Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Finally, the leakage power entering the water from the pump has to be determined since it has a significant effect upon the total calculation. Even though it is on continuously, it is impossible to achieve an accurate calculation without its influence being considered. The power has to be measured, but it does not have to be measured with precision. As long as you show that it remains the same at all times, then you can be sure this heat is included in the baseline and it cannot affect the adiabatic calorimetry. The calibrations show that the pump heat is stable, but it is difficult to measure exactly how much heat this is. The pump heat is low, and it can only be measured when everything else in the system is turned off. This means total heat is close to zero and the noise from ambient temperature changes drown the signal. Calorimetry always works better power level above zero. When a calorimeter measures from 0 to 10 W, it can detect the difference between 1.0 and 1.1 W with greater confidence than between 0.0 and 0.1 W. The pump is described here: http://www.iwakipumps.com.vn/doc_viewer.aspx?fileName=/upload/file/md.pdf There are two sources of heat from the pump, and they are both likely to stable: 1. Work by the pump itself, by the impeller. The pump consumes 10.8 W of electricity. The other pumps in the MD series are 15% efficient, so the pump cannot deliver more than 1.5 W of mechanical energy. It probably delivers much less than this. In any case, power consumption is steady so mechanical power will also be steady. 2. Heat from the motor. There is no direct, physical connection between the motor and the pump. As shown in the figure on p. 4, the motor turns a magnet, which turns another magnet inside a waterproof section at the end of the pump. The second magnet turns the impeller. This is done to make pump waterproof and gas tight. This also minimizes the heat conducted from the pump motor to the impeller. Very little heat will be conducted by this path because plastic is a poor conductor; and because the motor is designed to be self cooling; the pump housing is cool to the touch; and Mizuno has a small fan blowing on the pump at all times. The conductivity of the plastic shell cannot change, so however much heat it conducts, as long as the motor consumes the same amount of power the level of conducted heat must be the same. Therefore it cannot affect the adiabatic calorimetery. It was then possible to subtract this curve from the measured coolant temperature response to have a clear view of the true signal that is generated by the power pulse entering the system and any excess power it originates. I added a three pole digital filter following the subtraction to eliminate most of the nasty noise remaining. This is complicated because you do not know how much anomalous heat there is in the first place. That is what you are trying to derive. We need calibrations without any reactive Pd metal in the reactor, and no anomalous heat, so that we know exactly how much energy is input and output. I hope we will soon have these. This simplifies the problem greatly. It will also tell us exactly how much heat is captured by the reactor stainless steel. Each of the three input power pulses contained within this particular data file (October 21, 2014 ) was easy to measure when subjected to my process. I could determine that about 25% extra energy was generated by the Mizuno device for each pulse. I got 38%, based on a simpler method. (See Table 1.) I ignore heat from the pump for the reasons explained above. If you are including a small contribution from the pump that might explain the difference between 25% and 38%. And, if you are including that heat, I am confident you are making a mistake. That is about 2500 joules for each one of the three. An explanation as to why this number is less than that reported is revealed by my latest technique of separating out the individual contributions. Did you also take into account heat captured by the reactor metal? My 38% is only for the water. The fact that the pump is on all of the time does in fact tend to hide its contributions to the final coolant measurements as has been assumed. No, it does not hide the contributions. It negates them. The contributions are already there at the start, and they cannot increase in the final coolant measurements. (The plastic cannot suddenly conduct more heat; the impeller cannot do more work.) The heat from the pump is in exactly the same category as the heat from the overhead lights. It is part of the unchanging baseline. The heat from the HVAC would also be part of that unchanging baseline if Mizuno would improve the HVAC and leave the heater turned on day and night. I think he is doing this now, at my request. As I noted in the report I hope he can upgrade the quality of the HVAC equipment. The fact that the pump impeller heat is
[Vo]:Wired UK covers Lugano, Parkhomov and Cole
See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/30/cold-fusion-energy-advances-2015
[Vo]:New type of chemical bond discovered
