I think Mizuno is more of farmer than a samurai... but honor is still central
Hopefully Mizuno is not samuri as you say. He has attracted GSVIT's attention if Ahlfor's is right, and they may be a little too abrupt for Japanese decorum/bushido. Hopefully the Italian skeptics society understands that?...we shall see.
GSVIT??? Massa peaches and apricots.
bocijn,
Only link that works for me is Joe (I assume?) Murray and his wife's "Obasedesign", and that does not say anything germane to the discussion that I see?
http://0basedesign.com/hello-world/#comments
I left one comment for Joe. He will 'moderate" it in due course in Raleigh...Friday evening?
Just being neighborly.
Hello everyone, long time since I've been here, but had to take a look into the interesting Mizuno report.
Regarding page 12, last paragraph "Figure 17 shows the relationship between the blower input and the air flow rate obtained from the air volume calibration results "
He states using a anemometer for calibration. If only by air velocity measurement it may no be adequate, since velocity profile is not uniform over a pipe area.
It would be interesting to rather see a calibration curve of input power vs. Actual volumetric flow in liters pr.second instead. It would be easy to connect a plastic bag of known volume on the air outlet of the insulated box to verify the volumetric flow and rather calculate a related velocity vs power curve.
May be someone could Ask Mizuno to do such a test?
Regards
Øystein Lande
Next comment, again on page 12 and the most critical formula of them all
The formula (3) is missing one term,
The report states energy out as
(3). Hout= ∑oT dV * p * S * Hc * dt
"Where dT𝛥𝑇 is the average temperature difference between the air inlet and outlet, Tout , Tin. during the time interval d𝛥t, and where V is the fan wind velocity (m/s); S is the area of the air outlet, 4.4 × 10−3 m2; ρ is the air density, 1.293 kg/m3 at 273.2 K, and Cp the average heat capacity of air. "
First it is a little confusing to use T both for time and temperature, but T on top of the summation sign must be the total time of the test. So it is a sum of the energy multiplications of each time step of 24,5 seconds during the test of total time T.
I believe the correct formula should read
(3). Hout= ∑t=ot=T dT * V * p * S * Hc * dt
By this we We would the get the correct notation = Kelvin * m/s * kg/m3 * m2 * KJ/kgK * s = KJ i.e. Energy
Now then, I doubt that Mizuno has used wrong formula in the calculations and presentations, it is just a typing error in the report.
Regards
Øystein Lande
@Bocjin
For the peanuts he was paid by IH joe certainly had a lot to say.
"A.· So we had a group of, I don't know, five or
six engineers that were working at the company.· And as·effective the end of October, they gave all of the·engineers a severance package and released us, paying us·through the end of the year.·And then subsequently we·had to agree to support their ongoing activities, as-needed basis for pay if needed.
Q.· Have you provided any services to IH after October 2016?
A Yeah.· Obligated to from October through December, and I did I would say very little.· And then in January there were a few questions, and then this··month in preparation for the deposition there were a lot··more questions.
Q.· Okay.· What was the amount of your severance··package?
A.· It was pay and benefits through the end of··the year, so for November and December.· It did not··include any leave on the books.· That was just terminated.
Q.· · The question was how much.
A.· · How much money?
Q.· · Yes.
A.· · I, I don't know, two months worth of salary.
Emotive language does not help understanding. Do you know what was Murray's salary? If not, then the peanuts speculation is just your personal bias.
Now then, I don't doubt for a second that Mizuno has used wrong formula in the calculations and presentations, it is just a typing error in the report.
Agreed. I'm reluctant now to spend effort on Mizuno's report given what we know of the context, and the fact that it is untidy in this way. Even were it 100% reliable, we know that the test it describes had the issues described by Murray. And unless you have a major conspiracy theory, IH were, as stated by Murray under oath, going the extra mile to try and get positive validation of Mizuno's reactors. Hence their negative result tells us more than any analysis of the report.
