Zeus46 said "Maybe a couple of zeroes have been missed off? "
I contacted MizunoSensei.. The data set he used is below.
This gives
Hc= 0.987 +0.0000661 ×Tout.
Japanese saying: Even monkeys fall off trees
Ashley Simpson: Whose gonna catch me when I fall.
I guess that's the function of peer review.
| 253 | 1.004 |
| 273 | 1.004 |
| 293 | 1.006 |
| 313 | 1.008 |
| 333 | 1.009 |
| 353 | 1.01 |
| 373 | 1.012 |
| 393 | 1.014 |
What has happened in the past, doesn't predict the future. However, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Mizuno has released many results that have turned out to contain fatal flaws. I'm not sure if any of his past claims have stood the test of time, but maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'd take the results seriously enough to examine them, but folks should realize that it is a very low probability that the results will withstand scrutiny.
Mizuno has released many results that have turned out to contain fatal flaws.
Which ones do you have in mind?
Mizuno call the heat capacity Hc, and gives an equation for it as Hc = .987 + .00661 * Tout (Eqn. 1 on pg. 12). Now Tout is the output air temp, which is roughly 25C or 298 K. He uses K in his paper and if we use 298K in the equation that gives Hc = .987 + 1.96978 = 2.9568.
And blah, blah.
Figure 18 shows that when you heat the reactor with 100 W of resistance heating, the air-flow calorimetry measures 100 W coming out. I do not see the point of speculating how it might not be working when tests show that it is working.
From “Thermodynamic Properties of Elements and Oxides” (actually two separate tables)
CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 66th ed. (1985-6)
p. D-43 (eqn), D-45 (elements), and D-47 (oxide)
Cp = a + (b x 10e-3)T + (c x 10e-6)T^2 + (d x 10e5)/T^2
Values for a, b, c, and d from the tables (units of cal/mole):
For
N2, 6.76 0.606 0.13 -
O2, 8.27 0.258 - -1.877
H2O(l) 11.2 7.17 - -
H2O(g) (21.7) - - -
( ‘-‘ means no number given, i.e. term not included in calc, ‘()’ means estimated)
Based on the above, it is reasonably clear that the heat capacity of gaseous water is higher than that of N2 or O2, so taking a fixed volume of moist air, the water will presumably increase the Cp for the mixture over dry air. I didn’t try to calculate that out because this is what I thought Mizuno should have done, plus, you also have to fold in the errors on the equation coefficients as well, and my purpose in the post was to point out that this error analysis was not done and was not even possible because this information was not given.
One can also see that the heat capacity of gaseous water is different from liquid water and I note you used values for liquid water. You can see they are different. But to be honest, the equation doesn’t seem to give the correct value for liquid water, so I would need to do more research to determine what is going on here if I wanted to ‘take this to the nth degree’.
But kudos to you for at least attempting the calculation. You may end up being absolutely correct in concluding this is a small component of error. You did better than Mizuno. He just said ‘trust me’. Assuming he used the right numbers, it would have taken 1 or two more sentences to summarize what you showed in your calc, and we would *know* at that point what Mizuno *actually* did. As I noted, the CF community’s handling of error analysis generally leaves a lot to be desired.
You wrote “You can't eat the same piece of cake twice, Kirk.” wrt humidity affecting air density. Why? You don’t understand that chemical composition will affect both the moist air density and heat capacity, and therefore the output power via two terms? It most certainly will. The only question is how much (i.e. the error analysis).
You quoted me: “Errors are never quantified.”
And replied: “Oh, the irony.”
Again why? You don’t get it that Mizuno didn’t do an error analysis? Or that it’s not my job to do it for him? All I was doing in my post on that section of the paper is outlining what needed to be done. Yes, I didn’t go to the level you did here, but so what? My point is that we *DON”T KNOW* what _Mizuno_ did, which is a comment on the paper’s quality. Some day maybe we will, if he writes it up properly. Just like some day we may see a report of an excess heat where they actually show it lies well outside the bounds of a CCS. Some day…I’m not holding my breath though.
Regarding the SEM/EDX data and your comments on my comments:
I have done this kind of work for years. I usually have a microscopist do it for me. When he/she does an EDX map, they supply an accompanying SEM photo with the spot location identified, so I know what the map means. So for the Mizuno work I ask the question “What part of the photo of Figure 35 does Figure 36 examine?” and (if Figures 37, 38, and 39 are based on Figure 36) “Why do the C, N, and O maps show no structural features such as we see in Figure 36?” Normally one might expect the pits and blobs in Fig 36 to show some composition differences, but they don’t. Ergo, Figures 37, 38, and 39 are useless in deciding what the pits and blobs represent. But they certainly do bring up the question about when and where the C, N, and O appear, and how fast if they change with time. IOW, the pictures are just teasers pointing out the need for more studies. But Mizuno doesn’t say that. So again, what was his point in this whole SEM/EDX section?