New type of chemical bonddiscovered http://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-chemical-bond-discovered Move over, covalent and ionic bonds, there’s a new chemical bond in town, and it loves to shake things up. It’s taken decades to nail down, but researchers in Canada have finally identified a new chemical bond, which they’re calling a ‘vibrational bond’. This vibrational bond seems to break the law of chemistry that states if you increase the temperature, the rate of reaction will speed up. Back in 1989, a team from the University of British Columbia investigated the reactions of various elements to muonium (Mu) - a strange, hydrogen isotope made up of an antimuon and an electron. They tried chlorine and fluorine with muonium, and as they increased the heat, the reaction time sped up, but when they tried bromine (br), a brownish-red toxic and corrosive liquid, the reaction time sped up as the temperature decreased. The researchers, Amy Nordrum writes for Scientific American, were flummoxed”. Perhaps, thought one of the team, chemist Donald Flemming, when the bromine and muonium made contact, they formed a transitional structure made up of a lightweight atom flanked by two heavier atoms. And the structure was joined not byvan der Waal’s forces - as would usually be expected - but by some kind of temporary ‘vibrational’ bond that had been proposed several years earlier. Nordrum explains: In this scenario, the lightweight muonium atom would move rapidly between two heavy bromine atoms, 'like a Ping Pong ball bouncing between two bowling balls,' Fleming says. The oscillating atom would briefly hold the two bromine atoms together and reduce the overall energy, and therefore speed, of the reaction.” But back then, the team didn’t have the technology needed to actually see this reaction take place, because it lasts for just a few milliseconds. But now they do, and the team took their investigation to the nuclear accelerator at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England. With the help of theoretical chemists from the Free University of Berlin and Saitama University in Japan, Flemming’s team watched as the light muonium and heavy bromine formed a temporary bond. “The lightest isotopomer, BrMuBr, with Mu the muonium atom, alone exhibits vibrational bonding in accord with its possible observation in a recent experiment on the Mu + Br2 reaction,” the team reports in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Accordingly, BrMuBr is stabilised at the saddle point of the potential energy surface due to a net decrease in vibrational zero point energy that overcompensates the increase in potential energy.” In other words, the vibration in the bond decreased the total energy of the BrMuBr structure, which means that even when the temperature was increased, there was not enough energy to see an increase in the reaction time. *While the team only witnessed the vibrational bond occurring in a bromine and muonium reaction, they suspect it can also be found in interactions between lightweight and heavy atoms, where van der Waal’s forces are assumed to be at play.* The work confirms that vibrational bonds - fleeting though they may be - should be added to the list of known chemical bonds,” says Nordrum at Scientific American. Sorry, future high school chemistry students, here's another thing you'll probably have to rote learn. Source: Scientific American --- This link has a diagram of the potential energy curve for a vibrational bond: A new type of chemical bond has been confirmed – the vibrational bond http://www.zmescience.com/science/chemistry/new-kind-chemical-vibrational-bond-0543543/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Do you have information about where the ambient temperature was during this long time period? For the entire 28 hours it is: Average 16.67°C, min 15.93°C, max 17.30°C The difference between the ambient and water settles to a much larger value than it did in the past. It is 1.39°C in this case. I think this changed after he put the tent over the experiment. It must have been in a pocket of warm air or something like that. He installed fans to make the air temperature more homogeneous. The temperature swings are much smaller than before, because of the tent. I have an extremely accurate measurement of the thermal resistance from the data you supplied which is .67 degrees C per Watt. That is what I got previously but I think it is changed. Or I guess I should say, I do not think the ambient temperature measurement is trustworthy to within a half-degree. After a lot of frustration, I decided to stop trying to derive the pump heat from on the basis of the difference between the water and air temperatures. I'm going to wait for additional calibration data and try and get it from that. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:New type of chemical bond discovered
another link Isotope effect produces new type of chemical bond http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/10/isotope-effect-produces-new-type-chemical-bond quote In the early 1980s it was proposed that in certain transition states consisting of a very light atom sandwiched between two heavy ones, the system would be stabilised not by conventional van der Waal’s forces, but by vibrational bonding, with the light atom shuttling between its two neighbours. However, despite several groups searching for such a system none was demonstrated and the hunt fizzled out. Now, Jörn Manz http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/~manzwww/, of the Free University of Berlin and Shanxi University in China, and colleagues believe they have the theoretical and experimental evidence to demonstrate a stable vibrational bond. