Mizuno's bucket of water

  • Quote

    If you are saying this incident never happened, or that Mizuno lied, you should say that. That would not be batty, but what you did say will make people think you have a screw loose


    Seems to me the fair thing to say is that this is a) an anecdote b) inadequately imaged, measured and documented even if true c) never replicated though it cries in anguish for replication d) highly improbable


    ... and therefore, not credible. There is no evidence for or against Mizuno being dishonest (unlike, for example, Rossi). He could have been mistaken, someone could have been playing a practical joke, Mizuno might have confounded various real occurrences, gotten confused by a dream... WHO THE HELL KNOWS since he can't do it again nor anything remotely like it?

  • Kirk's alterego wrote "since he can't do it again nor anything remotely like it"


    200 gm palladium in the heat after death uncontrolled LENR reaction 199?, Sapporo


    current price of 200 gm palladium = $6000..why waste $6000


    "nor anything remotely like it"


    Mizuno is spending his yen on coating nickel wire with milligrams of palladium


    and getting controlled/measured LENR reactions with milligrams of deuterium.


    I can give you references, one for each eye;)

  • Seems to me the fair thing to say is that this is a) an anecdote b) inadequately imaged, measured and documented even if true c) never replicated though it cries in anguish for replication d) highly improbable

    Yes, we all know that is what you think. That's no problem. It is not batty. If Shanahan were to say something like that, I would have no argument. What I object to is his double-talk about a heater not being a heater, followed by his denial that he said what he said. Followed by more double-talk and nonsense about a DoE web site showing that bucket of water will evaporate overnight and blah, blah, blah.


    As far as I can tell from Shanahan's incoherent and ever-shifting blather, he wants to make the case that the events occurred as Mizuno described them, but there is a prosaic explanation. That is impossible. You, on the other hand, want to make the case that the events never occurred. That is possible. Factually wrong, but possible.


    You also want to make the case that all of the other cold fusion experiments did not happen, or they were mistakes, or that isoperibolic calorimeters don't work, or that levels of heat are too small to measure when in fact they were measured in 1780 and could be measured with high confidence by any high school kid. Your beliefs are a little nutty, but nowhere near as bad as Shanahan's or Morrison's. Unlike Morrison, you don't claim that heavy water ice is "the same as" a palladium deuteride (meaning what?!?), or that a reaction that could only last 6 seconds lasted 3 hours and that is not a significant difference or an anomaly. Oh, wait, you did say that. Maybe you got it from Morrison.


    By the way, you are saying that Mizuno is lying or delusional. There is no middle ground here. There is no way he could be mistaken, and the cell was room temperature instead of being too hot to touch. You should say he is a liar and say it boldly. Don't pussyfoot around.

  • Right here:


    Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    In that message you wrote:


    In my mind "a large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket. It was hot. Too hot to touch. The thermocouple showed it was over 100 deg C inside." is not a 'heater'. It is a hot object. A 'heater' has a power source that adds energy to the system from an external (or perhaps internal, like a kerosene space heater) source. A hot object only has the energy it contains at the nominal 'start point', no additional. So for the too hot to touch, large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket to be a heater it would need either a) power inputs, like wires from a power supply, or b) an internal heat source, such as kerosene, a battery, or maybe even a LENR reactor.

    [ the 'you' above being me, note that I include a Jed quote in that]


    So, we need to re-read the link Jed supplied. In it you will see the debate where Jed misunderstands and misconstrues what I said previously and I try to correct him by defining what a heater is to my way of thinking vs. 'a hot object'. Now it's true an active heater is contained in the class of objects called 'hot objects', but I was clear that was not what I was considering.


    Even though this object stayed hot for days, you say it is not a heater. Why not? Why is this not a batty thing to say? Plus you say that "maybe even" an LENR heater would cause evaporation. Why "maybe even"? Why would a LENR heater be any different from an electric or kerosene heater when it comes to evaporation?

    Are you saying this is not a LENR heater? What else would it be then? It can't be electrical, because it wasn't connected to any wires. It can't be kerosene; there was not chemical fuel of any kind in it. Saying it is not a LENR heater is batty.


    Elsewhere you said that calling it a heater is "wishful thinking." That's also batty. (And, no, I will not bother looking that message up. Feel free to deny you said that if you like.)


    If you did not mean that a hot object is no heater, I suggest you explain that the hell you did mean, because what you wrote is batty.


    If you are saying this incident never happened, or that Mizuno lied, you should say that. That would not be batty, but what you did say will make people think you have a screw loose.


