MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Just make a graph showing only the inlet and outlet temperature using the spreadsheet.

The inlet temperature climbs almost 2.5 C from starting ambient temperature, then almost returns to the starting ambient temperature as the calorimeter finally cools down.

I don't see what you are talking about. Where is ambient temperature in the spreadsheet? Which column? In the 2017 spreadsheets, there are 3 columns of inlet temperatures: B, F and G. F and G sensors were located right next to one another. I don't recall where B was. Anyway, the values are all close. B is consistently a little lower than F&G, around 0.5°C, but I assume that is a calibration difference. Before power turns on, F&G are about 0.9°C warmer. I expect there was dead air and unmixed air in the room. The calorimeter is in a plastic tent, and maybe B is outside that. After power turns on, the difference falls to 0.5°C, rises slightly to 0.6°C, and then several hours after the power is turned off, it falls back to 0.5°C. I doubt that is caused by conditions inside the calorimeter box. Probably the whole area is slightly warmer. Which means the Delta T difference between outlet and inlet is correct. The air coming in really is slightly warmer than B senses. Here is a graph from the excess heat data:

The blue line is F minus B. The orange line is input power (on the right Y-axis). The gray line (also right axis) is the outlet temperature. As I said, the blue line starts high, falls, goes a little up, and falls. I expect this is a real difference the temperature of the air swirling around sensor F compared to B. Or the effect of a room heater. That part of the room really is warmer. It is not the effect of the heat inside the box affecting sensors F&G.

As I said, we kept a close eye on the many external thermometers and thermocouples that are placed around the room. I brought an Omega thermocouple with two sensors. You adjust the two to agree within 0.1°C with a setscrew. 0.1°C is the smallest temperature difference it measures. Swapping the two into and out of the inlet and outlet stream of air, I saw no difference from the computer data as large as 0.1°C, except momentarily after power went up or down, or someone opened the door. It takes a little longer for some thermocouples to settle than others.

Here is the same kind of graph for the calibration data, F minus B versus input power. As you see, from rows 191 to 419 the difference between F and B has fallen close to 0.5°C, even though power is steady. The 0.5°C difference is the same as the excess power spreadsheet, meaning B is calibrated ~0.5°C below F&G. Row 191 is second 4,385, 73 minutes into the graph. Row 419 is second 9,964, 166 minutes. So the difference was sustained for an hour and a half, at the same input power level. I don't see how stable input power could make the temperature rise at first, fall for an hour and half, and then rise again.

F&G vary from one another as much as 0.6°C in the calibration:

Quote from RobertBryant

Perhaps the reactor heat us heating up a small nonairconditioned room..

Perhaps Paradigmnoia can do a six month detailed blow by blow study of this effect?

I already have.

The ambient temperature is probably almost exactly where the temperature traces start, and to where the temperature asymptotically trends towards as the reactor and calorimeter cool down in the standard Newtonian way.

ie: Similar to a straight line from the beginning to the end of the inlet temperature trace.

Unless the experiment was performed literally in a closet.

The "air in" temp in the graph you posted really is warmer. The whole room is warmer. The room ambient air gets hotter when the equipment is run. It is a very unstable environment. This was June. There is no air conditioner, only fans. In winter there are electric and natural gas room heaters and fans, but blasts of cold air come in the windows and the door whenever someone comes in. It is a terrible place to try to do air-flow calorimetry. Very noisy!

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The ambient temperature is probably almost exactly where the temperature traces start,

The ambient was almost exactly where the temperature trace starts, and where it rises to, and where it falls. It stays the same the whole time. We are very careful to watch that. I noted it every hour in the log book. I have records of days when the equipment was turned off. The temperature rises and fall to the same extent. The ambient temperature fluctuates all over the place, because the room has no modern heating or cooling. It is an abandoned Karaoke bar in a building that is falling to pieces, with cracked window panes and a door that will not shut, in a city at the same latitude and climate as Boston. It is hard to imagine a worse place to try to do air flow calorimetry. It has one advantage: the rent is low.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Unless the experiment was performed literally in a closet.

It was. In a large plastic tent, open at the bottom. This dampened fluctuations somewhat, but not much. Ambient temperatures around the room agree with the computer data the whole time. The ones outside the tent fluctuated a bit more, especially when someone turned on a fan or left the room.