So anyways, your comment “In the end, this^ comment illustrates a generic problem with online criticism in the CF field.... Namely, it looks like another case of the Unbounded Error Gambit! ...Point out a possible source of measurement error, and assume/imply it must be extremely significant.” actually just shows that you have a strong pro-CF bias through which you attempt to interpret my comments. All I was doing was walking through what an error analysis would do to point out how much Mizuno failed to do. Would it make a difference in his conclusions? Who knows, we don’t have all the information…which is that ‘typical state of affairs’ or ‘generic problem’ I was pointing out. Seriously, if you are trying to be ‘scientific’ you need to grow a thicker skin and seek to understand the give-and-take of scientific discussion. Stop trying to make it an ‘us-vs.-them’ thing like Jed and Kevin do all the time. Critics are not all ‘snakes’ by default.
Good point... I missed the fact there is no calibration constant used.
Because the calibration run in figure18 matches what's predicted by Mizuno's derived calorimeter equations, the size of any errors (due to humidity or atmospheric pressure) mentioned above would be approximately halved.
Hi everyone,
This write-up annoys me. The results are quite extraordinary and would indicate something of great interest if confirmed. The calorimetry is what annoys.
In principle, this type of calorimetry could give decent results. Kirk's list of issues above have more or less been answered:
Variation of spec heat cap with temp (second order effect, not an issue).
Many errors in paper. Lamentable, and a warning that there may be other errors, but not actually a direct problem
Issues about water content of air, needs checking but not likely a problem
There are other more difficult issues not addressed:
There is ambiguity in the paper. It clearly says that there are two modes of operation, either you have one reactor inside the enclosure, of you have both reactors inside. it is less clear, for each of the results and for the calibration, which mode is used. This matters because we expect the calibration to be very different when there is one reactor and two reactors.
This methodology, without mistakes, would be secure, and presumably replicable. Based on the quality of this paper, and the lack of clarity in the write-up, I'm not confident there are no mistakes. However, I can't second-guess what the mistake would be. We don't even know how the input power is measured and while this should be straightforward, and a good experimentalist unlikely to make a mistake, I have no information about how good an experimenter Mizumo is.
Luckily this is not a problem. If this stuff works it will be easy for someone else to replicate, with different calorimetry and better write-up - or even the same methodology much more carefully written up. I don't find this paper gives me great hope, but equally it deserves followup.
anyways, your comment “In the end, this^ comment illustrates a generic problem with online criticism in the CF field.... Namely, it looks like another case of the Unbounded Error Gambit! ...Point out a possible source of measurement error, and assume/imply it must be extremely significant.” actually just shows that you have a strong pro-CF bias through which you attempt to interpret my comments.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to that quote, it was really just a sly poke at THH... But then perhaps my alleged strongly pro-CF bias somewhat balances out with your rabid anti-CF bias, at the very least?
Good point about the Cp of H20 liquid vs gas though, I should have checked that... I thought I was using the larger of the two. I'll see how that changes things later.
But then perhaps my alleged strongly pro-CF bias somewhat balances out with your rabid anti-CF bias, at the very least?
There's a saying "When you wrestle with pigs in mud, after a while you can't tell who the pig is anymore."
I am biased towards 'antiCF' because I require adequate evidence to believe amazingly anomalous results mean brand new physics and chemistry. That is inherently a more difficult than usual problem. I believe I am the only person who has gone to the trouble to read and analyze the large body of CF papers who has ever found and demonstrated an actual problem in calorimertry, which constitutes the largest block of evidence supposedly supporting the existence of CF or LENR. After 15 years, my work is still being misrepresented, not only by advocates like Jed, but by primary researchers like Storms, Hagelstein, etc. So I defend my work. But the facts are that a) I always admit my ideas could be shown to be wrong or irrelevant if adequately addressed, and b) I can't afford to be closed-minded on this because if CF is real, I and my coworkers are potentially being exposed to possible explosive devices (metal deuterides in closed containers - think aerosol can in a fire).
In principle, this type of calorimetry could give decent results.
And in practice, the 3 calibrations shown in Fig. 27 show that this calorimetry does give decent results. So what is your problem?
Making up long lists of reasons why this might not work when you can see that it does work strikes me as a strange thing to do. What is the point? An actual calibration test overrules any amount of hand waving and speculation.
And in practice, the 3 calibrations shown in Fig. 27 show that this calorimetry does give decent results. So what is your problem?
Making up long lists of reasons why this might not work when you can see that it does work strikes me as a strange thing to do. What is the point? An actual calibration test overrules any amount of hand waving and speculation.
