1996.01.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Resp. to M. Jones: How I measured inlet temperature
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 16:22:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

My e-mail access to this forum is acting funny. I cannot respond to Mitchell's
original thread, so I will start a new one.
 
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
 
     "Naturally, this scenario requires that the inlet thermocouple reading
     be wrong--that it be too low by 16 degrees C--and that Jed's attempt to
     verify that reading using his own instruments should also be wrong. How
     did Jed attempt to verify it? Well, he said that he "confirmed the cold
     fusion inlet temperature by turning off the control side joule heater
     and taking a 250 ml sample from the control outlet pipe." In other
     words, Jed did *not* independently confirm the inlet temperature of the
     experimental cell. Instead, he assumed that the control cell would not
     be producing excess heat and, thus, that the temperature immediately
     downstream from the control cell would be the same as the temperature
     immediately upstream from the experimental cell."
 
There are two things wrong with this.
 
1. I also measured the reservoir temperature by lowering the thermistor probe
into it. The reservoir had a thermocouple with a red LED reading (different
from the inlet thermocouple). My thermistor agreed with the reservoir
thermocouple to the nearest 0.1 deg C. Since the water is pumped from the
reservoir to the cell inlet, the reservoir temperature must be very close to
the inlet temperature. As the water passes through the tube to the inlet, it
cools down a little, by 1.1 to 1.4 deg C by my measurement. However, the two
are in close agreement, and even if you take the reservoir temperature as
being the low end of the Delta T there is still massive excess heat. In other
words, the cell outlet water was far hotter than the reservoir.
 
2. I did not assume the control cell would not produce excess heat; I know for
sure it would not. In these later tests it was replaced with a joule heater,
and the heater was turned off when I made this comparison. The meters showed
zero volts, zero amps.
 
I note that heat lost in cooling as the water travels from the reservoir to
the cell inlet equals approximately 70 to 100 watts (1.1 to 1.4 deg C
temperature drop). This is equal to or a little more power than the total
input to the system.
 
 
     "Result: he took his sample from the control cell outlet tube rather
     than from the experimental cell inlet tube. However, since the control
     cell was "plugged up and shorted out . . ."
 
This was only true during the first test, when I took no detailed measurements
myself. It was unplugged and replaced in all subsequent tests.
 
 
     "Did he, for example, hold the hose leading into the cell with one hand
     and the hose leading out with the other, thereby confirming that there
     was a real and significant difference in the temperatures?"
 
Yes, I did.
 
     "Or are we really in the position of trusting the CETI inlet
     thermocouple, with no backup?"
 
The reservoir temperature acts as a good backup.
 
Regarding Mitchell's tests with the Magnum 350 pump, I think this is
interesting work, and I think it shows how complicated the heat transfer from
these systems can be. It is good advertisement for using flow calorimetry
rather than static calorimetry with such large heat fluxes. However, I do not
think that his work disproves Cravens' results or Cravens' reports of his
calibrations and previous testing. Mitchell will have to build a system much
closer what Dennis used before I have any serious doubts about it. In another
posting, Mike Carrell experimented with a 1500 watt room heater and reported
these results:
 
     "a) Mitchell model; 471 in^2 area, equilibrium delta T not established.
     b) CETI demonstration, area 118 in^2, delta T 16C
     c) Room heater, area 45 in^2, delta T 72C
 
     Area ratio b/c = 2.6, delta T ratio c/b = 4.5."
 
Carrell suggests that the power of fan is not as critical an issue as the
geometry of the fan and cooling tower arrangement. I did some quick
experiments with a hairdrier set for 500 watts with the fan on low speed. I
concur with his observation that there is "no incandescence in the wires" or
anything of the sort. The geometry of a hairdrier optimizes the cooling of the
coils. Furthermore, the air coming from the hairdrier is barely warm. Palpable
yes, but not a bit hot. The air coming from the Power-Gen was palpably warm. I
took no measurements, but I do get a sense that it must have been in the same
order of magnitude as the hairdrier (100 - 1000 watts).
 
