Jed, I think you did not catch the importance of time constants in your calorimeter. I do not know how to explain it in more details. You will continue to say no forever.
Do you think that simulation are a valid tools as far as they reproduce exactly the experiments? 2015-01-12 22:10 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > Gigi DiMarco <gdmgdms...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 . . . >> > > You are wrong. This is not what I say. This is what Fig. 19 proves. If > your graphs show something else, your experiment is different. Perhaps you > are using a different kind of pump, or more pressure in the tubes, or > perhaps you have confused the effects of falling ambient temperature with > rising water temperature, as you did before. > > In the second paper you wrote: > > "GSVIT-1) We do not agree at all. The pump was not stopped during the test > and, as Rothwell says, we are speaking about a differential temperature > increase equal to +2.5°C. . . ." > > No one said the pump is stopped during the test. It runs all the time. If > it were stopped, the test would fail because the heat from the reactor > would no longer be collected. > > > The pump power turns out to be about 4 W. >> > > Suppose, for the sake of argument, that is true. And suppose that raises > the temperature by about 6°C. (Obviously that cannot be true because > nowhere do we see a 6°C elevation above ambient, but let us pretend it is > true.) In that case, all of the excess heat calculations must begin at a > baseline 6°C above ambient, because the pump is always left on. Therefore > this has absolutely no impact on the excess heat measurement. > > - Jed > >