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:34 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: New type of chemical bonddiscovered http://www.sciencealert.com/new-type-of-chemical-bond-discovered Move over, covalent and ionic bonds, there’s a new chemical bond in town, and it loves to shake things up. It’s taken decades to nail down, but researchers in Canada have finally identified a new chemical bond, which they’re calling a ‘vibrational bond’. This vibrational bond seems to break the law of chemistry that states if you increase the temperature, the rate of reaction will speed up. Back in 1989, a team from the University of British Columbia investigated the reactions of various elements to muonium (Mu) - a strange, hydrogen isotope made up of an antimuon and an electron. They tried chlorine and fluorine with muonium, and as they increased the heat, the reaction time sped up, but when they tried bromine (br), a brownish-red toxic and corrosive liquid, the reaction time sped up as the temperature decreased. The researchers, Amy Nordrum writes for Scientific American, were flummoxed”. Perhaps, thought one of the team, chemist Donald Flemming, when the bromine and muonium made contact, they formed a transitional structure made up of a lightweight atom flanked by two heavier atoms. And the structure was joined not byvan der Waal’s forces - as would usually be expected - but by some kind of temporary ‘vibrational’ bond that had been proposed several years earlier. Nordrum explains: In this scenario, the lightweight muonium atom would move rapidly between two heavy bromine atoms, 'like a Ping Pong ball bouncing between two bowling balls,' Fleming says. The oscillating atom would briefly hold the two bromine atoms together and reduce the overall energy, and therefore speed, of the reaction.” But back then, the team didn’t have the technology needed to actually see this reaction take place, because it lasts for just a few milliseconds. But now they do, and the team took their investigation to the nuclear accelerator at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England. With the help of theoretical chemists from the Free University of Berlin and Saitama University in Japan, Flemming’s team watched as the light muonium and heavy bromine formed a temporary bond. “The lightest isotopomer, BrMuBr, with Mu the muonium atom, alone exhibits vibrational bonding in accord with its possible observation in a recent experiment on the Mu + Br2 reaction,” the team reports in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Accordingly, BrMuBr is stabilised at the saddle point of the potential energy surface due to a net decrease in vibrational zero point energy that overcompensates the increase in potential energy.” In other words, the vibration in the bond decreased the total energy of the BrMuBr structure, which means that even when the temperature was increased, there was not enough energy to see an increase in the reaction time. *While the team only witnessed the vibrational bond occurring in a bromine and muonium reaction, they suspect it can also be found in interactions between lightweight and heavy atoms, where van der Waal’s forces are assumed to be at play.* The work confirms that vibrational bonds - fleeting though they may be - should be added to the list of known chemical bonds,” says Nordrum at Scientific American. Sorry, future high school chemistry students, here's another thing you'll probably have to rote learn. Source: Scientific American --- This link has a diagram of the potential energy curve for a vibrational bond: A new type of chemical bond has been confirmed – the vibrational bond http://www.zmescience.com/science/chemistry/new-kind-chemical-vibrational-bond-0543543/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
Jed, Do you have information about where the ambient temperature was during this long time period? I and my simulation would expect the temperature to remain constant after enough time has elapsed when the only heating source is the pump and the ambient remains constant. If we know the temperature of the ambient as well as the temperature of the water, then we will know the product of the thermal resistance and the pump power. Only a time constant measurement can yield the value of each of these provided we know the thermal capacity of the test system. That is assumed to be 41000 joules per degree C per your report. I have an extremely accurate measurement of the thermal resistance from the data you supplied which is .67 degrees C per Watt. My simulation was so accurate that it displayed an error of less than .02 degrees C. over an extended time period. The data I used was for the October 22 set where I followed the temperature transient from the peak reading for many hours afterwards. The actual time points were from 21610 up to 43217 seconds on that set. This period was right at 6 hours long and the temperatures were changing smoothly the entire time. So, if you have that constant ambient value, we can run a second check. It seems a little strange that the coolant was at that low of a temperature---17.64 degrees with the lab heating on. Most of the data you published shows the ambient at nearly 22 degrees C during normal working hours with the heat on. I bet the data was obtained during a long period without heating. Check that out and see if there is an explanation for the low temperatures. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 30, 2015 2:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report And . . . Here is definitive proof of what I say. It happens that Mizuno sent me a large data set which includes about 35 hours where nothing was happening. He left the computer running, and he left the heating on so the ambient temperature was reasonably stable. I see it was especially stable during the last 28 hours. The pump was also running all this time. Here are the cooling water temperatures for the first 14 hours and the second 14 hours: First 14: Average 17.85°C, min 17.64°C, max 18.08°C Last 14: Average 17.81°C, min 17.65°C, max 18.10°C There is no difference. The pump did not change the temperature. Using the adiabatic method of calorimetry we see zero heat in this data set. There is NO INCREASE in the water temperature even though the pump is adding heat the whole time. It has reached the terminal temperature for the pump input. Really, people should stop debating this. The