Let me emphasize again that I do not know what the equilibrium (terminal)
temperature for 1300 watts would be. I do not know if the temperature was
climbing, or how  rapidly it was climbing during the quarter-hour high heat
event. I think it would be more reasonable to take 35 deg C as the approximate
terminal temperature with 500 watts input. More to the point, I am quite
certain that 35 deg C cannot be the terminal temperature with only 1 watt
of input, or 1 watt plus the heat and friction from the pump. That is
completely out of the question. Any significant temperature elevation in the
reservior indicates massive excess heat.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.13 / Stephen R /  cmsg cancel <30F8299B.4645@sci-journal.com>
     
Originally-From: "Stephen R. Holland" <ed@sci-journal.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <30F8299B.4645@sci-journal.com>
Date: 13 Jan 96 15:49:28 PST
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Cancelling spam
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudened cudfnStephen cudlnR cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Martin Sevior /  Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: Martin Sevior <msevior>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: 14 Jan 1996 00:52:16 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell) wrote:

[snip]

>what appear to be ten .5 inch holes drilled in the cylinder wall just
>below the coiled tubing. (I scaled the phtotgraph, using the reported 14
>cm diameter of the cylinder.) From a catalog, the photograph, and
>descriptions by Jed, the fan probably has a throat diameter of 3.6 in. and
>a flow capacity of 42 cfm. The area of the holes is about 7.6 in^2, and
>the fan throat about 10 in^2, so the flow is not substantially obstructed.
>Despite the ad hoc appearance of the heat exchanger, this configuration is
>the proper and effective use of resources. The incoming air can fully mix

OK all this should be taken with several bags of salt since have no actual
measurements but anyway...

Jed reports that the output of the fan produced a "stream of warm air". If
it also provides a flow rate of 42 cubic feet per minute then it's fun
to see how much power this actually represents..

OK convert cubic feet per minute to useful units..

1 cubic foot = 30cm * 30cm * 30cm = 27 litres
42 cubic feet per minute = 42*27/60 = 18.9 litres per second
1 mole of gas = 22.4 litres so...
42 cubic feet per minute = 18.9/22.4 = 0.844 mole per second

Then John Logajan's handy thermodynamic scorecard gives the heat capacity of
both Oxygen and Nitrogen to be 29 Joules/mole/Kelvin. 

So 42 CFM gives 29*.844 = 24.5 Joules per degree C per second.

Now what does a "stream of warm air" mean? Try air elevated 10 C, 15 C and
20 C above ambient mean?

Here's a little table....

Temperature elevation          10C          15C          20C

Power in the air flow        245 watts     367 watts     490 watts

This assumes no evaporation only air flow. It appears to be in the ballpark of
a device designed to dissapate 200 - 500 watts of heat.

 
Martin Sevior

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudfnMartin cudlnSevior cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Aurora Henry /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: aahenry@ix.netcom.com (Aurora Henry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,alt.comedy.british,sci.phys
cs.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 14 Jan 1996 18:32:25 GMT
Organization: Very Little

Not Archimedes again.  I stopped reading all of my sci.* groups to get away 
from the endless drivel crossposts discussing the man only to find there is 
no escape.  He'll follow me anywhere!

Please edit headers so that the thread can die quickly and with all the 
grace Mr. Plutonium could hope to achieve.

Aurora Henry

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenaahenry cudfnAurora cudlnHenry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some simple calculations assuming 42 CFM.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 10:10:51 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4d9k40$g7l@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, Martin Sevior <msevior> wrote:
->rmcarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell) wrote:
->
->[snip]
->
->>what appear to be ten .5 inch holes drilled in the cylinder wall just
->>below the coiled tubing. (I scaled the phtotgraph, using the reported 14
->>cm diameter of the cylinder.) From a catalog, the photograph, and
->>descriptions by Jed, the fan probably has a throat diameter of 3.6 in. and
->>a flow capacity of 42 cfm. The area of the holes is about 7.6 in^2, and
->>the fan throat about 10 in^2, so the flow is not substantially obstructed.
->>Despite the ad hoc appearance of the heat exchanger, this configuration is
->>the proper and effective use of resources. The incoming air can fully mix


In another post, I pointed out that RMCarrell grossly overestimated the inlet 
area, and therefore, his speculation about the cooling capacity of the Cravens 
"cooling tower" is seriously flawed.  On other words, even if the nominal 
rating of the fan were actually to be 42 cf/m, the actual performance would be 
much less.


