Mature response. You won't bother because there is nobody else here who reads either? I suspect you won't bother because those results are especially unimpressive.
Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results
-
-
It is answered by the data from calibration, which shows no measurable changes when moving the heat source from one location to another.
Jed lies again.
From right above (Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results).
Note that Ed Storms proved Jed wrong in his 'it don't matter where or how' comment. In the experiments that I reanalyzed he reported 3 different calibration results. (The only researcher I have seen do this BTW. Kudos to him for honesty and thoroughness.) He reported that a Joule heater gave a calibration equation of Pout = 0.072107 * DeltaT -0.23893. Electrolytic calibration (what I describe above) however gave Pout = .071221 * DeltaT -.177146 *initially* and Pout = 0.070892 * DeltaT - 0.14405 *finally*. (So it makes a difference how, where, and when.)
Compare to my extracted separate calibration equations for runs 3 and 6, which both displayed zero or nearly so 'excess heat' (which means they used 'inactive' electrodes and thus are equivalent to calibration conditions). I obtained Pout = 0.070672 * DeltaT - 0.177146 for run 3 and Pout = 0.071320 * DeltaT - 0.0.131471 for run 6. Pretty solid evidence that my zero excess heat assumption gives calibrations well within the normal variation of the experimental setup, isn't it?
Correction: The electrode used in Runs 3 and 6 was an 'active' electrode that had become inactive and was immediately revitalized by an anodic strip for Runs 4 and 7, which showed maximum excess heat signals.My quote means that Ed Storms proved in 2000 that there are noticeable differences depending on how you calibrate, and variations over time as well. He presented this at ICCF8.
Not really.
Yes really.
1. No one would do this.
Right. Because they are afraid of what they will find.
3. With any calorimeter types where the heat is measured outside the cell you would see nothing.
Horse puckey.
-
Jed: It is answered by the data from calibration, which shows no measurable changes when moving the heat source from one location to another.
Where Kirk has such data, from Storms, you can see it matters.
Where data from calibration with heat source in different positions is used, the question would be are such positions all in the electrolyte, or is one at the top of the air space? The latter is what Kirk proposes and if indeed it is checked in calibartion you are correct, otherwise the matter is not resolved as you say, though also not proven in any specific case to be the cause of the result excess heat indication.
Kirk: My quote means that Ed Storms proved in 2000 that there are noticeable differences depending on how you calibrate, and variations over time as well. He presented this at ICCF8.
It shows that there can be such differences, and that in some cases these explain the results. It remains open what proportion of the electrolysis excess heat results this mechanism covers. While Jed is guilty on these pages of a number of over-generalisations you are normally more careful, so I'm sure you will agree with this pedantic (but in the context here relevant) correction. If some results are explained by this mechanism, and there is no proof that any specific result is not so explained, it should be viewed as unsafe. But, when advocates of these results start paying attention to this issue, they might be able to prove that some results remain safe.
-
It shows that there can be such differences, and that in some cases these explain the results. It remains open what proportion of the electrolysis excess heat results this mechanism covers.
No, it doesn't. Because, as I said, if this were a significant problem it would be apparent during calibration.
There are many actual problems with calorimetry. You don't need to worry about imaginary ones. They don't show up in calibration.
Okay. If you look at the numbers through a microscope, to many decimal places, you may find some apparent correlation to the position in the cell where the heat is generated when the heat is measured in the cell. But there will be many other factors affecting the outcome, and it will not be possible to separate out the causes. In other words, when you look at too many decimal places, you are looking at noise. A change in the room HVAC or sunlight coming in the window will have a larger impact than changing the position of heat generation, in a properly designed cell.
More to the point, there are many actual problems worse than Shanahan's imaginary ones. For example, at low power levels, isoperibolic calorimetry stops working. The calibration curve bends and goes straight up. See Fig. 6 here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcalorimetr.pdf
There are many other actual problems. You need not worry about imaginary ones that never show in calibration, or that maybe sorta might be there but are swamped by real problems and noise, and that would only be visible when you push the instrument beyond design limits. If you are looking for heat at that many decimal places, you need a microcalorimeter.
-
Just for yuks, Storms and the Seebeck effect calorimeter:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…017fceea48d730660303f.pdf
Figure 1 (calibration curve) is certainly spic and span. Data in the last two figures? Persuasive or not?
-
I was thinking of the Bockris type, known in my world as a 'TIC' -for Total Immersion Calorimeter. Personally I am not a big fan (pun intended) of air calorimetry but that is probably because I have no experience with it.
To me, the term "air calorimetry" means that air is the working fluid in flow calorimetry. That is what Mizuno uses in his latest paper. That can be tricky.
I think you mean the calorimeter is immersed in air, rather than water. That can also be problematic, when the air temperature and other ambient conditions are not carefully controlled. For example if there are changing streams of air from fans or HVAC vents. As I mentioned, Japanese labs often have what they call "incubators" which are large air-cooled boxes with precision thermostats and fans to rapidly circulate the air inside the box. Something like that will isolate the cell from environmental effects.
In top notch labs such as the ones at MIT, the HVAC tightly controls the temperature.
-
Just for yuks, Storms and the Seebeck effect calorimeter:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…017fceea48d730660303f.pdfSee mainly the last figures at the end. Persuasive or not?
What do you find humorous about that? Were you expecting exactly the same response from the cathode in two different tests? If it gave exactly the same response, with the same level of heat, I would assume that is an experimental error, because this is cold fusion, and results are variable and unpredictable.
-
You need not worry about imaginary ones that never show in calibration
But non-imaginary ones that never show up in calibration (for the reason that the calibration tests do not cover the issue) are exactly the ones you should worry about!
