydberg
states that one will presumably need to set aside in order to make room for
Mills's orbitspheres in one's life:

http://photon.physnet.uni-hamburg.de/typo3temp/pics/1d908a9be3.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nk4zG5qt_nY/TtAqBojr3vI/ABg/Vd5nKr7MGNw/s1600/WFs.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-urfIZEw5Ykw/T2Xvi98EJ8I/BFc/VWk3UQ67S2o/s1600/17a%2527.persp2.bmp
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n2/images_article/ncomms2466-f4.jpg

One is tempted to conclude that the makers of these images are propagating
false teachings.

In a world of orbitspheres, there are, presumably, no electrons passing
through the nucleus, resulting in an increased probability of internal
conversion. We will need to set aside our current understanding of
internal conversion and adopt one based upon infinitesimally thin electron
currents that are miles away from the nucleus, from its own perspective.

Perhaps the two descriptions are dual, in the way that George Orwell
explained that one can develop the ability to keep in mind two
contradictory thoughts:

- War is peace.
- Freedom is slavery.
- Ignorance is strength.

Through an act of doublethink, it might be possible to reconcile
orbitspheres and electron orbits, as they are currently understood.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant

2015-01-12 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same
the same thing. It's a mystery ...

Allow me to point to some additional, beautiful images of excited Rydberg
states that one will presumably need to set aside in order to make room for
Mills's orbitspheres in one's life:

http://photon.physnet.uni-hamburg.de/typo3temp/pics/1d908a9be3.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nk4zG5qt_nY/TtAqBojr3vI/ABg/Vd5nKr7MGNw/s1600/WFs.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-urfIZEw5Ykw/T2Xvi98EJ8I/BFc/VWk3UQ67S2o/s1600/17a%2527.persp2.bmp
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n2/images_article/ncomms2466-f4.jpg

One is tempted to conclude that the makers of these images are propagating
false teachings.

Perhaps the two descriptions are dual, in the way that George Orwell
explained that one can develop the ability to keep in mind two
contradictory thoughts:

- War is peace.
- Freedom is slavery.
- Ignorance is strength.

Through an act of doublethink, it might be possible to reconcile
orbitspheres and electron orbits, as they are currently understood.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised