Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Do I have this right? See the graphs on this page:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/tests/mahg2c.htm
In the graph for test run 76, the fluctuating green line is water
flow in liters per minute. The red and blue lines do not fluctuate.
They are "temp input" and "temp output" which I presume means
cooling water
Don't think so. That's the water he's running the reaction with;
it's not 'disinterested' "cooling water".
That's what I thought at first, but it seems like the gadget is
closed, and this is cooling water flowing around the inner shell.
Isn't that what is shown here?
Er hrmph... Yes, you're right, that is what is shown. "Water cooled"
device, it says, and the reactor is filled with H2 gas...
But getting back to the rock-solid input/output temps -- the input temp
is certainly controlled, by that outboard cooler shown in one or two
diagrams. The temperature rise is a degree or less in most runs, so the
output temperature is also _almost_ constant. Let's take a closer close
look at a couple of these graphs; I think they make sense.
First red/blue/green graph is for run 76, which you just mentioned, and
it's about a quarter of the way down this page:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/tests/mahg2c.htm
The green (water flow) line wiggles down just after time 0:43, by a
substantial amount. Looking at the righthand scale, we see that it
actually went from about 0.56 liters/min to about 0.45 liters/min, a
drop of about 20%. The temp rise is about 1 degree. If everything's
linear -- probably a bad assumption, but let's assume it anyway and see
where it leads -- the temp rise should have gone from 1 degree to about
1.2 degrees, or a bit less, since the green line didn't _stay_ down at
0.45 l/m for very long at all. That's a pretty small blip; would we
even see it? Look closely at the red line on that graph -- it does,
indeed, blip up a little bit, shortly after the green line drops. I
can't tell you if it goes up by 0.2 degrees, relative to the blue line,
but it's probably pretty close.
Let's jump down to the last red/blue/green graph on the page, about 8/10
of the way down. This is for run number 83. It's got a _much_ larger
temperature rise -- about 3.5 degrees, it looks like. At about time
0:50 the green line drops by quite a lot -- looks like it it's running
at about 0.41 l/m, spikes very briefly, then drops down to about 0.31
l/m, and then back up to about 0.42 l/m. The drop is about 24%. That
would be a rise of about 0.85 degrees. Look at the red line -- it goes
up by what looks like at least half a degree at that point, relative to
the blue line. So, there's the rise, as we would expect. Then, coming
out of the dip, the flow rate is a bit higher than it was -- and the
blue line seems to be a bit higher than it was previously, relative to
the red line; the temp rise is now smaller, as the flow is faster.
So, I can't say his numbers are all dead-on, but his graphs at least
seem to pass a basic sanity test.
(I'd still bet just about any amount of money against the process
showing a real violation of the first law, but that's just my
narrow-minded point of view -- it doesn't have anything to do with
obvious flaws in the method...)
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/tests/index.htm
This looks like a cooling water loop to me:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/setup.htm
Also, the flow is so large it would have to be fracturing water at a
fantastic rate. 500 to 600 ml per minute! Actually, I think that is
too much for ordinary flow calorimetry but maybe they have a lot of
heat to remove from the cell. 500 ml = 28 moles. If that is how much
water they are disassociating, it works out to be 8 MJ per minute, or
133 kW, which is ridiculous.
Yes, you were right about that.
- Jed
