It is the on-board production of Hydrogen that causes the inefficiency. Any engine can be optimized to a specific fuel type. However the efficiency of electricity production from an internal combustion engine is about 20%, from combustion efficiency of typically 40% and typically 55% alternator efficiency. This means the gain from the combustion of oxyhydrogen must be 5 times the cost of producing it just to make up the losses in making the electricity to run the electrolysis system, and that inefficiency itself is not yet included.
The sensor has a much larger cross section than the hot wire anemometer, so you can traverse more easily, and you can cover the entire orifice with a few readings. This instrument confirmed that the flow rate is uniform and that Mizuno's anemometer measured it correctly. So, we have confirmed the air flow rate by three methods:
1. By showing the heat balance in calibrations is zero.
2. By comparing the readings to another anemometer, of a different design.
3. By computing the average rate from the input power and temperature differences.
I don't know of any other way to prove it. I cannot understand why Paradigmnoia has any doubts about it. Just because his air flow rate is not uniform?!? Obviously, his system is different for some reason. It cannot be that Mizuno's system passes these three tests yet the flow rate is not uniform.
If the fan was run at almost 1/2 the rated power, that might be enough to solve the issue. Do you know how many volts were supplied to the blower fan? It is reported that the current and voltage for the blower were recorded. Running the blower with much less than 12V also makes the tachometer signal inoperative, which may explain why it is not used.
working with air is not simple but more or less the air drag is going with the third power of air velocity,
for 4 m/s --> 4^3= 64
for 5 m/s --> 5^3= 125 that is the double, so double power to go from 4 to 5 m/s
more or less the anemometer reading should be correct.
Interesting. I hope to try it in a couple days, once I return home.
So, did anyone anemometer traverse test a 65 mm cylinder connected to a San Ace B97 fan?
Didn’t think so.
Anyone work out how the San Ace B97 fan that makes ~ 5 m/s airflow in a 65 mm tube manages 4 m/s at 1/2 power?
Didn’t think so.
ETA: is anyone suggesting with a straight face that an LENR reaction takes place inside someone's mouth? If so, ROTFWL!
Until recently LENR came out of Rossi’s mouth (but not his cobbled together junk).
Wasn't there a picture of a rotten rusty blue container behind a building a few years ago? Maybe this was the one and only ?
Yes there was. At the first IH warehouse space in Raleigh, NC. There was only one Blue Container, even though it was supposedly sold to several different people/groups.
It was stripped out and the “reactors” installed into the Red Container.
Why not sent to the Smithsonian?
And then later there were photos of the Red Container in the parking lot at the Doral warehouse, post fiasco, waiting to be shipped to the dump.
Why not sent to the Smithsonian?
In the recent R21 tests it has been set at 3.9 W. That is the only spreadsheet I can access. I don't have the data from other tests handy. I recall it was a little different during the 111 day test of R19. As long as you calibrate before a test and leave it alone it should be okay.
You can set it to any power level you like. As shown in the report, Fig. 4, it was calibrated from 1 to 5.5 W. (I think that was this fan, but it might be old data, for illustration.) It would not be good practice to run it above 5.5 W.
Do you know which model of fan was used at 3.9 W?
As far as good practice, if the fan was the San Ace fan, it is rated at 7.2 W.
So, is the fan (or which fan was) 7.2W, 6.5W, 5W, 4W, or 3W?
If you are a Rossi believer you have to believe he has customers.
I agree it is a shame none have come forward especially when
Rossi says its not up to him if they do come forward.
Rossi said it was up to the Customer if and when they revealed themselves at Doral.
Of course, Rossi was that Customer.
Still claims "certified for industrial use", which is bullshit.
Oh, and after numerous circular discussions with SGS, it is apparent that they will not prosecute abuses of their certificates. They might send a weak warning email not worth the paper it isn’t even written on. So, if you want to certify some piece of crap and make untrue statements about its certification status, SGS is your company. IMHO.
Good luck.. but your research (such as it is) is rather incomplete.
