anonymous Member
  • Member since Jan 24th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by anonymous

    Some articles explain best is to wash your hands with hydroalcoolic fluid or soap...

    Mask may be good for any similar disease, like flu, to protect others.... it seems socially promoted and accepted in Asia... not in France...


    Flu is dangerous, and as asthmatic, my doctor explained me, that it may not kill me normally, unless it does kill me... 17 dead in France already. Thousands every year.


    If masks lower the probability of infection by 33%, it is worth it to wear both for the individual and to improve the basic reproduction ratio for the herd. Masks, hand-washing, plus limitations on contact for both susceptible and infectious members of the population should lower the reproduction below 1. It is also possible that flushing toilets as compared to squatting toilets would lower the fecal infections probability -- but that is a mass construction/renovation problem for the next epidemic.

    Viruses are not immutable, they arise through mutation and continue to mutate as they are passed from person to person. Some mutations make little difference, some make it more benign, others make it deadly. SARS and Spanish Flu (1918) became more benign - though it took a few million dead before Spanish Flu lost its potency. In the UK in the 50'5 we had an epidemic of 'Asian Flu' as it was called (1956 from memory). That strain started out dangerous and faded in strength until it becaoe 'ordinary'. At the moment this virus is known to be infectious, obviously, but wether that is by direct touch or wether it is truly 'pneumonic' where infection can be picked up from the air in a crowded train or plane is uncertain. The exponential growth suggests that it is pneumonic, so get your face-masks on, or stop breathing in public spaces.


    The problem with corona virii is that they reproduce internally to the cell so that there is no way to mount an immune response while it is replicating internally to that cell. It's "cloaked". That is why a vaccine is unlikely as even training the immune system.


    A mutation that makes the virus less infectious would get evolutionary de-selection compared to a more infectious sister strain.


    Like the sister corona virus, the common cold, having had the virus only confirms temporary immunity. Hopefully this temporary immunity will last long enough to carry the recovered person through to the end of the oubreak without occurrence. Even if the immunity is only good for a few weeks, it would be enormously valuable in the body of trained medical personnel who can tend to the more severely cases without risk of re-infection.

    Most confirmed first dead had a health problem - this is the other side of the story what will lower the overall death toll.


    The "had a health problem" is an attempt to stop uninformed readers from panicking, i.e. propaganda for non-technically minded people who cannot reason statistics for themselves. The CFR for SARS-COV from the WHO 11/2003 consensus document from Hong Kong (where there was less State pressure to hide the fatalities and more modern facilities in 2003 than in mainland) was 52% for >=65 (n=87) compared to 0% for 0-24, and 15% for 45-64. Most people over 65 have some "health problems" if they have survived that long, so this is like saying that the cause of it being cold is there is ice on the ground. I don't blame the government for attempting to keep an uninformed public (that may panic) calm by offering up reassuring factoids that have nothing to with the seriousness of the problem. In fact, this is good media management as panicking the population would be much worse. I still think this can be dealt with. But it is a very serious epidemic for anyone over 45 years old.


    We have yet to find out the true CFR for this related corona virus -- it will be known in retrospective later. The original nCov 2019 cohort of 41 from the Lancet hospital has an apparent CFR at the time that first data was published of around 15%, but the denominator needs to be adjusted for the 6 of 41 who were still hospitalized at the time of publication (Jan 24th). Of note all those patients were admitted as a group on December 31st and the cohort was post selected on the basis of positive blood tests (as an additional 20 or so were excluded because they tested negative). While we could expect more of the mild cases don't present for treatment going forward, we could also expect the extreme aged not to present for treatment. Thus, both old and young will be underrepresented in the government published statistics.


