Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    OK. thanks. I am not unfamiliar with that "/" notation but it seemed strange to me to plot time vs time so I was wondering if the units were quotients. I appreciate the explanation but I am still lost. What is a "timestep"? The interval between measurements? If so, why would that vary significantly as a function of time? If not, what is a "timestep"? Google isn't much help -- Wiktionary= "an interval". I do get the point abut the calibration run.


    ETA: It's been a while since I've been in a traditional measurement lab situation but last time I was, the interval between samples of data was determined by a crystal-based clock and didn't vary. So I'm still feeling like a dummy here because I am obviously missing something. That expanded plot means what? I hope I'm not the only one in the dark here.

    @MY Your prior experience is based on one type of control method for data acquisition that gives fixed intervals. The calibration run plot I showed illustrates this kind of situation I think, if the interval used actually ends up falling in between the last digits of the logged data as defined by its format. So you get a recognizable pattern that oscillates between two numbers in a predictable manner, which is what you basically see in the plot - two points high, one point low, repeat ad nauseum. If the format is wide enough you will get only one value in other cases, which the second part of the actual excess heat run shows.


    However, there is another way to do this which is to have software that actually can produce variable interval times centered on an average. I use Labview and my data logger does this. Labview works by going out and probing the field sensor input units to get the readings, one by one. Depending on whether the field unit is doing averaging or what else the computer might be doing at the same time (like checking network signals, printing, i.e. multi-tasking) you can get slight differences, all related to how the computer is allocating access to that one-at-a-time CPU (assuming no parallel processors). And that's OK too.


    My point here regarding the Mizuno data is that the excess heat apparently changes behavior mid-run from the latter to the constant case, and further that that is possibly different from the behavior in the calibration run. Why? That's the question. I don't care which of the cases we have, but I don't think it should be changing mid-run and run-to-run. It implies something is messing with the computer-data acquisition, which casts doubt on the validity of the data.


    And I found this because before I do computations, I always look at the raw data for anomalies. Found some!


    That aligns with the IH comment that Mizuno changes some instrumentation during this run. I don't take that as something that validates the data. As Murray said it is inherently difficult to prove the data is correct given such a change.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That aligns with the IH comment that Mizuno changes some instrumentation during this run. I don't take that as something that validates the data. As Murray said it is inherently difficult to prove the data is correct given such a change.


    Which is why right now I discount the supposed results and conclusions. I would need to see all the data and understand the anomalies in it before I could use the data to draw conclusions. (And probably wouldn't be able to even then. - just a guess.)

    kirkshanahan


    Thanks, That helps. I am not very familiar with Labview but your explanation makes sense.


    It is instructive to compare Shanahan's response with that of Jed Rothwell. Shanahan took time to understand what was bogging me down and to explain it patiently, clearly and accurately. Jed, on the other hand, made no effort to understand the questions, and gave a non-responsive reply (yes, Jed, I have heard about Google). This is typical of an important difference in style. Jed misquotes his critics and insults them, usually inappropriately and with false accusations. He makes no apparent effort to understand the criticism. He give shotgun type ripostes which combine results from multiple experiments in a defensive manner-- an attempt to impress rather than inform. Shanahan is a good advocate for his views. Jed, IMO, for the most part is not.

    • Official Post

    Interesting, but not conclusive I have seen a few stoichiometric oxy-hydrogen explosions in the lab, the damn stuff will even explode with a sharp bang in in free air when only tiny volumes of the mixed gases are present. The volume of hydrogen is obviously a guess, and we don't know ( from this document) how long (total time) the electrolysis had been running at some voltage level before the bang. I'm glad nobody got seriously hurt. The first time I was exposed to a similar risk I was very lucky, somebody called my mobile and I stepped outside the lab (to escape noise from the ventilation) when it happened. That particular explosion cracked a 12mm polycarbonate (Lexan) tank, even though the gas volumes were low, since only a few minutes had elapsed since electrolysis had started. But thank you for posting, a good cautionary tale.

    Quoting Mizuno:


    "I have sent the reactor to IH NC. However, It was left for six months. Furthermore, I carefully explained the fact that It must first heat up the impure gas from the wall of the nickel or reactor and then it can be heated. But they first heated up. It was near 350 degrees. In this case, the oxide or nitride on the nickel surface is very tightly connected, and it can not be activated afterwards. In that state I finally went. The activation process was not possible at that time. Moreover, I had only two days."


    To me, this sounds like a failed replication. If Mizuno is correct, it failed because the people at I.H. did not understand the metallurgy and chemistry well enough, and because Mizuno had only two days to detect and correct problems. That is not long enough.


    This is a typical description of a failed replication. Let me emphasize: this is not anyone's fault. They just needed to try again. They probably needed to have someone go to Mizuno's lab for a month, or to have him go there for a month -- not just two days.


    Murray is a very smart, capable person, as you see from his resume. However, he does not have a background in metallurgy or chemistry. I do not think anyone else at I.H. did at that time. I could be wrong about that, but in any case, even experienced people make mistakes. When you make a mistake, you try again. And again. And again. This is a new experiment that no one in history has replicated. There are no textbooks. No one, including Mizuno, fully understands what is going on. No one knows yet how to optimize this, or what problems to avoid.


    It is most unfortunate that I.H. had to fire Murray and others. That was because of the Rossi lawsuit. If they had continued working on this replication for 6 months to a year, they might have made it work. Assuming it does actually work.

    Alan Smith


    I almost had my head removed by a hydrogen explosion under the massive cover of a lead acid battery which, unknown to me, had been charging in a comparatively closed space in the battery housing of an aircraft. It was idiocy. Instead of shutting down my experiment properly, I yanked out the power plug, creating a large spark which ignited the hydrogen. The cover was loosely held with a couple of bolts. The explosion singed my hair and eyebrows, and forced up the cover but the cover was held by the bolts. Just barely. The force on the cover from the explosion was enough to extrude metal over the retaining nuts. If the nuts had failed, so would have my head because I was leaning over the battery. It was a great lesson I will never forget. Hydrogen deserves a lot of respect, whether a stoichiometric oxygen hydrogen event or even simply a mixture with air.

    Quote

    It is most unfortunate that I.H. had to fire Murray and others. That was because of the Rossi lawsuit.


    Why would IH have to fire Murray "and others" because of the Rossi lawsuit? I thought they had continued research with other claims than Rossi's.

    Quote from maryyugo

    Why would IH have to fire Murray "and others" because of the Rossi lawsuit? I thought they had continued research with other claims than Rossi's.


    Just my guess (and maybe I'm wrong).


    IH's business plan is to get independent third party data on possibles. With the Rossi "could be close to commercial" mess they had to get in internal expertise (Murray) to work out why Rossi's stuff was only working on Rossi's tests. And, having Murray there, they could do other testing in-house. But that was never their long-term plan funding research - more efficient and also perhaps better validation to farm out all the testing.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    But that was never their long-term plan funding research - more efficient and also perhaps better validation to farm out all the testing.


    The LENR community has been running tests on their own farms for several decades. This IH plan is not a fruitful business model, in fact it is not a business model at all, it is more of a 'whistle and hope' *scheme.


    *'Whistle and hope' is how the farmer told the townie he got the chickens to lay hard-boiled eggs.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.