Quote from JedRothwell

I don't see what you are talking about. Where is ambient temperature in the spreadsheet? Which column? In the 2017 spreadsheets, there are 3 columns of inlet temperatures: B, F and G. F and G sensors were located right next to one another. I don't recall where B was. Anyway, the values are all close. B is consistently a little lower than F&G, around 0.5°C, but I assume that is a calibration difference. Before power turns on, F&G are about 0.9°C warmer. I expect there was dead air and unmixed air in the room. The calorimeter is in a plastic tent, and maybe B is outside that. After power turns on, the difference falls to 0.5°C, rises slightly to 0.6°C, and then several hours after the power is turned off, it falls back to 0.5°C. I doubt that is caused by conditions inside the calorimeter box. Probably the whole area is slightly warmer. Which means the Delta T difference between outlet and inlet is correct. The air coming in really is slightly warmer than B senses. Here is a graph from the excess heat data:

[skipped]

The blue line is F minus B. The orange line is input power (on the right Y-axis). The gray line (also right axis) is the outlet temperature. As I said, the blue line starts high, falls, goes a little up, and falls. I expect this is a real difference the temperature of the air swirling around sensor F compared to B. Or the effect of a room heater. That part of the room really is warmer. It is not the effect of the heat inside the box affecting sensors F&G.

As I said, we kept a close eye on the many external thermometers and thermocouples that are placed around the room. I brought an Omega thermocouple with two sensors. You adjust the two to agree within 0.1°C with a setscrew. 0.1°C is the smallest temperature difference it measures. Swapping the two into and out of the inlet and outlet stream of air, I saw no difference from the computer data as large as 0.1°C, except momentarily after power went up or down, or someone opened the door. It takes a little longer for some thermocouples to settle than others.

Here is the same kind of graph for the calibration data, F minus B versus input power. As you see, from rows 191 to 419 the difference between F and B has fallen close to 0.5°C, even though power is steady. The 0.5°C difference is the same as the excess power spreadsheet, meaning B is calibrated ~0.5°C below F&G. Row 191 is second 4,385, 73 minutes into the graph. Row 419 is second 9,964, 166 minutes. So the difference was sustained for an hour and a half, at the same input power level. I don't see how stable input power could make the temperature rise at first, fall for an hour and half, and then rise again.

F&G vary from one another as much as 0.6°C in the calibration:

Display More

The excess heat delta T here [the 120 W + excess] is nearly the same as the ambient delta between (startT + endT) /2 vs inlet.

This does not invalidate anything. It most likely means that almost the same amount of heat as the excess was missed. 185 W is a real weak heater for a room to raise the all the ambient air to a higher temperature [unless it is in a tent...].

The calorimeter will match real ambient temperature changes quite readily with a commensurate change in the outlet temperature. However, heat from the reactor readily heats the inlet thermocouple. A fat thermocouple or RTD is enough to cause heated air from the calorimeter to get pulled into the sensor by turbulence. Fortunately, the inlet thermocouple heated above ambient temperature does not show up in the outlet temperature at all. Meaning that the outlet air is heated more than was measured going in, leading to under-reporting the total heat.

It is hard to completely avoid heating the inlet temperature sensor, but it can be kept to a low level, like 0.5 C or so, without too much messing around.

Quote from RobertBryant

Proof needed .. for ts generalised statement.. go for it.

I posted the piece-of-tape-12 mm-wide-on-the-inlet-thermocouple results on this thread a while back. I have done it with 5 mm wide also, with very similar results.

5 C increases in inlet temperature with tape flat side perpendicular to air flow.
3 C increase with tape 45 degrees to airflow. Both ways (facing and away from heater).

This with the inlet TC dropping down into the inlet opening parallel to and on the outside of the box, basically identical to the Mizuno calorimeter photos.

Here: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from RobertBryant

assertion

what size closet?

what size closet do you heat up with experimental reactors?