pump cannot possibly affect this method of calorimetry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: All measurements should be accomplished with as much precision as possible, since adiabatic calorimetry is not possible without adiabatic conditions. You mean it is not perfectly insulated. No system is. When the level of heat is very small, such as the heat from the pump, the system soon reaches a terminal temperature. This instrument works for sustained power levels of ~2 W to ~30 W. The heat from the pump is too low to measure with confidence using this instrument. No calorimeter works well at any power level. It is not possible to make adiabatic conditions for any temperature or power level. As Dave has indicated the heat lost of the pump to the ambient is not adiabatic and of significant amplitude relative to excess heat generation over time. Yes. It is not adiabatic. If it were adiabatic, the water would not come to a terminal temperature. It would not record 14 hours at 17.85°C average, and the next 14 after that at 17.81°C. That is remarkably stable. Fluctuations from ambient air temperature hardly affect it. With such a low power level it soon converts into an isoperibolic system. I tried to estimate the pump power based on the difference between the ambient and the terminal temperature. I find this is not possible because the ambient temperature is unstable and it varies from one place to another. The air is being moved around by fans and room heaters. I see from my lab notes that when I placed the two Omega handheld thermocouple probes in different locations they often measured air temperature differences of 0.3°C and sometimes more. The Omega typically measured air temperatures close to the reactor at about 0.3°C lower than the reading from Mizuno's ambient thermocouple. So there's really no telling how much cooler the air was than the cooling water. It is somewhere between 0.6 and 1.2°C, I believe. That is more of a guess than a measurement. If I were trying to do calorimetry based on the difference between the cooling water and the air, the answer would be inaccurate to the point of being useless. Fortunately, I need only compare the cooling water at the start of the test to the end of the test. - Jed
[Vo]:preparing the LENR race
Dear Readers, I regret that I cannot offer you just now the up-to-dated Parkhomov paper but it is under way. However please read this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/lenr-race-first-remove-obstacles.html and let's think together - but for Science'sake NOT do groupthink! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
I wrote: If I were trying to do calorimetry based on the difference between the cooling water and the air, the answer would be inaccurate to the point of being useless. Fortunately, I need only compare the cooling water at the start of the test to the end of the test. We did, in fact, try to do calorimetry based on the difference between the cooling water and the air, and the reactor surface and the air. It was extremely inaccurate. That is why we went to this method instead. The results from the previous methods do indicate excess heat but the error margin is huge. That was with much higher input power. The reactor metal was exposed and it was too hot to touch in some cases. The results indicate that output power was also high -- much higher than now -- but with such a larger error margin I have no confidence in the results. It is better to get a small result with a high signal-to-noise ratio that a huge result which is plus/minus ~30%. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
I would say that the thermal energy from the pump which is added to the circulating water in the Mizuno experiment should be driven by the differential temperature between the body of the pump and the circulating water. In addition the differential temperature between the pump body and the ambient air temperature near the pump should be measured to allow calculation of a pump-to-ambient heat transfer coeff. From what I have seen the pump heat-to-circulating water is NOT stable, since the ambient temperature changes significantly as may the air circulation around the pumps, both of which would change the effective heat transfer coeff. of the pump body to ambient. Assuming the 3 measurements give a good average temperature for each region (the pump body, the circulating water and the near pump ambient, with these measurements heat energy input using calibration experiments should be accomplished to establish heat transfer coeff's and transient time constants, as Dave has accomplished. A balance of the pump's electrical input energy with the transfer of mechanical energy and thermal energy into the flowing water and the loss of thermal energy to the ambient environment should be possible and confirmed by the heat transfer modeling calculations. All measurements should be accomplished with as much precision as possible, since adiabatic calorimetry is not possible without adiabatic conditions. As Dave has indicated the heat lost of the pump to the ambient is not adiabatic and of significant amplitude relative to excess heat generation over time. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Finally, the leakage power entering the water from the pump has to be determined since it has a significant effect upon the total calculation. Even though it is on continuously, it is impossible to achieve an accurate calculation without its influence being considered. The power has to be measured, but it does not have to be measured with precision. As long as you show that it remains the same at all times, then you can be sure this heat is included in the baseline and it cannot affect the adiabatic calorimetry. The calibrations show that the pump heat is stable, but it is difficult to measure exactly how much heat this is. The pump heat is low, and it can only be measured when everything else in the system is turned off. This means total heat is close to zero and the noise from ambient temperature changes drown the signal. Calorimetry always works better power level above zero. When a calorimeter measures from 0 to 10 W, it can detect the difference between 1.0 and 1.1 W with greater confidence than between 0.0 and 0.1 W. The pump is described here: http://www.iwakipumps.com.vn/doc_viewer.aspx?fileName=/upload/file/md.pdf There are two sources of heat from the pump, and they are both likely to stable: 1. Work by the pump itself, by the impeller. The pump consumes 10.8 W of electricity. The other pumps in the MD series are 15% efficient, so the pump cannot deliver more than 1.5 W of mechanical energy. It probably delivers much less than this. In any case, power consumption is steady so mechanical power will also be steady. 2. Heat from the motor. There is no direct, physical connection between the motor and the pump. As shown in the figure on p. 4, the motor turns a magnet, which turns another magnet inside a waterproof section at the end of the pump. The second magnet turns the impeller. This is done to make pump waterproof and gas tight. This also minimizes the heat conducted from the pump motor to the impeller. Very little heat will be conducted by this path because plastic is a poor conductor; and because the motor is designed to be self cooling; the pump housing is cool to the touch; and Mizuno has a small fan blowing on the pump at all times. The conductivity of the plastic shell cannot change, so however much heat it conducts, as long as the motor consumes the same amount of power the level of conducted heat must be the same. Therefore it cannot affect the adiabatic calorimetery. It was then possible to subtract this curve from the measured coolant temperature response to have a clear view of the true signal that is generated by the power pulse entering the system and any excess power it originates. I added a three pole digital filter following the subtraction to eliminate most of the nasty noise remaining. This is complicated because you do not know how much anomalous heat there is in the first place. That is what you are trying to derive. We need calibrations without any reactive Pd metal in the reactor, and no anomalous heat, so that we know exactly how much energy is input and output. I
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
And . . . Here is definitive proof of what I say. It happens that Mizuno sent me a large data set which includes about 35 hours where nothing was happening. He left the computer running, and he left the heating on so the ambient temperature was reasonably stable. I see it was especially stable during the last 28 hours. The pump was also running all this time. Here are the cooling water temperatures for the first 14 hours and the second 14 hours: First 14: Average 17.85°C, min 17.64°C, max 18.08°C Last 14: Average 17.81°C, min 17.65°C, max 18.10°C There is no difference. The pump did not change the temperature. Using the adiabatic method of calorimetry we see *zero heat* in this data set. There is NO INCREASE in the water temperature even though the pump is adding heat the whole time. It has reached the terminal temperature for the pump input. Really, people should stop debating this. The pump cannot possibly affect this method of calorimetry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
I agree that the pump power is not going to screw up the calculations as long as it is constant. It looks like just any other constant signal that will be subtracted off by your technique. The same protection is given to the errors in ambient measurements such as an offset. Once you hold the true ambient constant you will have to deal with the leakage of the signals that occur before you make the last measurement. Take a look at my calculation of how much is going to escape through the thermal resistance. I can clearly see the tilt downwards with my model. We could compensate for the signal droop if you wish. We know the time constant and can effectively boost signals that have been drained as a result of its operation. That will likely double the number of joules you measure from the pulse train. First, lets get the ambient variation under control and then we can clean up the loose ends. It looks like the thermometer is not the source of the ripples. Maybe I am seeing the HVAC cycles on and off. The period is in the ballpark of 1000 seconds. The odd thing about it is that it is appearing upon the coolant measurement itself as well as the ambient. The large coolant thermal capacitance should filter them from that waveform. We might be seeing an issue with noise getting into the electronics instead of the calorimeter. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 30, 2015 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Using that delta we would have 2 watts of excess heat leaking into the system. From the pump? That is plausible. ~1.5 W from the mechanical work of the impeller, and ~0.5 W from motor heat conduction. However, I hope you now agree that this will not affect the adiabatic calorimetry, given that the temperature was so stable for 28 hours. I was astounded to see it was so stable! Any heat pulse or anomalous heat will be on top of this baseline. Perhaps the thermometer output varies in accurate steps of .01 degree increments? I doubt that. It is coming from a 1980s vintage HP A/D interface. I do not think that was limited to 2-digit accuracy. Watch out for your spreadsheet settings. I think I uploaded it set to round to the nearest 0.01. Change the setting and you will see more digits appear. I do not know how many are significant. It does not take much to throw off the air temperature measurements. Move a fan or a space heater a little and bang, you have a half-degree change. It is fortunate the reactor is under such heavy insulation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not get anywhere near to the 3 to 1 excess power out over input power that is reported. I am seeing a 1.25 ratio instead of 3.0 or so. Oh, I think you did see the 3 to 1 excess, and the 6:1 as well. Keep looking! Look at Table 1. You got 1:1.25 for the water on Oct. 21. Right? I estimate 1:1.35, which is close enough. Now look at Oct. 20, which got a much better ratio with the water, 1:2.29. NOW add in the heat captured by the stainless steel reactor vessel. The thermal mass of the reactor is larger than that of the water, so I estimated that the vessel captures 60% of the heat, and the water 40%. So, the combined ratio for Oct. 20, for the water and stainless steel, is 1:5.69 Try applying your method to the Oct. 20 data and see if you get an answer in the same ballpark. Additional calibrations are underway. I believe I will soon be able to confirm that the reactor vessel is, in fact, capturing 60% of the heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
Sorry about the late response to this important posting. I was diverted by many interruptions and lost track of where I was before they arose. You have made so many interesting points that I may fail to address them all properly, and if that happens please send them back for another run. :-) I agree that the pump power and any trims applied by my model for calibration purposes will be balanced out over the long term if it remains constant. This assumes that the coolant temperature is measured both before and then after the input power pulses have completed their effects upon the coolant. Under this condition, there remains a constant temperature difference between the coolant and the ambient that is briefly modified by the power pulses but returns to the original difference after several external time constants have passed. The signal begins to leak from the thermal capacitance immediately upon being deposited by each pulse. This is a significant amount of signal loss, especially for the first of the series of pulses. If for example 3 pulses are generated, the first one at a time of 0 seconds and the value of the pulse magnitude generates a 1.0 degree change within the thermal capacity the remaining amount of signal after 6.2 hours is only 1.0 * e^(-6.2*3600/27470). This calculates out to be .4437 degrees. The residual for the second pulse that occurs at 2 hours is less effected but only .576 degrees of delta remains for a 1.0 degree signal. The thermal leakage has eaten up nearly half of the original signal and that is one of the major reasons that the time constant must be very large for this type of calorimeter to be applied to this type of device if accuracy is required. The actual amount of pump power that is leaking into the system can be determined by the time domain response of the system or by a static and accurate measurement of the difference between the ambient temperature and the coolant temperature. The data submitted within the November report contained an excellent period of time after the last pulse was generated until late in that evening. The curve of coolant temperature displayed a slope of zero at what is referred to as the peak level on October 22 at approximately 6.8 hours. It so happens that the peak occurs at exactly the temperature at which the leakage power of the pump times the thermal resistance equals the difference in temperature between the coolant and the ambient. This is because the ambient is slowly dropping throughout that time period. When the ambient plus the contribution of the pump is greater than the coolant, it rises. When they match, the system is static for a short period of time. And, once the ambient plus pump effect is below the coolant temperature, the coolant begins to cool off. This allows me to get an estimate of the pump leakage power. My technique has a form of self calibration included in its operation. The input power is accurately known and thus the number of joules deposited per pulse can be calculated. This energy due to the input alone can not escape by any means except the thermal resistance of the device. Since we know the thermal capacitance by your calculation, we know exactly how much temperature delta should be contained due to each pulse. My model subtracts off the effects due to ambient variation and therefore each pulse is capable of direct measurement. The amount of signal leakage due to the modest external time constant is relatively small just after a pulse completes. At the moment I am seeing about a 25 % increase in each pulse amplitude compared to what is expected and I am assuming that is due to excess power. It would be great to have a known dummy system so that I can verify that the 25% is real and not due to an error in the assumptions. I do not get anywhere near to the 3 to 1 excess power out over input power that is reported. I am seeing a 1.25 ratio instead of 3.0 or so. Perhaps I misread the report, but it seemed to be clear within it that the number of joules you determined at the output was in the vicinity of 100,000 while the signal only contained 30,000 joules. I am seeing more like 30,000 * 1.25 joules output. And, that is including both of the parts of the system with a heat capacity of 41000 joules per degree C. I do not neglect to include the HVAC system in any manner. The effect of these systems is shown in the room ambient conditions. When I take the ambient data supplied and the initial water temperature as inputs and predict the time domain temperature of the water to within .1 degrees C for many hours into the future, something must be working right. I am applying reasonable assumptions supported by careful measurements and calibration techniques. It is not easy, but it is good practice. My model is relatively simple and effective and the fact that the operating temperatures are low makes the system
