Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

  • 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



    2932-ddduntitled-png

  • 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

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

    No, bocijin, simply not taking your bait. Anyway, I want to see the 1kW and 10kW reactors with the cutsey girl names that Dr. Mizuno said he was constructing what now... three years ago if memory serves. How about we look at how those are doing? Their results should be unarguable, whether CCS is real or not.


    BTW, do you actually speak Maori or are just screwing around with Google Translate like I just did?


    Speaking of Maoris, this Google image reminds me of someone we know but of course, I can't say who or display the comparable image.



  • "" 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.

  • Dewey said "is it safe to assume that you have access to real time tritium detection during R&D, engineering and production work?"


    Hi Dewey. Among the magnolias in smalltown South Carolina,

    there are rich traditions

    and so much 'color' so many deep roots

    ,there is also unemployment and some people have an infinity of time on their hands.

    Other things lurk there too. darker things.,..,among the magnolias


    But realtime tritium detectors are unlikely to be found there.


    God Bless South Carolina and God forgive me. No harm done.


    I so like the saying... "If God is willing and the crik don't rise". Good luck with your quest..

    I hope you can find and grow up your own Hikoboshi,Dewey.

    In Sydney, the summer triangle is upside down, Hikoboshi on top.

    Sidere mens eadem mutato

    But in South Carolina. among the magnolias .there are different minds under the same stars.

  • This is because of the aforementioned 2.42 factor.

    Where is this 2.42 factor?

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

    Oops. That's probably my mistake, converting the Excel to Google format. I think I did it wrong. The Calibration equations were a little different from the Excess heat equations. I have now made them exactly the same:


    AP Blower/m/s

    =-3.70072*EXP((AA12)/-1.37463)+3.98859


    AQ Air weight/kg

    =(AP12)*0.0044*(3.391*EXP(-(((E12)+(D12))*0.5+273.2)/201.26)+0.41529)


    AR Wout/W

    =(AQ12)*1006*(AD12)*1.26


    That changes the ratio at the top of the screen to:


    Input/J Output/J Out/In ratio
    2,484,372 3,862,448 1.55


    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.

    You *do* see all of the data. Columns A through R are output in spreadsheet format by the Hewlett Packard data logger every 24.47 s. Every number is exactly as shown, except that Mizuno converted the spreadsheet from a long-obsolete format into Excel, and I converted from Excel into Google. There is no data missing. That's all the data there is.


    Columns to the right of R are computed, as you see. The formulas for the two sheets should now be exactly the same. I assume they are both right, or close to right, because in the calibration the output power almost equals input power. However, even if the formulas are wrong, and the conversion to power is wrong, the difference in the raw data Delta T temperature (outlet minus inlet) has to be explained.


    As I recall the long-obsolete format is Lotus 1-2-3, running on a 1990s PC. In the initial conversion, the Calibration data from 19,000 s on was not converted. It was all there in the old format, in the old computer, but not converted into Excel. It is now converted.


    The 24.47 s timing per row is to accommodate one of Mizuno's instruments, which only works at that speed.

  • The problem I noted with the input temperature tracking the output temperature exists in the calibration run data as well.

    You are confused. Input is not tracking output. They are both tracking ambient temperature. What else can they do?

    The calibration run output temperature never really stabilizes, or only does so for a short period,

    In the calibration it is stable, relative to the inlet temperature. That is to say, the Delta T is quite stable:




    It is between 4 and 5 deg C the whole time. That's stable, considering the fluctuations in ambient. It is certainly stable enough to indicate that a Delta T temperature of 7 to 8 deg C during the excess heat run is real.




    Unfortunately the ambient temperature is not stable, because the HVAC equipment is rudimentary.

  • Jed Rothwell wrote for the active reactor

    "Output/In Ratio =1.55"


    I got 1.57. Thanks Jed . It checks out. The reactor produces a whole lot more energy than is put in by man.


    An old Latin saying :Sidere mens eadem mutato


    An old German saying: "E=mc2"



  • Where is this 2.42 factor?