Mizuno as quoted above has excuses for his reactors not working with IH. I'm sure he does, and Bocjin thinks my saying "he would, wouldn't he" is somehow a slur on Mizuno's character. It is not. Rather, when an inventor (scientist or not) has something he believes sincerely works, and a third party says it does not, the inventor will often go on finding imperfections in the replication that keep his belief alive. This is a human characteristic and scientists, however eminent, are human. The LENR field is particularly likely to provoke such "believe it regardless" reactions from those who believe they have found working LENR because it would be so very important if replicable. Mizuno's reactor with the claimed characteristics would be the discovery of the century both scientifically, and with a bit of work, probably commercially. That is typical for LENR (high excess heat) results.
The other aspect of this importance is that there are many ways to skin a cat and with a replicable working reactor as claimed in Mizuno's report third party calorimetry could easily establish this beyond doubt and the pay-off would be very very large. The lack of such replication therefore is additional evidence that IH's failure to replicate is because the result is non-replicable and therefore most likely some error in the experiment. If we, from an error-strewn report, manage to discover such an error it would be helpful, but I'm not expecting that.
Mizuno, as a scientist, would no doubt find this lack of replication interesting and do further work to understand it. As an inventor with a world-changing invention, he might find it difficult to re-examine all his assumptions in a skeptical manner, and his comment about the IH replication (together with the fact that it did not at the time convince Joe Murray to continue going the extra mile) makes this seem quite possible.
Suppose Mizuno does have working LENR. What is needed, for his discovery to be more generally believe, is that he adopt a skeptical stance and re-examine all his assumptions and calorimetry, repeating the experiment more carefully several times, and documenting the process with care. Positive results from this would encourage other third party replicators. It is a real shame that he did not, it seems, use the opportunity given by IH to do just this with them. though, as Joe has indicated, there may have been language issues.
And unless you have a major conspiracy theory, IH were, as stated by Murray under oath, going the extra mile to try and get positive validation of Mizuno's reactors. Hence their negative result tells us more than any analysis of the report.
I do not agree. I respect both sides. They both tried hard, but I would not call this an extra mile. As you see from the deposition, it was a rush job. Mizuno had only a week or so. That isn't long enough, especially with the jet lag between Japan and the U.S. It takes me two days to recover from that.
I have visited labs and taken part in efforts like this. They often fail because there is not enough time. If you are going to make measurements or set up equipment, you should plan to spend a few weeks or a month.
The trip by the MFMP to see [Me356's] reactor that was discussed in this forum also failed partly for lack of time. Also because the inventor was uncooperative and changed his story at the last minute.
Mizuno, as a scientist, would no doubt find this lack of replication interesting and do further work to understand it.
I think he knows why it failed. I do not know if I.H. agrees with his analysis. I heard about some other potential problems.
Honestly, I would not expect a replication to work the first time. You have be prepared to try several times, and devote 6 months to a year to it. This is fundamental research, not engineering. There is no manual. It is not like assembling a minicomputer in 1978. Even that used to take days or a week sometimes, because it was a fundamental law of nature that minicomputer shipments never included all of the cables. (Or, if they included all of the cables, the cables had the wrong connectors. This is a variation of the uncertainty principle regarding position and velocity.)
QuoteAlso because the inventor was uncooperative and changed his story at the last minute.
Well, THAT is encouraging! It's what Rossi does, for cripes sake!
Well, THAT is encouraging! It's what Rossi does, for cripes sake!
I was talking about the visit to Me356 -- whose name I could not recall. I agree, his actions during this trip do resemble Rossi's.
As does the recent Czech patent...
".... IH were, as stated by Murray under oath, going the extra mile to try and get positive validation of Mizuno's reactors. Hence their negative result tells us more than any analysis of the report."
"The lack of such replication therefore is additional evidence that IH's failure to replicate is because the result is non-replicable and therefore most likely some error in the experiment. "
Someone trying to replicate once or twice is not a good definition of "going the extra mile".
If IH where serious they should done the experiment ten times over and cooperated with Mizuno to avoid all possible mistakes.
Fleischman and Pons only achieved excess heat in some one of eight cells in their experiment in the eighties, therefore they had many cells going. In France in tye early nineties they reported achieving a higher frequency of excess heat cells.