    If it truly stayed hot for days, it might reasonably be called a heater, IF. I doubt it did, and that was why I was tinkering with the calculations, to examine the thesis that the temperature measurements were off. As I concluded:

    What I did was to assume a large hot object was dropped in a bucket of water on a low humidity day in a well-ventilated abandoned laboratory, possibly overrun with vermin, and attempt to compute what might have happened, and then compare that to what was claimed to have happened. In my analysis of the situation, I found that the missing information on air flow and humidity was crucial to judging the what caused the reported amounts of evaporation. So I concluded, as it normally turns out with anecdotes, that while there might have been a heater in the bucket, there might not as well.


    Note that what I concluded was that the object might have functioned as a heater (with an internal power source) and might not, depending on what actually happened.


    Now, what you said I said was:

    I am also saying that your repeated statements that a hot object is not a heater are flat-out delusional. No doubt you disagree, but that is my opinion.

    If you don't want people to think you are crazy, stop saying crazy things. If you don't think "a hot object is not a heater" is crazy, that's because you are crazy. I can't help you with that.


    As can be seen from the very post you referenced (if read correctly), I separately defined the terms 'heater' and 'hot object' and discussed the Mizuno bucket anecdote within those definitions, exploring the various possibilities, and using the equations (this time) that bocijn supplied, which I recognized as at least similar to those I used several years ago. (Bocijn, did you realize Jed called you a crackpot too, because you used 'swimming pool' equations like I did?).


    You on the other hand in your never-ending campaign to libel me, deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote, and then misquoted it in as a derogatory way as possible.


    I love the way you shoot yourself in the foot all the time.

  • If Shanahan were to say something like that, I would have no argument. What I object to is his double-talk about a heater not being a heater, followed by his denial that he said what he said. Followed by more double-talk and nonsense about a DoE web site showing that bucket of water will evaporate overnight and blah, blah, blah.


    As far as I can tell from Shanahan's incoherent and ever-shifting blather,


    More libel from Jed:


    "double-talk" - untrue as shown in my previous post right above

    "nonsense about" - complete misquote of what was said.

    "incoherent" - to Jed, definitely

    "ever-shifting" - lie, multiple possible times - Jed would have to specifically document what he is talking about to reply

  • Note that what I concluded was that the object might have functioned as a heater (with an internal power source) and might not, depending on what actually happened.

    What actually happened was, the water all evaporated. There was an internal power source: palladium deuteride undergoing the cold fusion reaction. No wires, no kerosene.


    That's what happened.


    If you want to say it did not happen, you are saying that Mizuno is a liar or delusional. There is no middle ground here. It cannot be a mistake. That was large bucket, and a large cell. I saw them, and I saw the pen recorder trace of the temperature. No one could mistake evaporation for no evaporation. No one could mistake a room-temperature cell for one that remained too hot to touch, day after day.


    I suggest you stop pussyfooting around and say, clearly, once and for all, that you don't believe this and you think Mizuno is lying. That is what Mary Yugo says. All of your blather, double-talk and bullshit does not tell us what you really think, or it tells us you don't know what you think. "Might or might not depending on what happened" makes no sense when Mizuno and I told you what happened, and when what happened is very simple.


    Just say you don't believe it, and the discussion ends. There is nothing more to be said after that.


    Oh, and I suggest you leave out the vermin part. That is the most absurd excuse the skeptics have come up with. You make yourself look even nuttier than usual by repeating that nonsense.

  • Kirk (Bocijn, did you realize Jed called you a crackpot too, because you used 'swimming pool' equations like I did?

    There are no outdoor swimming pools in Sapporo... Yesterday they had their first snow..its gonna be an extra cold

    winter.. no global warming

    "I used a much lower humidity because it was winter" There was snow on the ground."

    Lets use 2 degrees for the water...otherwise it would become ice.

    Sapporo is colder .-4C, 3hours of sunshine average .but the average humidity is 72% in January.

    Water outside tends to freeze in Sapporo rather than evaporate.

    It would be unusual to see it evaporate unless it was warmed.

    Lower temperatures do not necessarily mean lower humidities.

    Lower temperatures do necessarily mean much lower vapour pressures.

    Use a velocity of 1m/s

    Vapor pressure of water (2*C): 0.39 .kPa


    Air humidity: 72%, vapor pressure in the air: 0.72 x 0.39 kPa = 0.28 kPa

    Y for water is 2272 kJ/kg


    (0.4 - .288)x(0.089 + 0.0782V)/2272


    Evaporation rate is: 8.2 10^-6 kg/s/m^2


    Area: 0.049 m^2 Height 20 cm Volume10000mL


    Rate: 0.0004g/s

    77 gms per day.