Sure is. But I am not going to replicate a whole bunch of incomplete and conflicting specifications. Besides, I will be in the bush for another 10 days or so, starting tomorrow, possibly with (crappy) internet this time, but I won’t be hauling the fan, tube and anemometer along with me. (Perhaps the airline can mangle the outlet tube appropriately, along with my luggage, so I should bring that...)
Let’s see if someone else can independently test the fan and tube arrangement over the next 10 days and see where that leads.
That’s a challenge, BTW.
Its not flat.
Its turbulent and NOT laminar
Research is tedious.. for your anemometry opus
which you have volunteered for
please search along different sections of the pipe.
compare and contrast the 40 half traverses that you get.
also look at the effect of using a flexible thin cardboard versus rigid cardboard.
Let’s find someone else to try to replicate the fan and tube portion of the calorimeter, as specified in the recent reports (such as it is).
I clarified already. All recent spreadsheets show 3 or 4 W of blower power, and air flow rate from 4.1 to 4.3 m/s. All of the R19 data and calibrations were taken at 4.1 m/s. The recent R21 was 4.3 m/s. As shown in Fig. 4, the air flow rate is uniform at every point in the orifice at any power level from 1 to 5.5 W. What more do you need to know? Make yours uniform and we will have something to talk about. Until you do that, you cannot draw any conclusions about Mizuno's results or his method of calorimetry.
I don’t have any recent spreadsheets to refer to.
3 to 4 W of power to the 12V 0.6A San Ace fan suggests that it was being fed well below its rated voltage, or maybe being PWM. Something closer to 6 - 7 V RMS. However at approximately half voltage, I now fail to see how the fan makes ~80% of the rated flow rate. 4.3 W would apply to the older fan, supposedly no longer being used, rated at 12 V 0.36 A. Please clarify this information in a supplemental or future report, and for which reactor the various fan power settings apply, since there are apparently several iterations. Quite frankly most of the confusion comes from recycling old information into the new reports without noting where important changes occurred.
Where can I see the reports of “other people’s instrument readings” for the flat velocity profile?
If the fan is being run at half power, perhaps the velocity profile is less erratic. If it is claimed that the velocity profile is flat for all blower speeds, 20 cm down a paper tube from the fan, without doing something special to mix the air velocity profile between the fan and the outlet, I simply cannot believe it at present.
This is not about me being able to make a flat velocity profile.
I want to know what was done to make the reported velocity profile flat. If it is because the fan is being run at half the rated power, then that is important information.
We will have to remain in disagreement for now. If Mizuno did something special to the outlet to mix the velocity profile perfectly in 20 cm from the fan, let’s hear about it. Otherwise I consider it a problem, because all output power calculations depend on that 20-25 cm of tube and that fan. The profile I measured is consistent with fan manufacturers and HVAC companies for air profile velocity in close proximity to a centrifugal fan. Please find out and clarify what the actual fan power was for the velocity reported, used in recent tests...4 W, 5.5 W, 6.5 W? We seem to be getting a bunch of different numbers for fan power. Maybe my RPM is too high at 12.08 V? Perhaps Mizuno can put a DVM with a frequency setting on the fan power (+), and yellow signal wire (-)(dangling from the fan in photos), in the meantime also (divide Hz by 2, because the blower produces two pulses per revolution).
Lugano dummy run recalculation for Zirconia coated ECAT
As Para already stated in an earlier post, there will be not much difference in measured temperatures between Alumia and Zirconia as far as the Optris is concerned.
This makes it possible, using the published temperatures in the Lugano report, to calculate approximately the total convective and radiated power if the Lugano ECAT was coated with Zirconia.
The attached Excel file shows this calculation.
Since for dummy run temperatures the broad band emissivity of Zirconia is lower the the emissivity of Alumina, the radiated power must also be lower.
A calculation shows that the total radiated and convective power for the ECAT inclusive rods is 429.8 Watt versus 479.7 Watt applied power. (See attached zip file with Excell sheet for the calculation)
The difference is - 10% .
For the ribbed section the total power in case of Zirconia is 243 Watt while for Alumina the calculated power of the central section was 282 Watt.
The difference for the ribbed section is thus about -14%.
Also the 243 Watt is not in line with the the about 290 Watt dissipated by the heater coil in the ribbed section.