THHuxley"extra mile"
My compliments on going the extra mile in his threadpost .
Wordcount 525.!!
His position appears to have evolved FROM...
"It is academic, because the IH replication failed. Still, I'd like to debug this. But not sure I have the motivation to spend long amts of time on it given the IH work."
TO ..'I won’t debug this because it is error- strewn and It is academic, because the IH replication failed'
‘Error-strewn’ and ‘excuses'are Tom’s words and no-one else's
They have a certain rhetorical…dare I say emotive quality about them
Btw..Joe oathed $200.000/annum.
That’s 33,333 reasons(excuses?) for answering Annesser in a professional /ethical manner ,
as I am sure other Industrial Heat personnel did before they were given the bum’s rush.
Display MoreMy compliments on going the extra mile in his threadpost .
Wordcount 525.!!
His position appears to have evolved FROM...
"It is academic, because the IH replication failed. Still, I'd like to debug this. But not sure I have the motivation to spend long amts of time on it given the IH work."
TO ..'I won’t debug this because it is error- strewn and It is academic, because the IH replication failed'
‘Error-strewn’ and ‘excuses'are Tom’s words and no-one else's
They have a certain rhetorical…dare I say emotive quality about them
Btw..Joe oathed $200.000/annum.
That’s 33,333 reasons(excuses?) for answering Annesser in a professional /ethical manner ,
as I am sure other Industrial Heat personnel did before they were given the bum’s rush.
Yes, but my posts are less colorful than yours! That is as strong a personal comment as you'll get from me...
The figure 20 and figure 26 are rather convincing that something interesting is going on.
Excess temperature of 4,5 degC for 14 continous hrs with the same input power compared to no excess event is Significant.
26% higher outlet temp in excess event for same input temp as in a null event is Significant.
THHuxleynew "Yes, but my posts are less colorful than yours! That is as strong a personal comment as you'll get from me"
Word count 21.
I commend this post on its brevity.
Megumi o Megumi o Megumi o
oystla wrote " The figure 20 and figure 26 are rather convincing that something interesting is going on."
Approximate calculations are given in post #126 in this thread....76% greater heat output for the active reactor vs inactive
Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results.
The area calculations are done with the aid of
http://www.geotests.net/couleurs/frequs_svg.html
These calculations only involve the measure sensible heat... not the environmental heat lost from both reactors.
however the environmental heat can be estimated,,and it is likely to be less for the active vs.inactive.
This means that the active vs inactive differential is likely to be larger than 76%
オオソリハシシギ.
Good morning.
Mizuno san.
Sunday. I would like to share a song ..hana mo.
I hope this youtube can play in Japan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLOKGTBm3ug
We sing it at Japanese church here is Sydney, quite often.
There are no eagles in the song.
At time mark 2.34 is a bird.
It is called osorihashishigi or kuaka or godwit.
It likes hiigata. It is only a small bird
It flies from New Zealand to Siberia/Hokkaido and back again.
How amazing are the works of God.
They are so difficult for humans to understand
I believe that the nickel-deuterium fusion in your reactors are the works of God.
These works are present in the moon Encaladus, the mantle of Terra, and in Sol.
We can now fly from New Zealand to Hokkaido in machines.
I hope to see your Aquila machines fly.
Robert yori
God Bless
OK, I'm a dummy but WTF is the unit "timesteps/second"? And why graph that vs time/sec (what is THAT unit?) VERY confoozing. What is being done there and why?
MY, one classic way of indicating what the axes are on graphs is to state what they are (timestep, time) followed by a "/" and then by the units, either abbreviated or not. So the plot is the timestep (in seconds) plotted as a function of time (in seconds). The point of this particular plot is that something drastic changed at the obvious point where the timestep went from a somewhat noisy signal to a noise-free, constant value. The prior region is much more typical of real data acquisition systems. Also in contrast on can look at the similar plot for the calibration run data set, and observe drastically different behavior. (I plot an expanded region in the attached pdf.) That indicates there is some strange oddities about the way the data is collected. The question then is" What's going on? Until that is answered the data is untrustworthy. In addition, there are some strange behaviors in the temperature-time plots as well.