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
My model is able to take modest ambient variations into account and subtract their effect from the measured coolant temperature. This is not too difficult since the external time constant is so large. It also is able to handle pump leakage power very well. It turns out that the ambient can be broken into two parts. One is the average that is applied to the system during the period of interest and the second part is the variation from that average. The pump power leakage is added to the constant component of the ambient to end up with a step response that operates through the thermal resistance as it charges the thermal capacitance. If you recall from simple electrical theory, the voltage step response of a series resistance leading to a parallel capacitance is an exponential function of the type V(t) = V(0) * (1 - e^(t/rc)). Here the thermal resistance and capacitance is what we know, and of course the time is real time. The V(0) is the final temperature (voltage in a real rc) that the capacitance reaches (coolant temperature) when many time constants has elapsed. It so happens in this system that V(0) is determined by taking the constant average value of the ambient temperature and adding it to the constant pump power multiplied by the system's thermal resistance. It should be understood that we can adjust the pump power term to trim slight unknowns associated with those two constants. For example Jed mentions that the thermometers are not exact or perfectly match. In that case we adjust the equivalent pump power term slightly to compensate for the error. After this adjustment excellent agreement is seen over a wide range of temperatures. The variation with ambient over time, determined earlier by subtraction from the mean, is then treated as a signal that is applied to the series resistance to parallel capacitor network. I used a single integrating term to handle this process. The time steps are those given in the report exactly as posted. In this particular system the effect of this noise is modest when compared to the large step response generated by the constant average ambient temperature input. If I recall it amounts to less than .2 degrees C at most points in time and is handled properly by the model. Keep in mind that my simulation very accurately follows the real life model. If it were poorly constructed that would not happen. The time domain signal due to the input heating pulse is clearly visible along with any excess power that may be generated. If it works this well with the amount of ambient variation presently measured then it is going to be quite a powerful tool once that is reduced. Jed, you really should take a step back and realize that the excess power numbers that you reported are not correct. As I pointed out, the heat energy contained within the thermal capacitance of the test system leaked out enough during the evening hours when the heating system was turned off to invalidate the measurements taken too soon afterwards. This is obviously displayed within the figures that you posted. The water and or cell temperatures were already rising before any of the pulses were applied to the device. This was certainly due to the fact that the step in average ambient temperature plus its pump addition is starting to drive the system temperature towards a temperature that is significantly higher than the initial coolant temperature at the beginning of the test period. Also, as I have pointed out several times, I can see each of the individual pulses and measure the change in temperature they generate. This can be done on a very short time frame before a significant amount of energy can leak away from the thermal capacitance. The numbers as reported in November would be seen as a huge increase that I could not miss. And, you need to realize that most of the excess power you calculated will evaporate as soon as the ambient is held constant. My model is much better than you appear to believe. It is important that the we ultimately determine the true behavior of the LENR systems that we are testing. That is all that I am attempting to do at this time and if I make an error then it is great for someone to point it out to me so that I can learn from the experience. I assume that everyone else shares that desire. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 30, 2015 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: All measurements should be accomplished with as much precision as possible, since adiabatic calorimetry is not possible without adiabatic conditions. You mean it is not perfectly insulated. No system is. When the level of heat is very small, such as the heat from the pump, the system soon reaches a terminal
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
