Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "It is written in the Mizuno's data, our demo is only a further proof. If > you take a look of the data when the pump fails you will see that > immediately both water and reactor wall temperatures start to decrease: in > the presence of a reaction the wall temperature should have increased. > Let me repeat: there was no reaction at that time. The temperature was falling with the same Newton's Law coefficient it does when nothing is happening in the reactor (except the pump). After the pump fails, the reactor falls at one rate and the Dewar at another, slower rate, with 2 coefficients instead of one. > Jed and Mizuno perform an experiment without hydrogen: the result is the > same they got with hydrogen. The conclusion is that there is still some > residual hydrogen in the reactor." > That as not our conclusion. That was what we measured with the QMS. Gigi again confuses a conclusion or opinion with an experimentally confirmed fact. > My conclusion to these reported conditions was that the pump was on and > supplying energy to the system, and was not the absence of a poor vacuum > with residual hydrogen in the reaction chamber. > Of course it was supplying energy to the system! But not enough to produce the anomalous effects in the partial vacuum tests of Oct. 10 because, as you see, the temperature falls after hour 7.5. The pump does not sustain the high temperature. It fell right back to where it was at hour 0. The hydrogen in the reaction chamber is not the issue. Hydrogen in the metal causes the reaction. The fact that it kept coming into the chamber proves there was more left in the metal. > > A simple measure of pump power usage during testing could resolve this > issue. > We did measure it, with the WattChecker watt meter. That is in the report. The issue here is: how much heat transferred from the pump to the water? We measured that, too. The answer is in Fig. 19. You have to apply Newton's Law of Cooling and do some arithmetic to convert that to power. > In fact using the old test setup such a test should be run to measure > this power usage at various temperatures. This would help resolve the > issue of how much energy is introduced into the water bath. > That issue is resolved. Gigi does not understand this because he confused a temperature difference caused by a fall in ambient and the lag of the insulated vessel with a temperature difference caused by a heat source in that vessel. You can easily see this difference at home. Put warm water in a pot in your kitchen. Measure the temperature difference between the pot and the ambient air. Now take the pot outside in winter and measure the difference again. It is much bigger, because the pot is the same temperature as it was a moment ago, and it takes a while to cool down. The temperature lags. The larger difference is not caused by a heat source in the pot. After a while the pot it will "catch up" and fall to the same temperature as the cool outside air. Every morning, Mizuno's water and reactor temperatures are equal to ambient. The lag is gone by 8 a.m. Excpt for a slight, 0.6 deg C elevation caused by the pump. > Insulating the pump to reduce the heat loss to the ambient in a run > would further allow determination of the pump efficiency as a function of > flow. > You would not want to do that! We do not want the pump transferring heat to the water. The pump heat does not affect the conclusion but it causes annoying noise. Never insulate a pump in any case. It will overheat. > A separate measure of differential pressure drop across the pump would > establish the constancy of the flow during the reaction period and the base > lining operation Jed had identified. > It is not possible to make that measurement with plastic tubes and this pump. Mizuno does not have that kind of high precision pressure gauge for water. Anyway, he measured the heat added to the water by the direct method, and he showed that it raises the temperature by 0.6 deg C. What more do you want? What's the matter with that method? Let me remind you again that this heat is in the baseline so we do not included it in excess heat. Whether it is 0.2 W or 10 W makes absolutely no difference. It would not affect the conclusion at all. (It would be easier to detect if it were 10 W.) > Maybe MUMP should barrow the Mizuno test setup . . . > You cannot "borrow" this. As you see in the photo it fills the room and weighs hundreds of kilograms. This comment reminds me of someone who said with regard to a certain experiment, "a visitor should carry a helium detector into a lab and secretly measure helium when the researcher is not looking." I pointed out that to measure helium in these experiments you need an instrument like this: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EneaMassSpec1.jpg . . . which does not fit into you pocket. Also, you need to design the experiment for it (making it leak-tight), and you have to spend weeks connecting and testing the detector. - Jed