My problems are as I stated. Too much in this setup not tied down. In mass flow calorimetry great efforts are made to ensure fluids are mixed. Here I see no such efforts. Actual calibration tests only over-rule speculation if properly documented and under the same conditions as the experiment. In this case we do not have that in the areas I mention.
I would like very precise descriptions of methodology in this case because the results are surprising and not replicated. Therefore error needs to be checked carefully. Without replication that process cannot be complete. But, if the experiment is very carefully described, with what is done explicitly stated, that increases confidence that error is unlikely and therefore makes these results look more compellingly like something that any sensible scientist would want to replicate.
As I stated, with these results I'd reckon replication is warranted, but no conclusions should be drawn till that happens. I'd expect the replications to be negative because the evidence here is not of very high quality - doubtless we will see. That expectation is not a conclusion, it is merely my view of what is most likely.
Making up long lists of reasons why this might not work when you can see that it does work strikes me as a strange thing to do. What is the point?
That's why you're not a scientist...
In mass flow calorimetry great efforts are made to ensure fluids are mixed. Here I see no such efforts.
Yes, but the point is to mix the flow before the output thermocouple - to avoid laminar flow streams in the pipe from interfering with the results. Glass beads in the output pipe are the norm, but here the centrifugal fan does a rather good job of that.
Mixing the flow inside the chamber isn't strictly necessary, because the relevant equations just look at the mass flow in/out. Any unmixed (let's say cold) air inside the chamber being sucked into the outlet pipe will only reduce the thermal response time of the system... There is not an unlimited supply of cold air inside the chamber to skew the temperature measurement over a long duration.
Is the position of control and real reactors identical in enclosure? (any difference would alter calibration)
Is the position of all other components identical between control and real? (any difference would alter calibration)
I might agree if I had seen a calibration constant in the calorimeter equations.
I might agree if I had seen a calibration constant in the calorimeter equations.
Possibly important point. Mizuno is apparently one of those folks who assumes calibration constants that I have mentioned elsewhere a couple of times. In his paper, he presents data that leads us to believe his calorimeter has a heat capture efficiency of 98.6%, which is a) very good, and b) right in line with the results of Storms and (separately) McKubre (and probably others). That means there should be a factor in front of his power out calculation of 1/0.986, which is the so-called 'bump-up' factor I talk about when discussing how big the CCS effect could be. There would be in principle, if the stats were being done right, an additive constant term as well. In theory it would be zero, but in practice that rarely occurs. It is likely small, but without evaluating it, it is just guessing as to its size and error bar. Ditto on the multiplier's error bar.
My problems are as I stated. Too much in this setup not tied down. In mass flow calorimetry great efforts are made to ensure fluids are mixed. Here I see no such efforts. Actual calibration tests only over-rule speculation if properly documented and under the same conditions as the experiment. In this case we do not have that in the areas I mention.
So, if I understand you correctly:
You think it is a fantastic coincidence that the output heat is the same as the input power for calibrations at 80 W, 120 W and 248 W. (Fig. 27)
You think that air blowing through a box with the kind of blower shown in FIg. 14 does not mix. The streams of air stay in lockstep magical straight lines. Have you ever used a fan or hairdryer?
You think that the test blowing incense smoke through the insulated container did not or would not reveal that the air was not mixed. (p. 13)
How would you keep air from mixing when it is forced through narrow orifices in the inlet and outlet? The Venturi effect is used as "a handy way to mix fluids" in atomizers and carburetors. (http://sciphile.org/lessons/be…rinciple-and-venturi-tube)
You have an extraordinary imagination!
It is true that water flow calorimeters sometimes have problems with streamlines. They often fix that with . . . a Venturi. In any case, air mixes more easily than water, I think.
Somewhat off-topic note: a Japanese person would use incense for this test. The Wright brothers testing their wind tunnel used cigars, as I recall. They confirmed the opposite effect: streamlines of unmixed air emerged from a square baffle placed between the fan and the sample airfoil. They called it the "straightener." In other words, you can keep air from mixing, but you have to do that deliberately. You cannot run the air through a narrow channel. You can visually confirm you have kept the streamlines straight. All wind tunnels operators still do it this way.
The wind tunnel and the straightener are shown here. Note that wind tunnel does not narrow past the fan. If it did, the air would mix.
Making up long lists of reasons why this might not work when you can see that it does work strikes me as a strange thing to do. What is the point?
That's why you're not a scientist...
Nope. Scientists do tests. They measure things. They run incense through an air flow calorimeter to confirm it is working. They measure and record relevant parameters, including atmospheric pressure and humidity, even though these two did not vary significantly. (See p. 12.)
Scientists read textbooks and consult with experts to learn what problems can affect air-flow calorimetry. They do not sit around inventing imaginary problems.
What you are doing is speculating, hand waving, and navel gazing. You can keep doing that indefinitely. You can come up with dozens of imaginary problems. If you were to spend an hour working with an actual calorimeter, you would see that your imaginary problems do not exist, whereas many actual problems you never thought of do exist.
