Dear Dave, while I'm preparing the English version of the new measurement with plenty of photos and diagrams [where, as I anticipated, we found even more power going from the pump to the water], I will try to explain you why your simple mathematics does not convince me. Let's derive further consequences from it. You said that the pipe diameter can explain everything: so if we pass from 5 mm (4.3 W) to 10 mm (0.24 W) we get a decrease of a factor of 16; that's right, but why to stop here? let's proceed to 20 mm so that the dissipated power is 0.015 W or, better, to 40 mm so that the power is a really negligible 0.0009375 W.
Do you really thing this is possible or your theory is to be restricted to 5 & 10 mm diameters? You seem to miss the point that kinetic energy is only one ingredient of the dissipated power in the full Navier-Stokes description: for example what about the heat transferred from the motor to the water? Jed says it is negligible: we'll show that this is not true, you will see a photo of the pump gear and you will decide yourself. In the first experiment we deliberately chose a working point just in the middle of the head-flow diagram where the efficiency is the highest: it was clear to us that when moving the working point towards zero head (increasing the pipe diameter) the dissipated power would have increase despite your mathematics; it is always this way, it's enought to take a complete (H, efficiency, P)-flow diagram of a pump; unfortunately such complete diagram is not available for the pump under test so we had to perform a further (short) experiment. However, I invite you to use some more mathematics to evaluate and draw the water temperature against the room temperature in the 18-hour pump test missing file (for the full time, not only the short time considered by Jed) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66642475/Mizuno2014-11-20.xlsx and to repeat the calculations (water against room) for all the test run Mizuno files. We can discuss about the results when you will finish and decide if any excess heat shows in the Mizuno's experiment. Giancarlo 2015-01-09 0:00 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <[email protected]>: > Dear Gigi, > > I look forward to seeing the results of the new test with 10 mm pipe. > Could you include some form of drawing that shows the location of the > relative pump pipe input and output locations. I am confident that you > realize that my calculations are based upon a system where the pipe > entering the Dewar from the pump does not continue directly into the pipe > that makes up the return path for the coolant. > > A continuous pipe would not deliver its load of kinetic energy into the > tank. That type of system would behave like a heat exchanger. > > In most hydraulic systems the power generated by the pump is intended to > drive some form of hydraulic load such as a cylinder. In these cases the > amount of power lost due to kinetic energy transport is negligible. If you > consider a typical log splitter for example, most of the time the hydraulic > fluid is directed to bypass the cylinder by a control valve. Of course > energy is imparted upon the fluid by the same process that I calculated in > this case due to it being accelerated by the pump action. > > The typical pump for a log splitter is a constant displacement device > where a fixed flow rate is generated. Even when the cylinder is bypassed > you will find that heat power finds it way into the excess oil storage > tank. Some of that heat is due to kinetic energy transport among other > reasons. > > Why avoid calculations in this particular case? Many of the cold fusion > skeptics conclude that LENR is not possible because there is no theory to > support it. Here is a simple example of kinetic physics that most high > school students would be capable of understanding. You have a mass of > water that is initially at rest. It is acted upon by a pump which sets it > into forward motion along a pipe at a certain velocity that can be > established by knowing the flow rate and the cross section area of the > pipe. And, the water slows down inside a Dewar which must accept the > kinetic energy from the flow. > > I find it interesting that you and the other skeptics are reluctant to > make that simple calculation. Why? And, where is there a problem with my > procedure? Did I make an error in calculating the kinetic energy of the > water traveling within the pump output pipe? If you can show me my error I > will gladly concede the point. > > I honestly would like to see a scientific reason that your team finds that > 4+ watts of excess heat power while at the same time Mizuno measures less > than 1 watt. Here we both have an opportunity to seek the truth by using > scientific principles and so far you have avoided that offer. > > Unless I missed something, you are still harbor the belief that there is > no transport of heat from a pump into a relatively large load region in the > form of lost kinetic energy of the fluid. The equations that you linked do > not directly take that into consideration since it becomes a portion of the > hydraulic load from what I interpret. The added pressure required to > accelerate the fluid is not handled as different than normal frictional > loading. I contend that it is in fact a different mechanism and is > actually very measurable in this particular case where there is no > intentional hydraulic loading. > > Unfortunately the power lost due to friction inside the pipes is