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

Reply via email to