Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

Quote from bocijn

THHuxley wrote "how is the pressure maintained"

The start pressure is 760 Pa

The text says " keeping the pressure intact" .

The meaning needs to be clarified. I think that it means the voume was constant and there were no leaks.

Display More

I don't know, as ypou say it needs clarification. I'd like the possibility that pressure is maintained by a vacuum pump to be explicitly ruled out.

THHuxley wrote "pressure is maintained by a vacuum pump to be explicitly ruled out".

I had already flagged the " keeping the pressure intact" for the copy that Jed sent me.

It means keeping the reactor chamber sealed.

I would not dream of asking "Do you maintain the pressure by the vacuum pump?"

although I might ask other gauche questions.

If you READ the section on prep of the reaction material

they evacuate.. bleed in D2,,,, evacuate...etc to wash out

residual gas until they are sure they have pure new D2.

The commonsense practical thing once they have filled the volume to 760 Pa

is to close the inlet exit valves.

otherwise they would never be sure what mass was in the reactor vessel.

It is not just Mizuno... he has technician(s) 1 2? there too.

If you READ the prep section again you notice that they are measuring the pressure

change to indicate the cessation of residual gas evolution, why would they want to maintain it?

I am sure Mizuno would have checked that there was a net pressure decrease in the

active reactor and none in the inactive reactor after a long run.

This would tell him if there were any leaks.

I am quite sure the level of sophistication of Mizuno's work is pretty good.

Part of it is cultural..that's why my 2011 Mazda is running fine and

my daughter's Holden Commodore 2011 is sitting outside with

its cylinder head off. We use a Japanese mechanic for the Mazda.

We might have to take the Commodore out the back and shoot it.

Jed.. why there may be two calibration factors.

Mizuno has put in an extra calibration factor for the active to compensate for

the difference in temperature between the active and inactive reactors.

Say the two temps are 26 active, 24 inactive and ambient is 20.

conduction losses will increase to 150%,

radiation losses to 151%

active versus inactive

However if the two temps are 31/26 ambient 20

conduction losses will increase to 119%,

radiation losses to 188%

active versus inactive

I am sure there are other sophisticated adjustments

I have not identified, some of which I

would not have a clue about.

There are years of labhours under Mizuno's belt

I now have the entire 9 hours of the 120 W calibration. I have uploaded the spreadsheet here:

https://docs.google.com/spread…guD8iWilv7s3rgqXA/pubhtml

Here is the graph of temperature, which is Fig. 1 in the previous message:

The previous message is . . . here:

Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

Hi Jed..

Neko ni koban... ne?

For the calibration (inactive) reactor:

Spread sheet analysis gives 2.55 Mj for the capacitive sensible heat... (m x c x delta t) transferred to the flowing air.

including the 1.26 environmental calibration factor converts this to 3.21 MJ total heat out.

For the active reactor capacitive sensible heat =, 3.09 MJ. Total heat via 1.26 gives 3.89 MJ total heat out.

Using 1.26 is conservative because active reactor is a little hotter than the inactive reactor so its factor should be larger.

Here is a summary

Note the electrical input for the active reactor is 23% less than for the inactive

Summary.

COP for the inactive reactor is 0.99.

COP for the active reactor is 1.57.

A Sankey diagram http://sankeymatic.com/build/ for the active reactor is:

kirkshanahan wrote:

If I am doing this right, and please check me because I do make mistakes, Mizuno takes what is approximately the output power and multiplies it by 2.42! No wonder he sees excess heat!

(JedR: No, you are doing it wrong)

bocijn wrote:

I do not know what 2.119 1.1429 are..I don't use em. they may be relics of a modifed setup.

They are the reason why you get 7.4 MJ...

Thank you bocijn. You agree with me, the 2.42 value is a) unexplained, and b) in all likelihood, wrong. That means I was 'doing it right'.

bocijn wrote:

I don't see evidence that Mizuno used them in his final calculations .

Mizuno's spreadsheet lists the 7.4 MJ as the output power, which is wrong. He also plots the values in the graph in the spreadsheet, which looks like the 120W curve of Figure 28. So yes, he does use them, as his final calculation of output power, which he then uses to compute the excess power and COP, which are thusly wrong. My computation of the output power, which uses his equation for Cp (or Hc as he calls it) gives an overall COP of 1.22. So, what are the error bars on that do you think?

You are still looking at the differential temperature, which Jed improperly calls the 'temperature'. You need to look at the temps themselves. Specifically, calculate the average input and output T's and compare. You will find that the shape of the Tin mimics the shape of the Tout except during the time period where there is excessive noise in Tin. In mass flow calorimetry, the Tin is supposed to 'adjust' for drifts in the input temperature due to external sources. I don't believe it is supposed to be impacted by the experiment. Here, the Tin is supposed to be room temperature. But clearly the input T is being affected by the reactor. This is highly unusual, normally Tin is independent of Tout. Between the noise, the Tin tracking the Tout, and the jump in Tin when power to the heater is turned off in Figs. 20 and 26, I don't think we can trust the calorimetry, at least on this run.

Quote from bocijn

I think the 'rolling 500 is a nicety

I also noted Mizuno uses his 'rolling average' Wout in the graph in the spreadsheet, so I expect he used that in his paper's figures. As I noted before that is NOT a 500 sec average, but a 2447 sec average. Really smooths things out nicely.

AND I also noted that the time step per row is not constant, which to me is another hint of a feedback or noise problem.

RobertBryant

You realize of course that no one but you tries to calculate the 'Environmental' heat and account for it right?

