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/ >> >> 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 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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >>> *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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Jeff Driscoll > 617-290-1998 > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