    Lastly, the raw (unadjusted) CFR of China mortalities/(cured + mortalities) published by their National Health Commission today Feb 4th thru midnight Feb 3rd at 490/(490+892)=35%. At this stage that is all the data we have. I would expect the CFR to end up being similar to SARS which in the WHO retrospective was around 9.6%, or maybe lower (for nCov), but not the 2% number which is the current mortalities/confirmed cases ratio. While there may be more ventilators in China today (in 2020 vs 2003), their numbers pale compared to cases. That is why there is triage happening -- insufficient facilities so the medical staff must allocate the facilities according to those most likely to benefit from it. That may be why strangely the suspected case count did not go up today -- no capacity to treat them. You have seen the videos of the packed hospital hallways from last week. If their factories can build another 50,000 ventilators and train laypeople on how to operate them in their new hospital/quarantine facilities, that would be a very positive.


    At least there is hope while these patients remain alive for some cure, maybe a new application of an existing antiviral medicine, or some otherwise clever trick to improve case management.


    In the interim, there is city lockdown type quarantine until the existing cases become contagious in about 2 to 3 weeks time from January 22nd. it's expensive but it should work. The alternative -- full infection of the population, is a much worse alternative.

    A week ago, most estimates put the fatality rate below 2%. I think it is considerably lower than that now, because the number of uncounted, non-fatal cases is much higher than previously reported, whereas deaths are usually accounted for. See:


    https://www.nytimes.com/intera…-coronavirus-contain.html


    Jed, one only knows the CFR after all the cases have recovered. We also don't know the case fatality ratio for the infected who either self treat and recover, or have mortality. Most of the garbage "mortality rates" you see in the media is by uninformed people who are comparing numerators and denominators that are effectively spaced apart by two weeks of disease course, i.e. the 2% rate. And that includes the NYTimes headline writer as well as China government officials to whom it is in their economic interest to make it seem like it is "just the flu". I think the true CFR is in the 5 to 10% range and we will see in 6 months when the virus finishes its course. God speed to the Chinese in their attempt to lower the person to person contact for one virus life cycle. I feel especially for the front line medical care teams that can't go home in a terrible situation with insufficient ICU beds and equipment for the sick. There is one doctor who sounded the alarm back in December who is on a ventilator. I hope/pray he recovers, but even then -- he will be back on the front lines for another 6 to 8 weeks.

    Good job Paradigmnoia!

    max "Reglar flu. By late April it will peak with 1.5 -2M infected. With morality rate 2-3 percent.

    Well not regular but mediaflu."


    No. Regular flue has a Case Fatality Ratio of around 0.1%. nCov-2019 has a rate of around 3 to 10%. (Comparison SARS-Cov 9.6%, but with a much smaller infected population.)


    Worse, the nCov-2019 CFR is much higher in individuals over 60 approaching 50% for the elderly.


    Additionally, nCov-2019 has a daily growth rate in the 20% area.


    Imagine if 5 to 10% of the world's population died of this outbreak. This is nothing like the seasonal flu in the past 50 years. Best wishes for the Chinese on their quarantine experiment in Wuhan. It may need to be repeated in other cities that have large infected populations. We will see in the next 10 days how the quarantine worked. We all wish them well.

    I don’t mind the IDE. For some strange reason it is like there is a separate clipboard for the IDE, so one can cut and paste within the IDE, but try and copy from another page and paste to the IDE and whatever was copied or cut from the IDE last time pastes instead.


    Anyways everything was working smoothly until I tried to read the RS232 signal (2 wire only!) from my usual data logger, in order to incorporate that into the sketch data log. I have an RS232 to TTL level shifter, wired everything thing up, checked the Tx and Rx wires end to end, and nothing happens. There should be a 16 bits-long word but nothing comes out in either single bits or strings and with only two wires (Tx and ground), there is no way to poke the RS232 side into action. It is possible that the level shifter doesn’t like only one signal wire. So today’s diagnostics involves plugging in an RS232 to USB cable and seeing if the laptop can see it working...

    Or get an old computer circa 1988 with an RS-232 port.

    On Booker's report, does anyone have an energy estimate for the H2 + O2 supplied before it hits the Pd catalyst, and any electric or thermal energy added at that point of the experiment. As Bob Greenyer pointed out the energy of atomic H to H2 or H2O must be accounted for to rule that out as the cause of the excess energy in the report.