->OK all this should be taken with several bags of salt since have no actual
->measurements but anyway...
->
->Jed reports that the output of the fan produced a "stream of warm air". If
->it also provides a flow rate of 42 cubic feet per minute then it's fun
->to see how much power this actually represents..
->
->OK convert cubic feet per minute to useful units..
->
->1 cubic foot = 30cm * 30cm * 30cm = 27 litres
->42 cubic feet per minute = 42*27/60 = 18.9 litres per second
->1 mole of gas = 22.4 litres so...
->42 cubic feet per minute = 18.9/22.4 = 0.844 mole per second
->
->Then John Logajan's handy thermodynamic scorecard gives the heat capacity of
->both Oxygen and Nitrogen to be 29 Joules/mole/Kelvin. 
->
->So 42 CFM gives 29*.844 = 24.5 Joules per degree C per second.
->
->Now what does a "stream of warm air" mean? Try air elevated 10 C, 15 C and
->20 C above ambient mean?
->
->Here's a little table....
->
->Temperature elevation          10C          15C          20C
->
->Power in the air flow        245 watts     367 watts     490 watts
->
->This assumes no evaporation only air flow. It appears to be in the ballpark 
of
->a device designed to dissapate 200 - 500 watts of heat.
->
-> 
->Martin Sevior
->

What Jed said, before the revisionists took over, was that very little heat 
was rejected through the "cooling tower" -- most was rejected through the 
vessel walls.

What you have calculated is the heat capacity of an assumed (and demonstrably 
wrong) volume of air at various temperatures. You've not addressed the right 
question, so you are not even near the ballpark. 

You have done nothing to address the threshhold issue of whether the Cravens 
"cooling tower" can reject the speculated amounts of heat to the atmosphere at 
the temperatures under discussion. Mitchell's tests support the conclusion 
that the toy "cooling tower" cannot accomplish that task.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / K Ostridge /  Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: birdie@netcom.com (Kathleen Ostridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,soc.culture.british,alt.com
dy.british,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Incredibly ignorant statements parroted by Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 08:02:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Ross Tessien (tessien@oro.net) wrote:

: I have a great sense of humor when something is funny.  Apparently birdie 
: doesn't want to respond below, so lets see if the cat can get her out of 
: the tree.  Probably not because she obvioulsy has no knowledge of the 
: subject with which to debate, but lets try any way.

The debate is whether discussions about physics belong on a newsgroup 
such as alt.british.comedy or not. Since you did barge into 
alt.british.comedy crossposting your long debate from sci.physics, etc,etc
you have gotten nothing but an appropriate response from people in the 
alt.british.comedy newsgroup...in fact, everybody has been quite kind 
considering you've spammed it with something that *does not* belong here.

You get what you ask for...

Birdie



-- 
"A few more trips around the sun & my face will look like a fault map!" 
                                                  
                                                  - birdie@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbirdie cudfnKathleen cudlnOstridge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
1996.01.14 / Bob Sullivan /  Re: Magnum 350 Run
     
Originally-From: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnum 350 Run
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 10:01:51 GMT
Organization: SkyNET Online

In article <4d9293$l04@news-f.iadfw.net>,
   bsnyder@iadfw.net (Bill Snyder) wrote:

[. . .]

->I really don't see the point of this.  It's easy to show that the
->thing can't come close to dissipating the claimed power *if* we assume
->negligible evaporation.  But it's also possible to show that it could
->easily dispose of the power claimed; all it takes is to assume a
->sufficiently high rate of electrolyte loss/replenishment.
->
->Pointing out discrepancies is bound to be fruitless, so long as the
->data furnished is so obiously inadequate that the proponents can
->simply say, "Oh we forgot to tell you..." and trot out some new item
->of data as an "explanation."


It's not necessary to "assume" evaporation or no evaporation.  If the heat 
is there it will be rejected -- possibly catastrophically. The only way to get 
sufficient heat rejection capacity for 1,344W is with evaporation (boiling).  
Even at lower power levels you would find scalding temperatures. Absent the 
high temperature signature, you can safely conclude that the claimed of 1,344W 
is specious.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbsulliva cudfnBob cudlnSullivan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1996 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 17 04:37:03 EST 1996
------------------------------
