Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

  • Zeus 46 wrote: "19W total possible error"

    I think it is much less.

    the variation of Cp with humidity is very small (less than or equal to 4%) at 20C and 35 C


    Cp: the variation in Cp is shown in the attached graph

    for 20 C from 1.006 to ~1.01,( for 0%RH to 100%RH)

    for 35 C from 1.008 to ~1.04 (Tsilingiris).


    In addition the variation in density OPPOSES the Cp effect ( the fan is blowing volume rather than kg??).


    Density: the variation in density is shown in the attached graph.

    for 20 C from 1, to ~ 0.98

    for 35 C from 0.96 to ~0.93 (engineeringtoolbox.com)


    I calculate that relative to dry air at 20 C , 100%RH at 35 C has a combined 'effective' change in specific heat to ~ 96%.


    How does this relate to the Joules calculation (e.g Pg 17, 152 Mj) ?


    4% of 152MJ is 6MJ potential error due to the change in humidity from 0% to 100%.


    I doubt whether the ambient humidity was so great as 100%. so the potential error is likely to be less than 4%

    In addition the inlet and outlet temperatures were not 35 deg.,but 25 and 33 max, so the potential error is likely to be less than 4%.


    Summary: Potential variations in air density/specific heat due to humidity are insignificant compared to the magnitude of the calculated MJ values.



  • I used 20 and 60C as the input/output temperatures, which comes from the 297 and 333K on page 11. Hmm I should have used a calculator...


    Also the total mass of vapour in the air at the output is limited by the absolute humidity at the lower temperature.


  • I admit to error here in not realising the outlet-side blower, which does indeed help to mix the outlet gasses.


    I see, given that, nothing obviously wrong with the methodology. I don't like it because it is indirect and slightly weird, but on balance if there is a mistake here I think it is more likely a "Oh my God that 2 should be not the top not the bottom" style one rather than a more subtle experimental assumption that breaks. I keep my take home: this is worth replicating, but the write-up sufficiently careless that I don't have high hopes from the replication. You can remember that and I'll admit being wrong should that turn out to be so.

  • Eric said "Japan is pretty humid; uncomfortably so. Not quite 100 percent humidity."

    Your graph shows 78% max average for July but I don't believe it.

    I remember my body dissolving in Tokyo to the sound of machinegun cicadas with no aircon.

    Summer 1991 temperature 33 deg C , humidity 1000%!!


    Depends when, where expt was done. Probably Sapporo , Mizuno's hometown.

    which is probably why Mizuno didn't think much of RH.


    Summer in Hokkaido,

    pleasantly temperate 26 deg C, 53% humidity as I write 3.00pm Saturday.

    "I doubt whether the ambient humidity was so great as 100%".

  • Eric is quite correct about Tokyo -in summer in the daytime it is often very humid. However, after sunset the humidity drops so that probably accounts for the 78% average. What must be considered however, is that it is very unlikely that Mizuno was working in a lab without Aircon. It is no longer 1991, Aircon is now 'Japan normal'.

  • The summer ambient swings in Dr. Mizuno's lab were up to 7C/day. He made an airbox with some mitigating capabilities to try and combat that but those swings remain a factor.


    We never got to an HVAC upgrade investment due to the distracting obligation drain that suddenly manifested. Test in our lab of two separate but technically similar smaller reactors did not yield any defensible anomalous results above the noise. Rossi claiming that this is a replication is beyond outrageous but nothing new there either.


    It gets very cold very quickly in Sapporo in the winter - quite a wonderful and interesting place!

  • Electricity is probably expensive. Summer temperature not so different in France today, and can raise to 35-40 peak. We only considered AC in France since 2003 heat wave, a little earlier in cars. before that it was not common for houses(and still not general).

    In Indonesia, even in some mountains, they have no heating, just blankets and pullover. In mountains for a French night are not cold but just fresh.

    I suspect AC is more common in USA, not only because part is under tropical or desert climate, but also because energy is less expensive/taxed, and globally living standard is higher (anyway Japan is as high, if not higher).

  • The summer ambient swings in Dr. Mizuno's lab were up to 7C/day. He made an airbox with some mitigating capabilities to try and combat that but those swings remain a factor.


    We never got to an HVAC upgrade investment due to the distracting obligation drain that suddenly manifested. Test in our lab of two separate but technically similar smaller reactors did not yield any defensible anomalous results above the noise. Rossi claiming that this is a replication is beyond outrageous but nothing new there either.


    It gets very cold very quickly in Sapporo in the winter - quite a wonderful and interesting place!


