Jed, I'm sorry but if you take the 18 hour experiment file and draw the water temperature against the room temperature you will find a temperature rise at the equilibrium higher than 2.5 °C. This is a huge amount which, is incompatible with what you and Mizuno say.
Your mistake is to think to have a good adiabatic calorimeter whereas you don't. To be good you should have a stable ambient temperature or appropriate time constants. Unfortunately, these concepts do not seem clear to you and you do not care that the external time constant of the test system is less than 6 hours, or about one quarter of the period of variation of the ambient temperature while it should always be considerably higher; even more in your case as the fluctuation of the ambient temperature is very high. I think that anybody here familiar with calorimetry can judge what I'm saying. Take all the Mizuno's measurement and consider the excess temperature of the water against the ambient. If the test run (including power pulses) and the pump run have similar values Mizuno is wrong. Remember that power dissipation is linear with that temperature difference so the ambient is the real baseline. To convince you: start again the experiment with the alleged reaction, but in the same time decrease the room temperature by at least 10 degrees opening the window (it's wintertime); do you really think that you are going to find an increase in the water temperature? If the water temperature decreases shall we have a negative excess heat? Think about it. Truth is the best for anybody. Regards 2015-01-10 16:16 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> . . . 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. >> > > I did not *say* it is negligible; Mizuno *proved* it is negligible, by > doing an 18-hour calibration. This is not the kind of issue "decide > yourself." It is not decided by debate or by appeal to theory. This is the > kind of thing you measure and prove by experiment. Once Mizuno proves his > point, there is no point to arguing. You could do a million dollar project > lasting a year, but you are still wrong. If you find more than a fraction > of a watt of heat in the water in your test, that proves your setup -- or > your pump -- is not the same as Mizuno's. > > Questions relating to experimental science must be settled by experiment. > Once they are settled, they must be considered closed. We have to move on > to other questions. Otherwise no issue will ever be settled; no debate > ended; and no progress will be made. It was reasonable to wonder how much > heat the pump adds to the water, even though this heat cannot affect the > calorimetry or change the conclusion. It was reasonable to wonder, and to > ask Mizuno to check. Once he did check, that should have settled the > question. > > The skeptics love to move the goalposts to keep all arguments alive > forever. In essence, they are still debating whether hydrogen in palladium > can produce 100,000 eV per atom. They move the goalposts down the field, > out of the stadium, into the next county. > > - Jed > >
