*"During the setup of the laboratory in Milan various improvements were introduced by the DE technicians and scientists concerning the calorimetry measurement. In particular a method independent of the flow rate measurement has been developed based on the heating of a large amount of water contained in a large tank and circulated through a pump in a closed circuit.*
*This must be “constant volume heat capacity Calorimetry” where the volume of water in the take remains constant but the pressure of the water increases as the temperature of the water rises.* *Since the highly insolated tank holds a large volume of water, the holding tank requires a stirrer so that the water in the tank does not stratify. * *As the water rises in temperature, the water transfers less heat in a constant flow of water.* As the reactor coils begins to cool and the cold water begins to warm, the difference in their temperatures decrease and the rate of heat transfer decreases. As thermal equilibrium is approached, their temperatures are approaching the same value. With the temperature difference approaching zero, the rate of heat transfer approaches zero. In conclusion, the rate of conductive heat transfer between two locations is affected by the temperature difference between the two locations. In addition, throughout a heat exchange, the mass-flow rate should remain constant, but changes in temperature and pressure can change the volumetric flow rate. So a water flow should be stated as a mass flow, a volumetric flow at standard conditions, or as a volumetric flow including temperature and pressure. To insure thermal stability of the reactor, the circulating pump should provide a variable flow and be calibrated to insure that the mass flow remains constant. If the graphical presentation of the demo is meant to show a running COP vs. the time of reactor operation, the Computer program that renders the graphical interface would be required to be rewritten to take into account the new complex interplay of variables that accompany the change in the type of Calorimetry*. * To avoid errors in theoretical analysis in these variables, a calibration of the new Calorimetry system is best accomplished by using an electrical resistive simulation of the system by developing a dummy reactor that can producing a variable electric heat source that varies between 2 and 5 kilowatts of power in a periodic cycle to simulate the operation of the reactor in real-time. Such a simulation would run into the tens of thousands of dollars and require an extended timeframe to complete. Once this simulation was calibrated, the data is then input into the graphical rendering program to accurately show a real-time COP. Temperature of the water is meaningless because of the complex interplay of thermal variables with time. *This measure is independent of the measurement of the flow through the coil and it would remove any doubt about the heat measurement. DGT has not allowed DE to use such measurement in none of the tests of their technology.* IMHO, this is reasonable on the part of the DGT personnel because the change in calorimetric approach is disruptive to the entire range of the demos initial design and setup. The new calorimetric approach is also expensive to design, recode, and calibrate. *As a further improvement we added a second flowmeter upstream of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main flowmeter during the measurement of the excess power but also in this case the added flowmeter was readily removed by the DGT technicians forbidding us to make any verification."* This is reasonable on the part of the *DGT technicians *since Water flow has been removed as a valid variable in the new *“constant volume heat capacity Calorimetry” approach *for this demo. In conclusion, it sounds to me even as a laymen in calorimetry that the DGT Europe group did not know what they were doing…they were inept. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> You are naïve to believe this man who claims fraud as opposed to >> incompetence in setting up a demo for the first time. >> > > He did not set up the demo! The people from Defkalion did. When he tried > to change it, they came in and removed all of his equipment, changing it > back: > > "During the setup of the laboratory in Milan various improvements were > introduced by the DE technicians and scientists concerning the calorimetry > measurement. In particular a method independent of the flow rate > measurement has been developed based on the heating of a large amount of > water contained in a large tank and circulated through a pump in a closed > circuit. This measure is independent of the measurement of the flow through > the coil and it would remove any doubt about the heat measurement. DGT has > not allowed DE to use such measurement in none of the tests of their > technology. As a further improvement we added a second flowmeter upstream > of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main flowmeter > during the measurement of the excess power but also in this case the added > flowmeter was readily removed by the DGT technicians forbidding us to make > any verification." > > (I think "readily" means "quickly.") > > No one at Defkalion has disputed this report. > > I agree he was incompetent for not doing a proper evaluation, and for not > insisting that the flow rate be tested. The experimental setup was > incompetent. But it was not his incompetence. > > - Jed > >