    I read the report yesterday and noted around 950 kJ of excess energy in the runs. Back of the envelope that is about 8 grams of H2 or around 20 grams of gasoline, i.e. less than an ounce; so ruling this chemical energy out is necessary.

    The vacuum system is put back together. There is now a valve between the forepump and the TM pump to prevent backflow. Right now I am testing just the vacuum system to determine how good a vacuum can be attained. The forepump can easily get down to a few milli Torr in a few minutes. The T/M pump gets down to < 1e-6 Torr after an hour. My suspicion is that the new Viton gaskets in the HV side need to be baked out to reach a lower value. The next step will be to add an RGA to identify which gas species are present and need to be removed. Does anybody have suggestions for a good brand of RGA?


    System looks good. A few vacuum points to use:


    1) you can have a great TM/backer pump setup, but if you have a long thin pipe going to the experiment's vacuum chamber, it will pump down slow. This is because the few molecules that are left have to bounce around to find the tiny hole, and then the vacuum pipe acts like a piece of resistive wire.


    2) You can measure the rate of vacuum increase after closing off the valve to fit your rate of leakage/outgassing by fitting an exponential curve (you can use Excel if that is all you got). This tells you how many moles per second are getting into your closed off rig. You can then compute how much gas can be removed by your turbopump to figure out what the ultimate pressure obtainable should be. You can also estimate how much better vacuum you would get by waiting for the oil/water vapor to come off the inner materials by running the test at successive times and then fitting a curve.


    3) Try using a heat gun or running the internal heater to increase the rate of outgassing. You probably want to outgas at the highest temperature that the rig can safely stand, maybe 60 to 70C.


    4) An RGA is a good idea for the experiment, but probably not necessary unless you have a leak. I am assuming you don't have the unit currently hooked up to H2 or D2, so that RGA is going to show either air components or water vapor or oil.


    5) Mizuno doesn't run his experiments at that high a vacuum (1e-3 Torr is my recollection), so if you can pump down to 1e-4 Torr and keep it there that's probably good enough. You will be able to estimate the rate of air (O2 + N2) getting into the rig from the above test, and I believe you are going to fill the unit when you start with about 2e-3 Torr of H2 or D2 and then valve off. You will be able to calculate from the above how fast the maximum leakage of O2 is into the rig. That leaves a tiny fixed amount of H2 fuel for potential combustion with the atmospheric O2 or reduction of oxidation layers -- you can easily put an upper bound on that energy and prove it is insignificant (i.e. <0.1%) of the energy produced by the rig during your run.


    6) The thermal characteristics of 2e-4 H2 or D2 are different than a pure vacuum, but as I believe Pandigmnonia noted, your airflow calorimeter is going to not be effected that much by the change in conduction or convection out your rig (I am guessing less than 2% with a spot guess of 0.5%) so that for a good excess energy run, it won't matter. You can prove that yourself by running a control gas run using an inert stainless steel mesh with H2, or alternatively, run with Helium and then with N2. That would prove the gas conduction/convection doesn't matter.


    Good luck.

    I am using an Arduino Mega2560 with an Adafruit data logging shield.
    Starting to get the hang of it. I was able to put zeros in front of the time single digits, and work out proper incremental time samples based on Unix ms timing (rather than just a delay). The most annoying part is that stuff copied from off IDE won’t paste into IDE.


    If you hate the IDE see if you can program using a conventional text editor like Emacs or VIM and then run the results in a separate console window. If you are running Linux or Mac, I find that most open source IDE tools can copy and paste, but sometimes I have to resort to guerrilla tactics.

    The 48 V DC 350 W power supply arrived early today, a nice surprise. Wired it up, installed it, set it to 50.0 V (it is adjustable +/- about 4 V). And three hours later, still 50.0 V. AC ripple 0.0076 V. Awesome.


    Now I am assembling an Arduino data logger to (eventually) get all calorimeter sensors onto the same time stamp.
    Apparently I can have 100 thermocouples logging simultaneously (offset by a few ms for each one) but I doubt I will try it.