More to the point, there are many actual problems worse than Shanahan's imaginary ones.
Actual problems known and evaluated are not problems... Nor does the existence of these prove there are not additional problems.
-
But non-imaginary ones that never show up in calibration (for the reason that the calibration tests do not cover the issue) are exactly the ones you should worry about!
Like what? Give an example of an error in calorimetry that cannot be detected by calibration. (Not an error in some other aspect of the experiment, such as contamination.)
Calibration constant drift comes to mind. This can be detected by recalibration after the test, and by calibrating on the fly during the test. I recommend both methods.
Actual problems known and evaluated are not problems...
When they are not known by you, they are real problems. For example, see the problem shown in Fig. 6 that I linked to above. This shows that isoperibolic calorimetry is non-linear at low power levels. If you did not know that, you will get in trouble.
Many early cold fusion experiments were done by people who did not know much about electrochemistry or calorimetry. They had a lot of problems. That is why I recommend consulting with an expert.
-
Oh thanks, all along I thought I was a crackpot, and now, thank goodness, it looks like I may only be delusional. Life is good.
correct Shane,
You're not a crackpot
-
Jed
"
Many early cold fusion experiments were done by people who did not know much about electrochemistry or calorimetry. They had a lot of problems. "
Mizuno has addressed potential sources of error by using two reactors one inactive and one active
which are identical in terms of thermal response.
Mizuno has consistently measured heat outputs from the active reactor far above those from the inactive reactor
which cannot be explained by chemical reaction in the deuterium and nickel components.
-
Not so nice (and reiterated) opinions
> Google translate - perhaps "the group" is a subset of UNIBO.
-
thanks Ahlfors.
Mario Massa " Mizuno is not a graduate, or has senile dementia"
This tells nothing about. Mizuno... but
...tells something about Mario.
-
Exactly
-
... there's something. about Mario.
"60 years, Mechanical Engineer, residing in Reggio Emilia. For more than 30 years
he has been working as a mechanical and electronic designer in Emmepiemme srl (PC),
a company of which he is a founding partner, and in Alter srl (RE).
He devoted much of his work to the development of industrial microwave generators
and ohmic heating in the food field"
Release of metals from the electrodes in ohmic heating processes [food heat treatment]
2003
Trifiro, A.; Parra, G.; Miglioli, L. ; Massa, M.
Trials were conducted with an ohmic heating pilot plant in order to ascertain the extent of metal release from the electrodes under different conditions of current frequency (50 and 25,000 Hz). The trials were performed with solutions having different aggressiveness: hydrochloric acid and sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid, citrate buffer and sodium chloride and citrate buffer. The results show that, apart from solution aggressiveness, metal releases are negligible at the 25,000 Hz frequency. At 50 Hz, metal releases increase with increasing solution aggressiveness, reaching very high levels
-
"Argumenta ad hominem" are EVER wrong - must be noted, but not chain-forwarded.
-
It shows that there can be such differences, and that in some cases these explain the results. It remains open what proportion of the electrolysis excess heat results this mechanism covers.
Absolutely true. That means an outside observer must make a judgment as to how much of the LENR claims to accept/believe. Personally, I am conservative and assume that the applicability of CCS/ATER in F&P-type CF experiments is 100% until proven otherwise.
While Jed is guilty on these pages of a number of over-generalisations
and a number of flat out misrepresentations, commonly known as lies. I'm getting very tired of the way his writings are accepted without question by the majority of readers (with the exception of you, MY, IO, and maybe a couple of others). If I did the same about what he says, I would be banned in a heartbeat.
so I'm sure you will agree with this pedantic (but in the context here relevant) correction
Not a correction, an addition which is fully consistent with my stated position.
If some results are explained by this mechanism, and there is no proof that any specific result is not so explained, it should be viewed as unsafe. But, when advocates of these results start paying attention to this issue, they might be able to prove that some results remain safe.
Absolutely true.
-
Like what? Give an example of an error in calorimetry that cannot be detected by calibration. (Not an error in some other aspect of the experiment, such as contamination.)
CCS caused by ATER. Unless you cross-check your inactive electrode calibration results with an active electrode 'which nobody in their right mind would do'. Or unless you try a calibration like I described for Alan above.
Calibration constant drift comes to mind.
You mean the calibration constants can change? Be still my heart!
-
Mizuno has addressed potential sources of error by using two reactors one inactive and one active
which are identical in terms of thermal response.
Well, if one is active and one inactive, they are not identical.
First off, using the word 'identical' with no modifiers is an extreme statement. That means 100% identical, no differences *at all*. More correctly, Mizuno built reactors to be as nearly identical as possible. The question then becomes what is the magnitude of the differences. Immediately followed by (or maybe even preceded by): How important are they?
Mizuno has consistently measured heat outputs from the active reactor far above those from the inactive reactor
which cannot be explained by chemical reaction in the deuterium and nickel components.
Consistently? A.) I thought IH tried to measure the same thing and failed to replicate? Am I wrong on that? B.) The data from Mizuno posted by Jed is full of anomalies that bring the whole measurement system reliability into question. This is supported by observations from the preprint figures as well. I don't agree he has accurately measured anything at this point, although with more data I might be more convinced.
-
If I did the same about what he says, I would be banned in a heartbeat.
I don't think so. You are always (well mostly) polite and always prepared to debate. For those reasons alone you are very welcome here. We know Jed is a grumpy beggar and almost as ancient as me, so cut him some slack on account of the fact that he is a very senior member of the LENR commiunity..
