Dave and Gigi-- The pump used in the Mizuno test was a Iwaki Co. Magnet Pump, MD-6K-N. This reflects the information provided by Jed on page 20 of his report.
I was not able to find that specific pump model on the Iwaki web page, but did find a similar one, MD-6 8l/11l which indicates the range of flow it is rated for. These specified rated capacities are 8.7 liters per min. at .25 A and 115 Volts AC and 11.7 liters per min. at .4 A and 115 Volts AC. This is a range of wattage from about 29 watts to 46 watts for this Iwaki. Similar pump specs for Iwaki pumps can be found at the following web page: https://gsvit.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/md.pdf Jed calculated that the test setup cooled at a rate of about 1.7 watts (page 16 of his report) without heat input. The Iwaik pump, if running, would have added heat at about 29 watts per the pump specification. This was more than enough to raise the temperature without any reactor heat source given the recorded decrease of 1.7 watts when nothing was running or reacting. This is based on information about the pump specs in the Vendors tech papers regarding a similar pump. Dave is correct that the increased flow rate would involve increased power from the pump at 16 liters per minute. However, the pump was not rated for such flow and would not have been able to handle it. (See the pump head curve specifications for a similar MD- 6 pump in the above reference web page.) The argument between Gigi and Dave regarding kinetic energy of flow is purely academic. It does not relate the Mizuno test as far as I can tell. I wonder what kind of pump Gigi was using to get the flow at 8 l per minute through the small tube, half the size of the tubes used in the Mizuno test as I understand. In summary and IMHO, I doubt the Mizuno test produced any excess heat. Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised Dear Gigi, You must remember that I am only speaking of the kinetic energy transported power and not that due to friction or other means. It is obvious that as the velocity of a mass approaches zero that the kinetic energy of that mass goes toward zero as the square of the velocity ratio. There is zero kinetic energy at zero velocity. I assume that you agree with that statement. If not, then we definitely have a major disagreement. When you decided to use a 5 mm pipe for your experiment you caused the power being transported by means of the kinetic energy of the fluid to become quite large. As a matter of fact, that decision made the power increase by a factor of 16 when compared to what Mizuno experiences with a 10 mm pipe. Also, you must realize by now that the mass flow rate of water must be kept constant for this to happen. If you can show me why this is not true, I will be happy to accept the proof. Of course, if other processes lead to a large amount of excess power, that is not the same. I await your demonstration. :-) Dave -----Original Message----- From: Gigi DiMarco <gdmgdms...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Jan 10, 2015 4:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised Dear Dave, you still insist on your calculation neglecting what I wrote to you in an earlier message regarding the fact that increasing the pipe the power goes to zero when calculated according to your mathematics. We have just published the new experiment with the theory and diagrams behind it. https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/ulteriori-misure-sulla-pompa-md-6k-n-utilizzata-da-tadahiko-mizuno/ Unfortunately it is only in Italian; you have to wait a bit to have the official English translation I'm not sure to finish it by tomorrow. However, google translate makes a good job. Feel free to make all your comments; I'd rather like on our site so that is very easy for us to reply. 2015-01-10 21:06 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>: Thanks Jed. If the water alone recovers 1.3 watts with average drive drive, and more resides within the vessel, then you are in great shape. If you have the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could ask Dr. Mizuno about the measured flow rate. My earlier calculation using 9 liters per minute clearly suggests that the skeptics made a major error by using the 5 mm pipe. As the calculations show, they will find that kinetic energy and thus power transport will be 16 times as much as seen had they used 10 mm pipe assuming the flow rate is constant. As you know I am discussing this aspect of their report and hope to resolve the issue soon. I am confident in my analysis. I have approached the problem from a couple of different directions and keep getting the same result. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Jan 10, 2015 2:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Jed, looking at figure 6, the Oct 21 data I calculate that the average power is 1.3888 watts. That is 20 watts * 500 seconds / 7200 seconds = 1.3888 watts. Yes, that is the answer I got, in Table 1. However, bear in mind that is for the water alone. Not for the reactor, which has a slightly larger thermal mass than the water, and much worse insulation. Estimating that, I get 3.4 W total, on average. Based on a very rough estimate of unaccounted for heat losses and Newton's law of cooling I guess the actual average power is about 7 W. In other words, the reactor metal plus the water are recovering about half of the heat. If Mizuno applies that amount of power continuously what would you expect the temperature to do? With 1.3 W input I expect to see nothing, as I said in the paper on p. 9. That is, in fact, what I saw when I did a similar test. There is too much noise, and the water recovers only about one-fourth of the heat, as I said. So I figure you would have to input ~7 W continuously to see this temperature rise. Mizuno hopes to do that kind of simulation but I do not know when. Actually, now that ambient fluctuations are reduced, you might see 1.3 W in the reactor. That would put ~0.5 W into the water I guess, about twice as much as the pump. It might raise the water temperature by ~1 deg C after an hour or two. It is hard to say. The only way to find out is to do a test and measure it. My gut feeling is that the temperature would increase along a constant slope once the transients are settled down. Well, it increases for a while, but at low power it then soon stops rising as the calorimeter goes from being adiabatic to isoperibolic. That takes 1.4 hours at ~0.2 W. I do not know how long it takes at 0.5 W or 3 W. At any power level it must eventually stop heating, when losses equal input power. Losses increase with the rising temperature, per Newton's law. Also, can you verify that the water flow rate is actually nominally 8 liters per minute? That's what Mizuno said. I suppose he measured it when dumping out the cooling water. He had to change out the Dewar reservoir a couple of times. I think that is what the pump spec. sheet says. There is hardly any resistance, and no grade, so I guess it should be close to maximum performance. - Jed