    Why run a 48V power supply at 50.0, i.e. past its rated operating voltage? Might burn it out or be unstable. Why not run it at 48V?

    Without fan voltage and current measurement , (without a MAF, etc) it is nearly impossible to determine if the air flow rate changes between experiments. The air flow measurement in the Mizuno calorimeter is one of the weakest points of that arrangement, IMO. Reduced airflow nets a higher delta T, all else being equal. It is the easiest way to fool the calorimeter based on my tests. The Albiston calorimeter fixes the weakest link with the MAF sensors.


    The current sense resistor in the Mizuno calorimeter is in series with the fan in order to make a voltage signal for the data logger. In the Saito calorimeter photo, there appears to be no blower fan sense resistor, instead there is an adjustable DC power supply. In that case it is possible to feed and measure the reactor and calibration units the desired blower voltage and current directly. To match the Mizuno calorimeter characteristics, Saito would have to set the fan voltage to about 9V, not the total 10.45 V that the Mizuno calorimeter gets because the sense resistor is in series. However, it appears that the calorimeter is not fully assembled in that photo: the RTDs are still in a bag beside the electronics, and there is a blower fan gasket on the RH side of the calorimeter.


    A current sense resistor in series with the blower performs some very useful functions. The voltage to the blower fan is proportional to air flow, and the current sense resistor voltage can show that the fan is in fact always on.


    Although not fully tested by myself, it appears so far that changing the reactor/calibration device resemblance does not affect the outlet-inlet air temperature dT, if everything else remains the same. The calorimeter captures (most of) the input power no matter what the configuration of the heat source is. A 200 W resistor 10 cm long or a 20 x 50 cm steel cylinder with 200 W input react the same at steady state. It is quite difficult to get a 5 C dT above calibration without adding real heat.

    1) I'm not disagreeing with you.


    2) There are current measurement devices for digital data collector rigs that get rid of the need for the crude 3 ohm series resistor for current measurement. Fan power is simple DC current, not a complex high bandwidth waveform. Too much voltage drop relative to fan voltage.

    1)


    The airflow calorimeter consists of an insulated, airtight box (Magic Chef HMCF7W2). The 3 inch foam insulation has been supplemented with Reflectix foil insulation radiant barrier.


    I really like the insulated Magic Chef box. Great choice.


    2) "The calorimeter is housed in a non-climate controlled space so the input air is controlled to be a constant input temperature. A modified heated blower (Conair 1875) is used with PID control to maintain input temperature, usually within a few tenths of a degree."


    Good idea, but please also consider that even with the insulated box the difference in both ambient air temperature, and the temperature of the roof, the walls, and any HVAC blown air will make a small but measurable difference on the net heat transfer from the reactor/control to the outside.


    3) Your documentation is _great_ in this thread. When it comes time for the paper, you can copy and paste this into your journal article.

    I woke up two nights ago wondering if somehow the Mizuno blower fan was being run at 10.45 V for calibration but only 8.5 to 9 V for the excess heat runs due to inserting the 3 ohm sense resistor only in excess runs. Of course that might be possible once, but is very unlikely for many different runs to keep doing that.

    Such an error would be clumsy and thus unlikely but not impossible. That is why having a replicated experiment or at least a second set of eyes review all components in Mizuno's rig is important as he could have accidentally left off an important detail. That said, do we see anywhere that the active vs control run have used a different blower power circuit?


    I would expect that even if the current sense resistor in series was inserted in the active runs, the blower voltage should have been measured across the blower motor, not the blower + resistor, and the sense current measured across the resistor; so that no guess needs to be made on the blower effective resistance. Better than a current sense resistor would be to put a current sensor in series as exists in a common digital multimeter (but one that collects data for the digital data recorder) and not use a sense resistor as a crude current measurement device.