merged > with this kinetic energy term. The one thing that is certain is that the > heat transported in this manner will be 16 times as much as that > transported by the experiment of Mizuno if pipe is used that is 1/2 the > diameter and the fluid flow rate and treatment remains equal for both > cases. If instead your test system does not treat the circulating water in > the same manner then you are not performing a valid comparison for > replication. > > Can we begin a collaboration by agreeing that you are confident that no > heat power is not transported by means of kinetic energy of the fluid > within this system? We must start somewhere if we are to use physical > theory to guide our hand. This seems like a logical way to begin since I > have derived equations that suggest you are wrong in this belief. > > Are you willing to make such a stand? So far I have asked many questions > but have received few answers. Theory is important, at least that is what > physicists state when they attack cold fusion claims! > > Forgive me for assuming that you were hiding behind obscure generalities. > I was not aware that you were associated with the CSVIT group. I find it > odd that you fail to support any theoretical understanding of this system > since that would appear the most likely method of getting to the truth. I > am willing to offer many theoretical stands that you or anyone among your > party are welcome to prove erroneous. So far I have not seen a rebuttal to > my equations. > > I am an electrical engineer as well and have retired from the normal > working world in most respects. I hope we can use your experience with > radar cooling systems to our advantage as we seek the truth about this > issue. Unfortunately, I suspect that the systems that you encounter are of > a continuous nature where this particular cause is hidden from view. The > cooling fluid will likely deliver heat into the fluid sink tank that > originates as a result of acceleration of the coolant by your pumps. > Perhaps you have seen where the coolant appears to be hotter than can be > accurately attributed to the expected pipe friction when the power > amplifiers are shut down? Of course it is possible that all excess heating > in an environment of this type is attributed to frictional losses when it > is actually more complicated than many realize. > > Take care and lets uncover the real facts, > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Jan 8, 2015 4:05 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised > > Dear Dave, > > I do not think we need so much calculation; better to perform a new > measurement on a 10 mm pipe to test you hypotesis. I hate to say that we > did it and the power dissipation increases a little bit, as any engineer > would have expected: you will find soon the results here > > https://gsvit.wordpress.com/ > > I advise you to read the full article as well, so you can find all the > theory you need. Please feel fre to ask any questions you like. > > In case you would like to take a look of the Mizuno 18 hour pump > calibration you find here the file that Jed can not find anymore > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66642475/Mizuno2014-11-20.xlsx > > in the very first sheet ("mio") you can find the water temperature > increase against the room temperature coming from Mizuno's data. > > Take your time to think about it. Jed can confirm that the data are the > original ones. > > By the way regarding your statement > > > > *I consider it poor form to hide behind obscure generalities > > > > * > > my name is Giancarlo De Marchis and I belong to the *GSVIT Group;* I thought > it was clear, sorry. > > > > > I'm an electronic engineer and I design water cooling systems [with pumps] > for RADARs and high power converters. > > > > > Normally they works fine. > > > > Regards > > > > > > > 2015-01-08 19:40 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <[email protected]>: > >> The flow rate is going to be reasonably close to the 9 liters per >> minute specification from the manufacturer. I have a graph from Iwaki >> America that shows the expected rate as a function of the lift head facing >> the pump. At zero meters of head which corresponds to atmospheric pressure >> the rate is 9 liters per minute. At approximately .6 meters of lift the >> rate is still about 7 liters per minute. How much do you calculate as the >> effective head due to friction within the pipe? >> >> The experiment that claimed around 4 watts of pump induced power uses a >> pipe that is 5 mm diameter and about .5 meter in length. Please do the >> math if you have the equations to determine exactly what flow rate should >> be expected. The author of that report completely failed to take into >> account pump power being transported by means of the fluid acceleration. >> And, it is obvious that he was not aware that the faster the fluid moves, >> the more power it transfers. This is an obvious mistake and I am pointing >> it out. >> >> As I asked you before, take the time and use whatever equations you can >> locate in the literature to calculate the amount of kinetic energy that is >> imparted upon a liquid by the acceleration due to pump action. There >> apparently is no need to reinvent the physics of pumps to perform this >> calculation. If you do this one task, you will find that the heat power >> comes close to that which is measured by the two independent experimenters. >> >> Also, you will find that the amount of power due to this process depends >> greatly upon the area of the pipe carrying a constant amount of fluid mass >> per unit of time. That power will come out 16 times as much for a pipe >> that is 5 mm compared to one that is 10 mm in diameter. Do the math! If >> you counter that the flow rates do not match due to changes in size of the >> pipe, then it becomes apparent that the test performed by the skeptic does >> not agree with the one he is attempting to replicate which negates his >> results. >> >> How can you possibly believe that it is a coincidence that my >> calculations yield a result that is close to what is being measured? It is >> quite simple to figure out the kinetic energy imparted upon a mass of water >> that is accelerated by some means. Just read my derivation and tell me >> where an error is located other than just stating that no flow meter was >> present to prove the rate. I will be happy to review any evidence that you >> present to support your position. I am as amazed as you are that the >> calculations came out that well. >> >> Your earlier contention was that there is no energy transport due to >> acceleration of the liquid by pump action which ends up in a holding tank >> for the active liquid. You pointed out several terrible consequences if >> that were true. None of those are seen in real life so I assume that you >> now do not hold that position. Is this true? >> >> Before you continue to shoot down my proposal I expect you to show some >> mathematical support for your contentions. So far that has not happened. >> >> Take the time to add support to your position or you should back away >> from taking such a negative stance. I consider it poor form to hide behind >> obscure generalities. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thu, Jan 8, 2015 12:52 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised >> >> Sorry Dave but I do not agree at all with your DIY physics about >> pumps. >> >> 1) We actually don't know the actual power flow: you assumed 9 l/m : who >> told you? any flow meter around? >> >> 2) The physics of pumps is well known, there is no need to re-invent it >> see for example the first equation in the box here >> >> http://www.thermexcel.com/english/ressourc/pumps.htm >> >> as you can see the mechanical power depends not only on the flow rate >> (that we do not know) but also on the pressure loss, that we do not know >> either. >> >> I think we have to wait for the excel file from Jed; there we can find >> the way to solve our problem. >> >> Gigi >> >> >> >> >> 2015-01-08 17:22 GMT+01:00 David Roberson <[email protected]>: >> >>> Gigi, >>> >>> While Jed is locating that information for you may I request that you >>> make a calculation of the kinetic energy contained within the moving water >>> exiting the pump? Then, do the same thing for the kinetic energy of water >>> that is about to enter the intake pipe of the pump. Do you agree that the >>> difference in heat must be deposited within the standing liquid? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Thu, Jan 8, 2015 10:54 am >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry" revised >>> >>> >>> >>> *Mizuno measured the heat added to the system by the pump. There is no >>> point to appealing to a theory or hypothesis about how much heat there may >>> be when it has actually been measured for 18 hours by running the pump >>> only. * >>> dear Jed, >>> >>> I could not find anymore the excel file of this 18 hour measurement [it >>> used to be http://LENR-CANR.org/Mizuno/Mizuno2014-11-20.xlsx] >>> >>> In that file it was clearly shown that the water temperature, with no >>> excess heat, rised by 2.5 °C in a stable way against the room temperature. >>> Is not it too much for 0,24 W? >>> >>> Could you post the file again? >>> >>> Many thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-01-08 16:39 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is completely wrong: the pump power is not transformed into kinetic >>>>> enegy of the water, otherwise you will get after a while an infinite >>>>> velocity, not only for the water inside the tube but for cars on >>>>> motorways as well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me point out again that this entire discussion is irrelevant for >>>> two reasons, which I clearly explained in the paper, starting on p. 24: >>>> >>>> 1. Mizuno measured the heat added to the system by the pump. There is >>>> no point to appealing to a theory or hypothesis about how much heat there >>>> may be when it has actually been measured for 18 hours by running the pump >>>> only. >>>> >>>> 2. It makes *no difference* how much heat is added to the system by >>>> the pump. Whether the temperature goes up 0.6°C, or 6°C or 10°C, and >>>> whether this temperature represents a half watt, or 5 W, or 10 Watts is >>>> completely irrelevant. The pump is left running all the time. Therefore all >>>> of the heat from the pump is in the baseline temperature of the system. >>>> Mizuno measures from the baseline to the terminal high temperature at the >>>> end of the test, just as the temperature begins to fall. He does not >>>> measure from the ambient temperature. >>>> >>>> I wish the people writing these critiques would spend a few moments >>>> reading the paper, but they never do. >>>> >>>> I am not even going to bother adding these remarks to the latest >>>> paper. I am busy. If someone here would like to, feel free to add these >>>> points. It is a waste of time, I think. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
