I missed the simulation for some reason. Where can I find that? Sorry if I overlooked it.
Do you have data that shows the mass flow rate when a 10 mm tube is attached to the pump output? I assume that a large pipe is on the suction port. You need to attach a full length 10 mm tube to the pump and measure the flow rate and heating as a main step. There are far too many variables associated with operation of the pump with the 5 mm pipe. I have pointed out several problems that need to be addressed. If you do this and also measure the AC power into the pump and then clean up the pump bearings so that the frictional losses are low then that will go a long way toward proving your position. Do you have any method of verifying that the frictional losses are as low as those of the pump used by Mizuno? The fact that you measure 4.5 watts versus a specification of 3 watts maximum suggests that something is wrong with your procedure. How do you explain that difference? Also, the difference between what you measure and what Mizuno and Jed measures may be nothing more than those associated with operation in a different pump pressure range and a damaged pump. These types of questions remain unanswered. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Gigi DiMarco <gdmgdms...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 5:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised 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 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
