IHFB - R asked Bass to go find a "steam recirculator" two weeks before the heat rental period was to start. Bass researched and advised that no such animal existed.
Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test
-
-
@DW,
Show us the emails.
-
IHFB - R asked Bass to go find a "steam recirculator" two weeks before the heat rental period was to start. Bass researched and advised that no such animal existed.
That is why Rossi decided to build one himself. He is going to patent his "circulator", you know. He is an amazing guy.
-
That is why Rossi decided to build one himself. He is going to patent his "circulator", you know. He is an amazing guy.
It would have a limited, but high value, market. Guys doing phase chnage calorimetry who want to obtain calculated higher power out values than normal methods would allow. A bit like Rossi.
-
Well THAT was two hard days work!
I did a full sequence.
IMPORTANT : These are ALL into a 20-foot tube.Runs 22 B-G are normal runs
Run 22 H has the outlet level with the center of the pump. So it is essentially seeing backpressure from the suction and the fluid resistance of the pipe
Run 22I shows abnormal behavior : the output is below the pump, close to the suction level
Note that the flow DROPS -- probably because the valves are not seating properly.
Water runs down large sections of the pipe (it's not perfectly flat) There's probably suction at the discharge port, though bubbles aren't getting that far.
NOTE : DO NOT PLOT RUN "I" ...(The spreadsheet is at https://docs.google.com/spread…AXm9p9eU/edit?usp=sharing
-
So the expected is ~39.5 l/h at 0.5 bar back pressure, and observed is ~32.3 l/h at ~0.54 bar back pressure, which means that our prominent pump is operating at ~80% of expected (plus or minus a couple of percent). Did Alan S. send the adjustable back pressure valve over? Seems like that would be a good next thing to try, so that we test against the spec up to 2 bar.
-
So the expected is ~39.5 l/h at 0.5 bar back pressure, and observed is ~32.3 l/h at ~0.54 bar back pressure, which means that our prominent pump is operating at ~80% of expected (plus or minus a couple of percent). Did Alan S. send the adjustable back pressure valve over? Seems like that would be a good next thing to try, so that we test against the spec up to 2 bar.
Haven't received a back-pressure gauge (yet). It's adjustable, but you need a manometer to adjust it. My $5 manometer is WAY out of spec.
-
Excellent work Alan. The issue is the shape of the low back-pressure deviation I guess.
-
Visualizing all results so far. Some points are averages of multiple runs. All data are for runs where water is lifted into the pump from a bucket below and for discharge heights either at pump level or above. The backpressure is calculated as discharge pressure minus inlet pressure. The blue line shows Fletcher's results and the red line shows Prominent's data.
I don't mind the jiggles in the plot at all. This is what real data look like. And ... by god! ... is this pump asymptoting to 32 L/h at higher backpressures? What is going on?!
Edit: Fixed a small error in the plot. The overall result is unchanged.
-
Yes ... BUT in my latest full-height run (timed from my TIMER) I got a discrepancy between actual strokes and expected strokes (at 180/minute).
Is the "Yes..." a response to my suggestion about the repair kit? Or are you just continuing another thought here?
-
Alan - Do you see obvious reason why the pump is under performing? Could there be deposits inside the liquid end from this pump's previous life?
There are maintenance steps in the Prominent manual that you might consider at some point. Not now though I think.
Do you see obvious reason why the pump is under performing? No.
Could there be deposits inside the liquid end from this pump's previous life? Maybe, dunno.
-
I updated the spreadsheet to include an error analysis:
Weight : manufacturer's +- 0.2 oz = +- 6g
Time: I get the time from the camera :
a) Find the frame where the pump light turns on/off ... read the Timer MM:SS
Error: +- 1 frame for getting the exact moment of the change
b) Step backwards until MM:SS changes to SS+1 (count-down timer, not clock).
This gives the frame number * frame interval , so we know have MM:SS:FF
Error +- 1 frame for getting the exact moment of the change
Time is read twice, so we have a total error of +- 4 frames at 30 FPS = +- 0.13 seconds
Height : (translates to bars).
For the pump setup heights are good to 1/4 inch
But for the outlet, I have two errors:
a) My yard is not flat. I set the error to +- 1 inch, but it's probably worse than that.
I can move the whole setup to my front yard (Though I'm not sure how to rig the guy rope)I *do* have a laser level somewhere ...
OR I could lay a
2x4guide-line across the yard, so I have a fixed height.b) When the tower is high I can't get an exact reading for the top of the pipe.
The tape measure isn't at the optimal point either ... I have a fudge factor, and then
add +-1 inch error
I need to re-design the head.
c) When the tower is low I can read the height exactly, so we only have the ground error.
NOTE: getting the time off the camera is the longest job for the run (and error-prone).
In the series 22 runs the Stroke count matched my prediction by volume, so for future runs I'll do the time calculation as strokes at 180 strokes/minute. I'll record the runs but not look at them unless needed.
Anyway, that's pretty much it for now. I have to catch up with some other stuff and then decide whether/where to watch the eclipse.
-
Revised Discharge Head design.
(My version 1 tried to do this, but I didn't have the right wood handy).
Should give height +- 1/2 inch when the tower is high, +- 1/4 inch when the tower is low.
NOTE: this design ONLY works properly until the beam is level. Maybe I'll extend the curved section a but so it has a specific "discharge" point even when angled down.Edit : I may as well make the head plate a bit taller, so I can reach 0.5 bar (203 inches) discharge pressure.
-
Thinking aloud here.
There's actually something funny with the vinyl tube I'm using (1/2 inch inner) : there's a huge surface tension effect (sort of like a meniscus, but at any angle).
It only matters at the discharge head. Upstream of the meniscus the tube is filled with water. Then at the bottom of the meniscus water breaks free and runs (well, trickles) along the lower surface of the tube.
I think I'm going to give up on the "arc" idea, and just add an extension to the pole (angled a bit so it doesn't pee down its own leg)When the pole is high it will pour out of the end of the tube, so the tape measure gives the exact height. When it is low I will measure the actual height at the miniscus point.
-
I envy you the solar eclipse Alan. One big advantage of living on a very large national land mass. Good luck! I think this time there will be a larger popular following than previously but with luck the track length will allow it to spread out...
-
I'm back home ... but lots of other stuff to do before I can get back to these tests.
I *did* discover Rossi's sekrit heat exchanger *and* his lenr-powered jet engine test beds ... but you'll have to wait on those too!Edit : Cropped from 360mm equiv lens, contrast-enhanced.