Using that delta we would have 2 watts of excess heat leaking into the system. My method of determining the .67 was not using a static measurement. I did trust your number of 41000 joules per degree C. as being accurate. Once that value is pegged, the time domain response follows an RC time constant very closely. So closely in fact that I obtain an error of less than .02 degrees C between what my model calculates and what is measured during the complete 6 hour period. The error varies in an approximately equal positive and negative magnitude as time progresses. I see what appears to be quantization noise across the average value of temperature. Perhaps the thermometer output varies in accurate steps of .01 degree increments? My three pole IIR filter smooths out the more rapid variations to reveal a nice smooth sine like waveform having a relatively long period. In my calibration technique I adjusted the assumed value of the thermal resistance and viewed the resulting error magnitude of the coolant temperature. At each value of resistance I carefully adjusted the trim pump power term to get the least error. The best fit was found with the value of .67 ohms applied. I believe this result is reasonable but can adjust it if further data is made available. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 30, 2015 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Do you have information about where the ambient temperature was during this long time period? For the entire 28 hours it is: Average 16.67°C, min 15.93°C, max 17.30°C The difference between the ambient and water settles to a much larger value than it did in the past. It is 1.39°C in this case. I think this changed after he put the tent over the experiment. It must have been in a pocket of warm air or something like that. He installed fans to make the air temperature more homogeneous. The temperature swings are much smaller than before, because of the tent. I have an extremely accurate measurement of the thermal resistance from the data you supplied which is .67 degrees C per Watt. That is what I got previously but I think it is changed. Or I guess I should say, I do not think the ambient temperature measurement is trustworthy to within a half-degree. After a lot of frustration, I decided to stop trying to derive the pump heat from on the basis of the difference between the water and air temperatures. I'm going to wait for additional calibration data and try and get it from that. - Jed
[Vo]:Re:the hole truth and nothing but
Hi, I have updated http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/LiHy4-.pdf to take account of actual size of Li ions, at each stage, after removing electrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
This is an ongoing project I suppose. I will check the Oct 20 data again, but I believe I got roughly the same amount of excess. That seems too good to be true. What do you mean by considering that the reactor vessel is capturing 60% of the heat? Are you referring to the idea that the water and reactor have a combined capture of 100%? That would seem logical if the thermal capacity of each is considered. It is good to continue with the calibrations and I hope that the ambient is better controlled at this phase. We can make the calorimeter work well once it is properly compensated to take out the signal droop. The main issue is to keep the ambient variations to a minimum. One thought to consider. If something happens to disrupt the system, you can wait a few time constants until the ambient average changes work their way out of the calorimeter system. A good test of that condition is to measure the difference between the ambient and the coolant. Once that difference is equal to the nominal value set by the product of the thermal resistance and the leakage powers, you are good to go. Of course, you must ensure that the ambient is not varying too far since that immediately impacts the heat flowing into and out of the thermal capacity. It is assumed that the average ambient is constant which will prevent any major transients. This system should work well with the right precautions and compensations. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 30, 2015 8:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not get anywhere near to the 3 to 1 excess power out over input power that is reported. I am seeing a 1.25 ratio instead of 3.0 or so. Oh, I think you did see the 3 to 1 excess, and the 6:1 as well. Keep looking! Look at Table 1. You got 1:1.25 for the water on Oct. 21. Right? I estimate 1:1.35, which is close enough. Now look at Oct. 20, which got a much better ratio with the water, 1:2.29. NOW add in the heat captured by the stainless steel reactor vessel. The thermal mass of the reactor is larger than that of the water, so I estimated that the vessel captures 60% of the heat, and the water 40%. So, the combined ratio for Oct. 20, for the water and stainless steel, is 1:5.69 Try applying your method to the Oct. 20 data and see if you get an answer in the same ballpark. Additional calibrations are underway. I believe I will soon be able to confirm that the reactor vessel is, in fact, capturing 60% of the heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Using that delta we would have 2 watts of excess heat leaking into the system. From the pump? That is plausible. ~1.5 W from the mechanical work of the impeller, and ~0.5 W from motor heat conduction. However, I hope you now agree that this will not affect the adiabatic calorimetry, given that the temperature was so stable for 28 hours. I was astounded to see it was so stable! Any heat pulse or anomalous heat will be on top of this baseline. Perhaps the thermometer output varies in accurate steps of .01 degree increments? I doubt that. It is coming from a 1980s vintage HP A/D interface. I do not think that was limited to 2-digit accuracy. Watch out for your spreadsheet settings. I think I uploaded it set to round to the nearest 0.01. Change the setting and you will see more digits appear. I do not know how many are significant. It does not take much to throw off the air temperature measurements. Move a fan or a space heater a little and bang, you have a half-degree change. It is fortunate the reactor is under such heavy insulation. - Jed