    Proves you don't read what I write, which means it's pointless responding to you in most cases. However...


    You *do* see all of the data.

    There is no data missing. That's all the data there is.


    A.) How many curves are in the paper Jed? How many have you posted data for? Are those numbers equal?


    B.) Your admissions

    Oops. That's probably my mistake, converting the Excel to Google format.


    and


    except that Mizuno converted the spreadsheet from a long-obsolete format into Excel, and I converted from Excel into Google


    means that I am now totally unsure of what I see. Is it what Mizuno recorded? Or is it what you received and incorrectly converted? Or did you piddle around and accidentally screw something up? With reference to that in particular, lets discuss the time data, col A.


    When I compute the timestep for the calibration run, I see a very nice pattern indicating that the '24.47' number is likely correct. The pattern apparently arises because there is round-off error. But that just means that what I see there looks normal.


    However, when I do the same on the excess heat run data, I see something different. What I see looks a lot like 'fake' data over half the time. To describe it, from time 0 to 31961.17 sec, I see a noisy signal, not the nice pattern observed in the calibration run. Then at 31961.17 sec, the noise disappears, and I see the 24.47 value in all cells for the rest of the run. That looks 'fake'. What happened? Did you mess it up again? Did Mizuno? If that data is real it indicates a). different electrical behavior prior to 31ks from the calibration run, and b) a 'massive' change in that behavior later on. Why is that important? because data doing stuff like that means *ALL* recorded data can be messed up, and not necessarily in the same way. THAT IS WHY WE NEED *ALL* THE DATA, NOT JUST 2 CURVES.


    As long as we are talking about the data, I also noticed that the blower was operated differently between the calibration and 'excess heat' runs. In the cal run, the blower voltage while on was 67.7V with a current of 1.77A, giving a blower power of 119.82W. In the excess heat run the values are 49.8V, 2.42A (no, that's not the 2.42 I was talking about before) which gives a power of 120.52W. Yes the powers are not noticeably different. The question is does the blower produce the same air velocity at 1.77 A and 2.42A? This was not addressed in the paper. What I wonder, perhaps incorrectly, is whether there are greater resistive losses at higher current, leading to less air flow, leading to higher deltaT, leading to higher computed excess heat? Perhaps that is your .58 delta over a COP of 1.0.


    Regarding the suggestion I made about the input and output temps, you said:


    the difference in the raw data Delta T temperature (outlet minus inlet) has to be explained.

    You are confused. Input is not tracking output. They are both tracking ambient temperature. What else can they do?


    In the calibration run, the Tout does track the Tin almost perfectly if you account for the rise during heatup and drop during cooldown. However, this is not completely true in the excess heat run. It may or may not be significant, but I also noted that there was a definite loss of tracking after the 31ks transition, which leads me to believe the time data is correct. As noted above, this suggests electrical problems. Which means we NEED ALL THE DATA, PREFERABLY NOT MESSED UP IN TRANSLATION.

  • A.) How many curves are in the paper Jed? How many have you posted data for? Are those numbers equal?

    Two of them, as you see. If you want more, ask Mizuno.

    means that I am now totally unsure of what I see. Is it what Mizuno recorded?

    Yes, it is. I got the equations wrong. I did not change the data. If you don't believe me I suggest you go to hell.

    However, when I do the same on the excess heat run data, I see something different. What I see looks a lot like 'fake' data over half the time. To describe it, from time 0 to 31961.17 sec, I see a noisy signal, not the nice pattern observed in the calibration run. Then at 31961.17 sec, the noise disappears, and I see the 24.47 value in all cells for the rest of the run. That looks 'fake'. What happened? Did you mess it up again? Did Mizuno?

    I don't know. It seems like a trivial difference; ~0.01 s variation for some reason. Ask Mizuno.


    If you focus on this kind of triviality, you can pretend there is no difference between the calibration and the excess heat run, and miss seeing the forest for the trees. Good on you!


