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 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 the pump specifications indicate the pump uses about 22 watts. However,
The specifications for the amperage and voltage during operation would indicate
the 29 watts I suggested some time ago. 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. I will report on
what I find. However, it would appear the pump is only about 15% efficient at
best in converting electrical energy into the mechanical energy causing the
circulation. At low circuit frictional pressure drop (low heads) it appears
even less efficient. I was wrong in assuming an efficient pump.
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 on the side of the pump
body. In addition I do not think I have the same description of a "baseline"
that your make reference to.
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. This would allow a reasonable determination of the average
thermal resistance of the insulation and hence a measure of the approach to a
desired adiabatic condition of the test setup. In any case a good description
of "baseline" conditions is warranted.
In addition, if you have information as to when it was determined that excess
reaction heat was produced in the reactor, this would be helpful in comparing
temperature profiles with rates of change, compared to times when there was no
excess energy input to the system. For example, when is the excess energy
produced with respect to the time the spikes of electrical heat are applied to
the electrodes? In this regard it seems that the excess energy production, if
any, does not continue indefinitely, since the temperature increase levels off
and then decrease without the spikes of electrical input to the electrodes.
However, does it continue in the time frame between spikes of input energy to
the electrodes.
The temperature of the system and water bath should return to the "baseline"
with time, if the only input is the energy was from the pump. If excess energy
form a reaction continues the temperature should level out at somewhat above
the baseline. This would be nice confirmation of excess energy.
I summary I have the following additional questions:
What is the date of your latest report of the Mizuno test? Does it exist
on-line: If so, what is the link? Is there any information from the Mizuno
testing as to when excess energy from an unknown reaction starts and stops? Is
there a good definition of "baseline"?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised
Bob Cook made two large mistakes here. I wish he -- and others -- would
The Iwaik pump, if running, would have added heat at about 29 watts per the
pump specification.
In my report, p. 24, I list the pump specifications. Mizuno measured the pump
input power with the watt meter. It is 10.8 W, not 29 W. However, only a tiny
fraction of this power is delivered to the water. Mizuno measured how much is
delivered. It was only ~0.4 W. If you do not think so, explain why Fig. 19 is
wrong.
You can confirm that nearly all the electric power converts to heat at the
pump motor. Touch a pump and you will feel the heat radiating. Many pumps
have fans that blow the hot air out of the motor. With a good pump, the water
is at the other end away from the motor, and very little heat transfers to it.
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.
Suppose this is true. Suppose it was 1.7 W and suppose that raises the
temperature by 4 deg C. Pick any temperature rise you like: suppose it raises
the temperature by 10 deg C, or 20 deg C. Here is the point, which I have made
again and again:
THE TEMPERATURE WAS ALREADY that much higher when the test began. The pump
runs all the time. Using this method we measure from that starting baseline
temperature up to the terminal temperature of the test. The pump heat --
however much there is -- is already included in the baseline. Therefore we
never include it in excess heat.
You need to answer these points if you want to have a serious discussion.
- Jed