The conclusion from the recalculation is then that is seems unlikely that the Lugano ECAt was coated with Zirconia.
This conclusion is in line with the sample x ray christallography analysis which showed no traces of Zirconia peaks on positions 28 and 32, the main peaks for Zirconia.
The X-ray crystallography analysis shows no traces of anything other than alumina, therefore it was not the reactor body (Ribs area) that was tested, because the reactor body composition is far less than 100% alumina, whether it was painted or not.
What do Tr125, Tr225 etc. mean?
Those points are completely different from Mizuno's. You are nowhere close to replicating his conditions. You cannot draw any conclusions about his calorimetry, or whether his 7 points are sufficient to characterize the whole surface.
On the other hand, I can draw conclusions based on first principles. As I did. Unless you doubt the input power and temperature measurements, you must agree that Mizuno is measuring the flow rate correctly, and it has to be uniform. As I said, he would get the wrong answer otherwise. Calibrations would show either much less heat recovered than input at 10 W, 30 W and 50 W, or much more recovered. That's what calibrations are for. They show the instrument is working, or it is not working.
(THH has claimed the input power measurements cannot be believed, however many meters have confirmed them. He must think the 3 power meter are all wrong to exactly the same extent, and in a way that exactly compensates for 5 thermometers and the 2 anemometers, so that by some fantastic coincidence, the answers always come out right, and the heat always balances up to 50 W. That would never happen in the life of the universe.)
THH might conclude that Mizuno's data is somehow wrong, and Mizuno's anemometer is not working because your results are so different from his. I trust you have more common sense than that. Obviously you are both measuring correctly. You cannot make a hot wire digital anemometer misbehave enough to cause such giant differences. Go ahead and try! Clearly, you two are looking at physically different systems.
There are countless graphs and illustrations of laminar versus turbulent flows, and they all show the former has varying flow rates, and the latter does not. Both exist. Such textbook phenomena are not questionable or odd or somehow unbelievable, contrary to THH's synthetic doubts.
Tr = Traverse
1 = traverse 1 (full diameter), 2 = traverse 2, etc.
25 = 25 cm long tube
60 = 60 cm long tube
My point is that these numbers are different than Mizuno's. The velocity profile is nowhere near flat. Using the same fan and a tube 1 mm less in ID than his.
It shouldn't be rocket science to attach a cardboard tube to a fan outlet with electrical tape. The tube is squished to match the fan outlet as best as possible.
The results should be similar to Mizuno's, without resorting to bending the tube enough or crushing a venturi into it in order to level out the velocity profile, unless Mizuno did also somehow.
It can't be! If it were well-mixed the flow rate would be the same everywhere you measure it. Some of the streamlines of air are moving faster than others. They cannot be mixed together if they are moving at different rates.
The temperature can be mixed perfectly while the air flow profile could be very asymmetrical.
What do you think is happening when ambient air goes through the fan? The air temperature separates into cold and hot layers preferentially with velocity?
The streamlines going into the fan intake, which could have uneven heating, get scrambled severely in the squirrel cage, then exits in a velocity profile according to the fan design characteristics.
(I don't dispute that keeping the air mixing helps ensure good air temperature mixing)
You have no reason to doubt that. Those same 7 points in your graph are indisputable proof that your flow rates are not uniform. If you measured only those 7, no one would argue that it was actually uniform and you happened to pick the only points in the whole circle that are off. That would be ridiculous. So, if you can prove that with only 7 points, why do you doubt that he proves the opposite? It makes no sense.
Fix the problem. Then measure those 7 points, or any other 7, or 77 if you like. They will all be the same.
IN SHORT, you need to replicate his results. You need to show those 7 points being the same. THEN maybe you can demonstrate that 7 points are not sufficient. I don't think you will succeed, but you cannot even start now, and you have no basis to judge. Make those points the same first, replicate his results with those 7 points first, and then find out if it is sufficient, by measuring other points.
I think we will be better served if someone else attaches a 65 of 66 mm ID 25 cm long (or 20 cm long or whatever it is) tube to the same type of fan as Mizuno's, does a bunch of traverses with an anemometer, and either agrees with my results or agrees with Mizuno's.
Then we will see where to go looking for answers.