Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
OK. That test would be adequate if the data were included.
>
The data from the 5 tests I uploaded shows no heat when the pump alone is
running, so yes it was included.
The data from the 1-day test is also included in the report. I clearly
stated it: that test showed nothing. It was a bunch of zeros. Zero is zero.
That is all the data you need. If you do not trust Mizuno to report that,
why ask for a graph? He or I could easily produce a fake graph showing all
zeros.
> The data of a long control run must be included since the 3 watts, which
> is clearly stated in the manufacturer’s pump specifications, is otherwise
> unaccounted for - and logic suggests that this power has to go somewhere.
> How does it magically disappear?
>
Anyone familiar with this kind of pump knows that it consumed far less than
maximum with such a small load. It was much less than 1 W. Furthermore, you
can see from my report that 1 W with 4 kg of water and 50.5 kg of steel
will not register anything with this system.
Please do not tell me: "But Table 2 shows 0.25 W for Oct. 22!" That is 0.25
W of anomalous power on top of the input power, and it is actually far more
than 0.25 W, because the water only captures a fraction of the total. It is
probably 2 W plus ~1 W of input power (on average for the whole day --
20,818 J / 25,000 s).
Anyway it is a fact that ~3 W registers clearly, but the pump alone
produces no measurable temperature rise above ambient, so obviously the
pump is putting in much less than its maximum power. As anyone who has ever
used a pump will know.
Anyway, if you have any doubt, then you should follow the motto of the
Royal Society: "Nullius in verba" ("take nobody's word for it"). Get a 16 m
tube 1 cm in diameter, run 8 L/min of water through it, and see for
yourself how hot it gets. For crying out loud.
> If real data shows no rise in temperature, then everyone is happy . . .
>
I uploaded real data. It shows no rise in temperature when only the pump is
running. You can verify that yourself easily.
> . . . but without it, skeptics have a place to hang their hats – and they
> will.
>
I am sure they will, but anyone with an ounce of sense can see that I have
uploaded data proving they are wrong.
> There is no good reason to leave this detail open for discussion.
>
It is only open to discussion for people who refuse to look at the data I
uploaded. You yourself have not told us why the system cools down when the
pump is running, and it cools at the same rate when the pump is off, as
shown on Oct 21. You are evading the fact that this is proof the hypothesis
is wrong.
- Jed