    Why don't you come up with a new crackpot theory, express it in equations, and make the two graphs look alike? Be creative!

  • Eric Walker "The stars change; the mind remains the same"

    Its been removed from the usyd logo a while back. outadate.

    I always translated it as "the same stupid under the same stars".

    because actually the stars remain the same ,

    it is men's view of them that changes.


    The eagle of the Romans/Arabs is upside down in the South

    The eye ,alpha, =altair, hikoboshi, poutuurangi..is the brightest star

    Beta Aquila is the eagles beak.. in my view.....

  • Ahlfors, my favorite mathematician, you are being too elliptical for me to understand what you're getting at. Is that your own interpretation of the simple latin phrase, or are you referring to something? Let the unlearned learn and let the experts love to remember.

  • New paper from Chile. Low pressure D2 plasma produces low neutron emission

    Evidence of nuclear fusion neutrons from an extremely small plasma focus device operating at 0.1 Joules
     Leopoldo Soto1,2,3,a), Cristián Pavéz1,2,3, José Moreno1,2,3, Luis Altamirano2,4, orcid.png Luis Huerta2,5, Mario Barbaglia6, Alejandro Clausse6, and Roberto E. Mayer7
    lessView Affiliations


    Physics of Plasmas 24, 082703 (2017

    ABSTRACT

    .We report on D-D fusion neutron emission in a plasma device with an energy input of only 0.1 J, within a range where fusion events have been considered very improbable. The results presented here are the consequence of scaling rules we have derived, thus being the key point to assure the same energy density plasma in smaller devices than in large machines. The Nanofocus (NF)—our device—was designed and constructed at the P4 Lab of the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission. Two sets of independent measurements, with different instrumentation, were made at two laboratories, in Chile and Argentina. The neutron events observed are 20σ greater than the background. The NF plasma is produced from a pulsed electrical discharge using a submillimetric anode, in a deuterium atmosphere, showing empirically that it is, in fact, possible to heat and compress the plasma. The strong evidence presented here stretches the limits beyond what was expected. A thorough understanding of this could possibly tell us where the theoretical limits actually lie, beyond conjectures. Notwithstanding, a window is thus open for low cost endeavours for basic fusion research. In addition, the development of small, portable, safe nonradioactive neutron sources becomes a feasible issue.


    Mizuno-Sensei uses about ~500 Pa.


    Los investigadores


    "The detectors only gave off neutron signals in deuterium discharges under pressures from 1 to 4 mbar and from 14.5 to 17.5 mbar."


    "a device working at a few joules, with 103 to 104 shots at a frequency of 10 to 100 Hz,

    will produce a neutron yield of 104 to 106 events per second, .

    A deuterium-tritium mixture would boost this by up to 100 times."


    "In much smaller devices, the surface/volume ratio seems to be more favorable for plasma heating and compression. "

    "We conclude that ...an extremely small plasma device operating at only 0.1–0.2 J, can produce D-D fusion reactions."

  • So: the obvious issue relating to this claim by Mizuno is whether the apparent low-level neutron measurement is an artifact caused by the pulsed electrical discharge.


    Pulsed electrical discharges create bountiful amounts of EMI and we'd need to check the neutron detector and all associated wiring sense systems to be sure it had robust EMC with such interference.


    The fact we have independent measurements with different instrumentation is encouraging - let us look at the actual neutron measurement systems in the two cases?

  • THHuxleynew "


    "Pulsed electrical discharges create bountiful amounts"


    "Pulsed" is an unwarranted assumption for the Mizuno Report. It is unclear what is the time course of the electrical input .S.E. Jones at al. reported low level neutron discharge in 1989 in the Nature journal but did not used pulsed input. Mizuno et al replicated this in 1989 using lead shielding to block background neutrons.

    ( which amount to hundreds per square metre per second at Terra's surface)

    Mizuno's next report may speak of neutrons and neutron detectors.. he is busy circumwriting it.

    But sometimes not all science is written down. As is the case with the Carolinean star compass..