I am not saying we should ignore the possibility of unmixed air. Unmixed fluid it a problem in flow calorimetry. However, THH greatly exaggerated the situation by saying:
"Too much in this setup not tied down. In mass flow calorimetry great efforts are made to ensure fluids are mixed. Here I see no such efforts."
No such efforts? Really? None at all? And just how likely is this problem, given the configuration and the calibration results?
"No such efforts" are the words of a skeptic who is scrambling to find a reason to dismiss the results. They are the words of someone who has not read the paper carefully, not thought about that incense or how a hair dryer blower works, and has probably not tried to do air flow calorimetry. (I, on the other hand, spent a months doing it, mostly doing it wrong, making mistake after mistake, which by Bohr's definition makes me an expert.)
Regarding phenanthrene as a catalyst.
QuoteMizuno’s most shocking results have been with hydrogen, not deuterium – and but with phenanthrene as catalyst - where he found that hydrogen with palladium was no-gain unless phenanthrene was added. He considers this NOT to be fusion of two protons but with ash consisting of carbon-13
See post
http://e-catworld.com/2016/01/…stals-and-lenr-axil-axil/
The hexagon crystal; structure is special in LENR.
In Rossi's waffer design, he uses a thin single crystal mica sheet on either side of his centrally located heater. Mica could make that waffer LENR capable.
Holmlid uses graphite to form his Ultra dense hydrogen;
Cravens uses graphite in his golden ball reactor.
The crystal structure of Metallic water is hexagonal and is also LENR active.
This hexagonal shaped magnetic lens produces a vortex of magnetic flux lines which interacts with the quarks in matter by forming instantons and compound fermions as occurs in the fractional quantum hall effect does with electrons..
Jed Rothwell wrote " I am not saying we should ignore the possibility of unmixed air"
There are other possibilities such as radiation which Mizuno mentions
We consider this a reasonable calibration of the control reactor, and we assume the heat unaccounted for was lost by radiation from the box.
A few calculations could be done to support this statement, perhaps even a check of the surface temperature of aluminium foil surrounding the box
at 100W input.. to confirm that the 1.4 W heat loss is within the StefanBoltzmann law expectation
Perhaps Mizuno could address such possibilities in a "strengths and weaknesses" or "limitations" section.
There are plenty of strengths in this paper.
Kirkshanahan has a reasonable point about error margins. Perhaps JCMNS25 could consider this.
Errors are estimatable, calculatable..it's time consuming but otherwise can/should be done.
This is physics not philosophy... and this is a SIGNIFICANT paper
Jed. Some questions
1. When are those spreadsheets ready? The maths section description in the paper is not 'rigorous'.. needs pruning.
A better description of how the Temp/time data was calculated into Megajoules is needed. Error analysis can come out of that.
2. When is JCMNS25 due out? Can revisions be incorporated?
3. Can someone edit the forum's 'review' comments and funnel them respectfully to Mizuno-sensei?
A unrealistically huge swing in (indoor) Relative Humdity from 25% to 70% (at 20C) gives a maximum change in water mass of 8.64g/m3
4.184 J/g.C * 8.64g/m3 * 60-20C * 0.03m3/s = 43W total possible error.
...Or in other words, a possible phantom 0.96W gained for every 1% drop in relative humidity since the control run.
Display MoreCp = a + (b x 10e-3)T + (c x 10e-6)T^2 + (d x 10e5)/T^2
Values for a, b, c, and d from the tables (units of cal/mole):
For
N2, 6.76 0.606 0.13 -
O2, 8.27 0.258 - -1.877
H2O(l) 11.2 7.17 - -
H2O(g) (21.7) - - -
( ‘-‘ means no number given, i.e. term not included in calc, ‘()’ means estimated)
I'm no chemist, so cal/mol isn't a unit I have much experience with. To avoid having to think too hard about what's necessary to turn that into a SI unit describing the Cp of bulk moist air, let's use this table instead to find the Cp of water vapour:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-d_979.html
The Cp's of the other elements aren't necessary to know, as we are only looking at the effect of water vapour content.
so... "4.184 J/g.C * 8.64g/m3 * 60-20C * 0.03m3/s = 43W total possible error."
becomes... 1.864 J/g.C * 8.64g/m3 * 60-20C * 0.03m3/s = 19W total possible error. (That is, total possible error due to effect of RH on the Cp. of air)
Based on the above, it is reasonably clear that the heat capacity of gaseous water is higher than that of N2 or O2, so taking a fixed volume of moist air, the water will presumably increase the Cp for the mixture over dry air.
Well, yes. That 19W is the extra heat that would be needed to raise the temperature of the air to a given temperature; exactly because the Cp has increased due to it's moisture content.