    It is ESSENTIAL that the control run and active run have as little changed as is possible between them. This includes any electrical component and ideally the reactor itself. I have always been uncomfortable that the calibration reactor is different than the control reactor for the initial published Mizuno R19 tests; and that there is essentially no control for the published R20 tests. Any change between control and active must be documented as fully as possible for conclusive proof of excess heat.

    Here is a hi-res photo of Saito's calorimeter.


    Great photo.


    A few quick notes:


    1) No turbo pump, just what appears to be (if my memory serves me) a rotory vane type pump. This limits the vacuum to what that type of pump can put out.


    2) I don't see the H2/D2 tank supply apparatus. It must have been removed.


    3) Input valve is at the perfect place if it is valved to off, thereby limiting potential resupply of chemical fuel to what is already in the unit.


    4) The input gas tube diameter is really small and really long , so I doubt that the effective conduction of the tube is significant to the calorimetry.


    5) With the bricks under the reactor and the nice air gap between the reactor and the walls, I doubt too much reactor heat is going out by conduction to the bricks and thus the outside or anywhere else. It looks like certainly most heat is leaving via air convection or radiation to the walls.


    6) Assume this is the same reactor body (i.e. conflat) I think the calibration run would be consistent after changing either the gas or the reactor mesh. Q. Change the gas and how does the heat flow change? A. I think it doesn't change enough to allow for the 30% excess heat that Saito thinks he is seeing.

    Betelgeuse


    Paradig,


    1) This shows R-19 which is the name of a Mizuno reactor. But I thought you had built your own, or did Mizuno give you R-19?


    2) Did you calibrate with the same reactor as the above experimental run? Or do you (like Mizuno) have a different reactor?


    3) What is different in the test reactor run compared to the calibration run? Same reactor body with an inert gas or vacuum on the inside? Same reactor body with active gas but no mesh or a non-Palladium rubbed mesh? Or different reactor body of similar external characteristics?


    4) Is the reactor's H2 or D2 supply valved off from the supply system?


    Assuming the control is adequate, I think this is excellent results.


    P.S.


    Is Paradig a good abbreviation of your Pseudo-name -- it's easier to spell for me. I hope you don't mind.

    The following JPEG contains my answer.

    [Photo of AC unit 2 meters from rig]


    I've seen this before in a different setting. It's to be expected unless extremely controlled exterior temperatures and constant or zero airflow are are used, by, for example, enclosing the exterior of the rig in a water jacket that is kept at as constant of a temperature as possible by a thermostat. Almost all labs have some kind of HVAC connection to keep the inside environment at habitable temperatures and humidity, and almost all labs have one or more exterior walls, windows, or roofs that couple the exterior environment, diurnal solar heating and night time radiation cooling, and convection into the rig's experiment room.


    What can be very helpful is if the AC unit and its fan blower unit on/off times are registered in the collected data so that the obvious change in external air convection can be at least noted on the charts if not (through extreme calculation gymnastics) filtered away. One idea is to cool off or heat the room before the experiment starts, then turn off the HVAC for the data collection period, collection room temperature as part of the experiment, and leave the door closed with the room empty during the data collection period, so that only free convection and radiation would occur.


    All this is a real pain in the behind and is essentially a type of experimental noise, lowering the signal to noise ratio. That is why the ideal experiments need signals so large that you can drive a 18 wheeled truck through it -- so that the estimation of the environmental effects can be grossly simplified with minimal calculation work, without significantly lowering the probability that the positive result was experimental error.

    There is no chance you could detect either of these things with this equipment. It measures plus/minus 2 W or so. The effects you describe would be a fraction of a milliwatt. (Not actually a milliwatt of heat, but an error on that scale.)


    Known sources of noise such as ambient temperature changes and fluctuations from thermocouples are orders of magnitude larger than the kinds of things you speculate about here.

    Disagree Jed. If the cooling vent is on the rig, its temperature goes down. Has nothing to do with milliwatts, has to do with removal of heat by flow of air. We have all experienced same when standing outside on a still wind day at say 40 Fahrenheit and it seems warm, but add in a breeze and you are freezing. Convective air movement removes heat. I know this to be true from past experience.