*I missed the simulation for some reason. Where can I find that? Sorry if I overlooked it.*
In a previous message I gave you a couple of links. In the second link, in the *APPENDIX *you will find the simulation *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?* Instead, I think it suggests that you do not read carefully what we write since you seem able to understand what we write The pump absorbs from the grid a given amount of electrical power: for the sake of simplicity let's say 12 W. According to the data sheet 3 W are transformed into mechanical work and, eventually, transformed into heat inside the water. The other 9 W are directly dissipated into heat: part of this heat, as we measured is transferred to the water. It would be hard to say that if the pump wall near the water chamber is at 50°C the heat is not transferred to the water. I do not see any kind of thermal isolator in the disassembled pump. If 1.5 W is transferred to the water everything is OK. *I hope now you can remove the confusion in your mind.* 2015-01-13 0:07 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>: > 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 <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 >>> >>> >> >
