No, never. I'm only an amateur that follows LENR from the outside. My job is different: I run a company working in the railway field (power converters): nothing to do with LENR.
2015-01-12 22:02 GMT+01:00 Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>: > 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 >