    So, with replications (specifically designed to replicate, not to "do something a bit different") failing the smart thing for Mizuno is to study the positive and negative experiments and work out the difference. Is it experiment error? Or something not understood about the setup switching a real effect on and off?


    However weird things are given an A/B test (A works, B does not work) you can work out what is what by scrutinising all differences and doing a binary search through differences.


    What however is not helpful is to publish the A result as a positive without mention of the B results.

  • Quote

    What however is not helpful is to publish the A result as a positive without mention of the B results.

    "Not helpful" is a (typical TTH) mild understatement. If that is what happened, it is a gross and unethical thing to do. Or is that also an unwarranted insult in your view, Herr Doctor Professor Zeus?

  • People here should please read the paper more carefully. I think all of the concerns raised here are covered explicitly in the paper. For example:

    A few calculations could be done to support this statement, perhaps even a check of the surface temperature of aluminium foil surrounding the box

    Mizuno wrote: "Six platinum temperature measuring elements were attached to various parts

    of the reactor." (The outside of the reactor, as made clear from context.)

    The Cp's of the other elements aren't necessary to know, as we are only looking at the effect of water vapour content.


    Mizuno wrote: "The atmospheric pressure was calibrated [should be "measured" I think] with a commercially available barometer made by Sunoh company and humidity by a measuring instrument made by Empex company. There was no significant change during the 80 ks measurement period."

  • People here should please read the paper more carefully. I think all of the concerns raised here are covered explicitly in the paper. For example:

    Mizuno wrote: "Six platinum temperature measuring elements were attached to various parts

    of the reactor." (The outside of the reactor, as made clear from context.)


    Mizuno wrote: "The atmospheric pressure was calibrated [should be "measured" I think] with a commercially available barometer made by Sunoh company and humidity by a measuring instrument made by Empex company. There was no significant change during the 80 ks measurement period."


    I'm kind of confused. I can't find from the discussion anything that can explain the Mizuno's result as normal and still IH did not manage to replicate. What I would like to know though is what happens

    when one varies properties of the preparation and experimental setup e.g. how robust the results are to variations in the input. Knowing this is very valuable for a person in position to replicate.


    Actually understanding how variability impacts the results in a manufacturing system is super important to get hi yield with low down time and there are fundamental tools like design of experiments

    designed to help explore this relationship.


    What I read between the lines is that Mizuno tries to improve the process in order to get the preparation step easier to replicate and this improved preparation was not tried by IH. So the positive interpretation

    of the whole situation is that the old preparation was difficult and easy to get wrong, which was why IH failed to replicate?


    In any ways these new results are really exiting and well worth discussion and replication.

  • . Rossi claiming that this is a replication is beyond outrageous

    Dewey maybe you are not informed but you must know that there was a trial and instead of losing it IH preferred to settle.


    Now during the deposition of T.Barker, IH chief engineer, resulted that they made many replications.

    Also from the depositions during the litigation emerged that Woodfors attended a replication made by IH in October 2013, after which Woodford decided to invest in IH, thanks to the Rossi technology. In fact, when in February 2015 Woodford gave 50 millions to IH, that was the sole technology in the portfolio of IH.

  • Jed wrote"

    Mizuno wrote: "Six platinum temperature measuring elements were attached to various parts

    of the reactor." (The outside of the reactor, as made clear from context.)

    I was talking about getting a surface reading on the outside of the acrylic box and using StefanBoltzmann,

    to estimate radiation loss.

    Mizuno probably considered this way back.

    and concluded that it was too difficult to measure a 0.1 degree difference .

    One might have to cover the box with paper/foil to counter IR transparency also.

    Say Ta= 297 Ts = 297.1

    W= e x Sigma x Area x (Ts(exp)4) - Ta(exp)4)

    = 0.86 x 5.67 x 10(exp) (-8) x `2.2 x .........................

    =1.12 Watts.


    Mizuno's statement on Pg 13 that "we assume the heat unaccounted for was lost {1.4W from100W} by radiation from the box"

    seems reasonable to me

  • Ele - you don't know when to stop and must be drinking the same juice as your cohorting cotraveler SSC. Breaking old news....there was no trial (hard for some of you to understand) and Rossi's attorney proposed a walkaway settlement minutes before Darden was to take the stand. Rossi did not want anything to do with having to defend his numerous depositions and wanted out. IH took the proposal because there was risk of a split-baby decision from a jury trying to make sense and bring a sense of fairness to a very complicated (thanks to Rossi's vast imagination) litigation. IH also wanted to put the $1M in July legal fees back to work with CF researchers. No brainer really.


    No trial happened - got it?