The usual methodology is to calibrate with known power inputs and get calibration constants. This is what Storms did on his mass flow device used with the Pt F&P experiments. McKubre usually does this too, but he has ben known to say that his calorimeters are so good he doesn't need to calibrate. But all that means is his assumption of the calibration constants (m=1 and b=0) is within his error tolerance. The question is whether his error tolerance is too large...

Mizuno is also apparently assuming m=1 and b=0 in his spreadsheet, since he uses nothing else, but that simply means his 98% heat recovery is 'within the noise' of 100% for him. (P.S. 2.42 != 1).

(P.P.S. I haven't looked at the calibration data set yet.)

Kirkshanahan "(P.P.S. I haven't looked at the calibration data set yet.)

I need someone to check my calculations

When you have had a good look...

Can you fill in the numbers below? You may wish to leave the environment loss blank.

But the sensible heat..the delta T stuff is readily calculatable.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Mizuno's spreadsheet lists the 7.4 MJ as the output power, which is wrong.

Why is this wrong? This is the instantaneous power for each row in Column AR multiplied by the number of seconds per row, which is 24.47 s. So, if there is 1 W of power, that's 24.47 J. The sum of all rows is 7,422,987. Why is that the wrong answer, and what would be the right answer?

Quote from kirkshanahan

You are still looking at the differential temperature, which Jed improperly calls the 'temperature'.

No, I call it the Delta T temperature, outlet minus inlet. What else would it be?

If, as you claim Mizuno is computing output power incorrectly, why does output power nearly equal the input power during the calibration? Is that a coincidence?

https://drive.google.com/open?…r0UahtG1ZPAJmAJmejB6EMipY

So I got the 120W calibration spreadsheet. For some reason, this time the equations did not translate through the transfer process, so all I have is the data/results in the spreadsheet. So the first thing I did was copy the actual raw data from the cal run into the same columns/rows in a copy of the 'excess heat' spreadsheet with the actual functioning equations. The result was that the computed output powers were significantly higher than Mizuno's. This is because of the aforementioned 2.42 factor. So:

Conclusion#1: Mizuno does his calculations on the calibration run differently from the actual experimental run.

This is a major problem. It invalidates the paper. We now *must* see all the data to confirm the calculations are all being done correctly.

Continuing on, you may recall that I noted that while Mizuno gave an equation to compute the heat capacity of the air, he didn't use it. If we ignore the 2.42 factor, his '1006' could be taken to be a fixed heat capacity of 1.006 times a '1000' factor needed to convert from kg to g. I computed the output power using the actual given heat capacity equation and the '1006' factor, and it turns out there is minimal difference. BUT the computed output power is well below the input power, meaning one needs that 'bump up' factor I talk about with the CCS thing in F&P cells that you get by normal calibration practices. As it turns out the factor is 1.292. IOW, to compute output power from Mizuno's data, you do the standard mass flow times heat capacity times temperature differential, but then you multiply it by 1.292 (this implies Mizuno's calorimeter captures about 77% of the heat produced in it). THEREFORE, the excess heat run's output power should in principle be multiplied by that 1.292 as well, increasing the 'reported' COP of 1.22 to 1.58.

The problem I noted with the input temperature tracking the output temperature exists in the calibration run data as well. I take this to mean that the air flow rate through the calorimeter is not fast enough, and the reactor heat gets back to the input temperature. I believe that invalidates the calorimetry but I might be convinced otherwise by good enough arguments I suppose.

The calibration run output temperature never really stabilizes, or only does so for a short period, so even if the calorimetry works with things as they are, the run may have needed to go longer to be at a true steady state. But this is confused by the noise in the temperature measurements. There are several large (relatively) swings in the temperature, that have unknown origins.

So...

Conclusion #2: The calorimetry doesn't seem to be reliable anyway for a couple of reasons (Tin tracking Tout, high noise levels).

And of course:

Conclusion #3: The paper that started this discussion off is unacceptably incomplete.

Until this mess is clarified, there's not much point in further examination of the data.

Kirkshanahan So I got the 120W calibration spreadsheet

The electric input is readily calculatable

the sensible heat..the delta T stuff is readily calculatable.

Calibration constants are unnecessary to do this

You have calculated them right?

Can you fill in the first two columns below

So I can check my figures with a Savannah River standard?

Bless your heart.

Just four numbers...

words take too long

Please take your own sweet time

bocijn: "I accept your acknowledgement of defeat."

Yeah, can't get through to people with closed minds.

So have you calculated the four numbers Kirk.

Yes or No?

What's confrontational about checking with someone else's results.

I mean they are just four numbers aren't they?

Mary.. you got some there. to check with?

I got for the Active Reactor. Electrical Input 2.48 Mj. Sensible heat output 3.09 MJ

I got for the Inactive Reactor . Electrical Input 3.09 Mj. Sensible heat output 2.55 Mj

I just want to check with someone

Dr Shanahan? Mary?

four numbers only

Bless your hearts

Quote from bocijn

Dr Shanahan?

Not going to do it for two reasons: A) I don't trust the data. B) I don't trust your method. A + B= waste of my time

"waste of my time"

So I guess. You have no more to say on this thread Mary. Oops. Sorry. Mistake Dr Shanahan. M+S

Bless your hearts

Kia Ora

Me te aroha

"" simply not taking your bait"

Oh. But I caught two fish at once. And I wasn't even fishing. From the River Savannah.

Fished up. Man upped and MY upped.

"1kW and 10kW" I will ask Mizuno about that, in my own sweet time.

Kia ora Me te Aroha. God Bless"

I checked with Google Translate just now

Kia ora Me te Aroha="Live with love".. some loss of meaning in googletranslation..

but that is approximately what it means.

"Be of good health and live with love. God Bless" is better but 3 John 1:2 is also good.