Quote from JedRothwell

The "air in" temp in the graph you posted really is warmer. The whole room is warmer. The room ambient air gets hotter when the equipment is run. It is a very unstable environment. This was June. There is no air conditioner, only fans. In winter there are electric and natural gas room heaters and fans, but blasts of cold air come in the windows and the door whenever someone comes in. It is a terrible place to try to do air-flow calorimetry. Very noisy!

If the calibration looks about the same, then although not ideal, it should be good enough. Which is one reason I wanted to look at the calibration data.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The excess heat delta T here [the 120 W + excess] is nearly the same as the ambient delta between (startT + endT) /2 vs inlet.

This does not invalidate anything. It most likely means that almost the same amount of heat as the excess was missed

It means only that the ambient temperature was not controlled, and it rose and fell during the day. That is what the thermometers in the room showed. That is what I wrote in the log book. There is no question that the input air temperature was the same as ambient.

Give me some credit here. Please grant that I can read a thermometer and write down a temperature. A child can do that.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I posted the piece-of-tape-12 mm-wide-on-the-inlet-thermocouple results on this thread a while back. I have done it with 5 mm wide also, with very similar results.

5 C increases in inlet temperature with tape flat side perpendicular to air flow.
3 C increase with tape 45 degrees to airflow. Both ways (facing and away from heater).

This with the inlet TC dropping down into the inlet opening parallel to and on the outside of the box, basically identical to the Mizuno calorimeter photos.

That is interesting, but it did not happen in Mizuno's lab. I was there for a few weeks. I kept a log, noting the temperatures several times a day. I brought my own dual thermocouple to confirm the temperatures. Let me repeat, once more:

The inlet temperature was the same as ambient. Yes, ambient varied somewhat from one part of the room to another, and it changed during the day. But in all cases, the air close to the inlet was the same temperature as the inlet, to within 0.1°C, which was the smallest temperature difference I could read with my thermocouple.

That's all there is to it. Please grant that is a very easy thing to confirm. As I said, a child could do it. If you think that Mizuno and I are incapable of doing that, or that it never occurred to us to do it even though he hung 5 or 6 thermometers around the room, then you are saying we are hopelessly incompetent and incapable of grade school level science. If that's what you want to say, the conversation is over. If you think we are capable of writing down two temperatures and noting they are the same, then you have to grant the inlet changed only because the room got hotter or colder, not because of flat tape or anything else in the calorimeter.

I do not think that Mizuno messed with his thermocouples with tape to make the COP lower.

I am happy to hear that the ambient vs inlet temperature was closely monitored.

However, with due respect to less than ideal experimental conditions that sometimes must be dealt with, the output recirculating around enough to significantly heat the intake is something to be avoided.

People here would have a fit if I plumbed 25% (a guess) of my output heat back into the inlet. In fact, I may have to try it out.

Quote from RobertBryant

the heat output calculation is calculated by delta T..output-input

which means that fluctuations in ambient can be accounted for..

the calculation is the basis of the reported raector output

pls show calculation for "25"%(

affecting the reactor net output

..

I just want to see sunstantiated claims...not rhetoric or unclear claims

Display More

If the 120 W input calibration makes a 5 C delta T, and it takes 60 more W to make the delta T 2.5 C more, then 60 W of extra heat power must be in the air that gets sucked in order to raise inlet temperature 2.5 C from a steady ambient temperature.

So if instead of heating a “closet” or tent with the calorimeter output air mixing with and heating up ambient air and that recirculating into the inlet, I can run the equivalent temperature increase to the input by returning 60 W of the outlet heat into the inlet mixed with an unchanged (from the start) ambient temperature. Which is 1/3 of the output heat (120 W plus 60 W excess = 180 W) or 33.3%.

So 33% recirculating outlet air rather than 25%.
In theory, it should be just fine.
Feel better?

Quote from RobertBryant

the heat output calculation is calculated by delta T..output-input

which means that fluctuations in ambient can be accounted for..

the calculation is the basis of the reported raector output

This is only OK if you properly count in the actual Hydrogen content of the air. Hydrogen content increases quadratically with T.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is only OK if you properly count in the actual Hydrogen content of the air. Hydrogen content increases quadratically with T.

Are you suggesting that Hydrogen (or D) leaks out of the reactor cell into the calorimeter? Otherwise its proportion in ambient air is negligible (~5E-6 %).