Dave, you said nothing about simulations that should be a confirmation of our experiments. But I think that we can do something more: what will convince you that we are right and Mizuno is wrong?
Regards 2015-01-12 23:17 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>: > Dear Giancarlo, > > Thanks for publishing your report in English so that many of us that do > not speak Italian can understand it. There is no disagreement between the > method that I used to calculate the kinetic transport power and what you > would have calculated with the same numbers since we used the same basic > principles. I relied upon the information from Jed about the mass flow > rate of the pump where he stated that Mizuno had told him that it was 8 > liters per second. If you match that rate with your 5 mm pipe as you have > stated as a plan for replication of Mizuno's experiment then you will > obtain my results. > > I do not have a pump and 16 meters of 10 mm inside diameter tubing before > me to determine exactly what flow rate is obtained. It is going to be > necessary for you to either obtain a matching pipe or for us to verify > exactly what flow rate is being measured by Mizuno before a final answer > can be established. Jed apparently believes that the friction within the > 16 meter tubing is not sufficient to reduce the unloaded pump fluid flow > rate to a value that is anywhere close to the 2.31 liters per minute that > you are proposing. In your report, you state that you are matching the > performance seen by Mizuno as far as fluid flow rate is concerned but I > strongly doubt that this is occurring. > > If you make additional calculations you will see that the pressure > required at the pump output is (10 mm/5 mm)^4 or 16 times as large when > achieving the same flow rate for a 5 mm tube as compared to a 10 mm tube. > This is a dramatic difference and you find that you quickly run out of head > room when using the 5 mm tube for your test. Just this reason alone > should be sufficient for you to realize that your replication attempt is > failed. And, as further supporting evidence, the pumping power needed to > reach the 8 liters per minute flow rate when using a 10 mm tube is only > .192 watts which is well within the operational range of the MD-6. > > We can approach the power required to match Mizuno's flow rate from > another direction if you wish. The mathematics implies that the power > required to drive a certain ratio of flow rates varies as that ratio to the > third power. In your case that means (8/2.31)^3 or 41.53 times less than > to reach 8 liters per minute. To take your example: 41.53 * .074 watts = > 3.07 watts. (your numbers). So again, you would need to have 3.07 watts > of pumping power delivered to the water stream in order to reach 8 liters > per minute of mass flow rate just as I have shown. > > Giancarlo, you are the one that must defend your procedure to show that it > truly replicates the experiment conducted by Mizuno. I am merely > demonstrating why you have failed to do so. Unless you can prove that you > are not damaging the operation of the pump in some manner by your technique > then you can not expect me or anyone else to take seriously your claim that > you have proven that there is no additional power being generated by > Mizuno's device. > > Why are we expected to accept the notion that a pump that is being driven > into overload by high pressure operation per your demonstration is not > adding significant additional power into the water stream? The forces > acting upon the pump are very much increased by your choice of pipe > diameter and it does not take much imagination to expect the internal > bearings to overload in a manner that generates significant heating as a > consequence. > > I can not say with certainly that your technique is completely without > merit, but you are also left with many issue to resolve before you can > claim a good reproduction of the cooling system used by Mizuno. And, since > you see powers that fail to match those derived from the experiment, it > suggests that you are making some major error. > > If we continue to discuss this subject in additional dept, I believe that > we will eventually come to a mutual understanding with respect to your > effort. I remain neutral in my acceptance of whether or not excess power > is being generated by the Mizuno experiment and I hope that you remain > flexible. > > I await your response to this posting and perhaps we should begin > considering additional tests that you can perform to help verify the > facts. I like the horizontal flow demonstration that you used to measure > the mass flow rate for the 5 mm tubing. Can you do the same with 10 mm as > a beginning step? > > Best Regards, > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gigi DiMarco <gdmgdms...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 3:44 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised > > 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 >> >> >
