Jed, I reviewed the October 20 data and inserted my latest method into the file to compare it against the older method I originally used. There is good correlation between both techniques. And, as I recalled, the amount of excess joules was in line with what I have seen for the other day's data. There is no problem due to the number of pulses since each pulse has a similar number of joules to add to the total.
Is it possible that we are not discussing the same energy equation? I see X number of joules of excess energy for each pulse. The total for the pulse chain is X times the number of pulses assuming each one is generating an equal number of joules of excess. I can actually see each pulse clearly and can measure how much it adds to the temperature of the thermal capacitance. You on the other hand are looking at the final result for the entire chain. You do not yet take into consideration the fact that the first pulse looses over half of its stored heat by the time your measurement is taken. I predict that you will determine that the ratio of output to input is less than 1 once the ambient variation is eliminated. This may come as quite a shock to you unless you compensate for the droop. One thing you did not mention in the report is that the water temperature is continuing to climb on October 20 and is not at a peak according to the data I downloaded. Had you waited longer you would have calculated a greater amount of excess energy. How do you explain that the temperature continues to rise perhaps for about 4 more hours? That should make it clear that the rise is not mainly due to excess energy. You already reported an excess energy ratio of 5.69 for the one pulse test and had you waited longer could have pushed it to 6 or maybe even 7 times. During the period before the first and only pulse was generated it is pretty clear that the temperature of the water had cooled down to near the ambient. Since it was lower than normal it had to recover to its normal operating temperature which is a couple of degrees greater than the typical average ambient. This transition is what you are mainly measuring and not true excess heat. One thing you should notice is that the excess energy ratio was considerably larger for the fewest number of pulses, which was 1. And, that would have been higher had you waited longer to measure the temperature since it was still rising. You will see most of this calculated excess energy vanish once the ambient is controlled. My technique is able to avoid most of the problems that are seen due to the ambient variations. Of course, once the ambient is controlled, we can also use your process to determine the real excess heat by compensating for the droop due to heat loss through the thermal resistance. Until that time the ratios being reported are not correct. Please understand that I am not trying to give you a hard time, but hope that eventually you will see the merit in what I am saying. It is important that any of us that detect a problem in a test system must be ready to shed light upon the issue. Many outside our group feel that we are too hesitant to point out these types of issues and they do not trust us to be honest in reporting them. If I am making a mistake then please show me where it lies. All the evidence that I have reviewed so far supports my assertions. We can compensate your system to eliminate the thermal droop once the ambient is held constant. It is important to understand that until that time your reported results can not be trusted. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jan 31, 2015 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Alternate Calculation and Calibration Method for Mizuno Report David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: This is an ongoing project I suppose. I will check the Oct 20 data again, but I believe I got roughly the same amount of excess. That seems too good to be true. That cannot be right. There was only one pulse on Oct. 20: one-third the input energy, yet the temperature rose 1.4 deg C. That has to indicate more anomalous heat. See Table 1. What do you mean by considering that the reactor vessel is capturing 60% of the heat? Are you referring to the idea that the water and reactor have a combined capture of 100%? That would seem logical if the thermal capacity of each is considered. Yes. The heat capacity of SUS 316 stainless steel is listed in my paper. It 0.49 ~ 0.53 J/g °C. The reactor weighs 50.5 kg. The overall heat capacity of the reactor vessel is more than the water. They both come to the same temperature, so the reactor vessel holds ~60% of the heat, and the water ~40%. I estimated this when I wrote the paper. Some recent calibration data seems to bear it out, using more direct methods. I am not quite sure yet. - Jed