    Bucket will evaporate in 129 days, 1.55 mm/day. (NATURALLY)

    That’s CRAP. The bucket would FREEZE within days...rather than evaporate.

    unless it was warmed and Mizuno as a native Hokkaidan would clearly

    know that that there was anomalous heat present.

    Images

    830×592 9

    Shane D. and Zeus46 like this.


  • What actually happened was, the water all evaporated. There was an internal power source: palladium deuteride undergoing the cold fusion reaction. No wires, no kerosene.


    That's what happened.


    Except you can't prove that because too much critical information was not recorded. And it was never replicated. As I have noted, the reported results can be obtained several ways.

  • I suggest you stop pussyfooting around and say, clearly, once and for all, that you don't believe this and you think Mizuno is lying. That is what Mary Yugo says. All of your blather, double-talk and bullshit does not tell us what you really think, or it tells us you don't know what you think. "Might or might not depending on what happened" makes no sense when Mizuno and I told you what happened, and when what happened is very simple.


    I have been perfectly clear. Everyone gets it but you (and maybe bocijn and Zeus46). I say "It's an anecdote. Not enough info to make any decision."

  • Quote

    By the way, you are saying that Mizuno is lying or delusional. There is no middle ground here.

    Oh, you know what I am thinking perhaps too? Typical of the way you misquote and misstate what other people have said. Let me bring it by again even more clearly.


    I am as certain that Rossi is a lying crook and a mediocre con man and has absolutely nothing worthwhile of any sort, as I can be of anything and I have been sure of it for years. There are huge, giant, steaming mounds of past history and other evidence.


    I have nothing of the sort for Mizuno. So I think the report of a reaction which heated a bucket of water at near boiling for more than a week without energy in is some sort of wrong. I don't know and have no idea of what sort of wrong it is. I am not accusing Mizuno of anything because I have no idea what happened. I simply don't believe the report based on general experience and logic. If true, it would have been repeated exactly as it was done, not with tiny quantities of palladium. $6K is absolutely trivial compared to the money which could be made from a successful demonstration of a reproducible, potent and sustainable LENR reaction. So something is very much amiss. I can not impute this to malevolence or duplicity on the part of Mizuno. That's of course possible but unlike the usual crooks we have talked about, I simply don't have the information to make such a determination about Mizuno. It seems to me that he is well motivated and probably honest or else he would not have subjected himself to two tests by IH, one on his turf, and another on theirs. It's too bad enough time and resources were not allocated to those tests to make it impossible for Mizuno and company to weasel out of the negative result.


    Hope that's clear enough even for Jed. Zeus is hopeless so whether or not it's clear for him or her doesn't matter to me in the slightest.


    ETA: Shanahan's above post was not visible to me when I wrote mine but apparently, my sentiment is the same as his except for more words. Sorry about that.

  • Oh, and I suggest you leave out the vermin part. That is the most absurd excuse the skeptics have come up with. You make yourself look even nuttier than usual by repeating that nonsense.


    So you can prove there wasn't any right....


    In my first job assignment after getting my degree, I heard a story over the lunch table about a guy who worked there. He had bought a fancy new 'high mile per gallon' car and he was constantly bragging about it. annoyed some folks. So they started sneaking out to the parking lot and adding gas to his tank. He ended up with one of those '100 mpg carburetor cars'. Then they started to siphon back the gas they had added. He quit bragging. Do you think something similar might have happened with Mizuno? Prove it if you don't (or do!).

  • "I used a much lower humidity because it was winter" There was snow on the ground."

    Lets use 2 degrees for the water...otherwise it would become ice.

    Sapporo is colder .-4C, 3hours of sunshine average .but the average humidity is 72% in January.


    But the water was indoors. Using the outside temp may or may not be right. This is what happens when you try to analyze anecdotes. I used 20C for a final temp, but it is as much a guess as your numbers.


    I'm not going to revisit the calcs. It's an anecdote. Useless scientifically.

  • Kirk /alterego" $6K is absolutely trivial compared to the money which could be made


    Why not spend it on productive research to increase ensure that


    "the money which could be made".


    Which is what Mizuno is doing .


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

    https://www.iscmns.org/work12/IwamuraYanomalousexc.pdf


    Kirk "But the water was indoors"


    It was shifted outdoors and still kept giving out heat for several days


    Kirk "the reported results can be obtained several ways."

    Summarise please in short sentences

    Do not include ,please, the exothermic heat from palladium hydride.;)

  • Quote

    Which is what Mizuno is doing .

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf


    That paper seems quite convincing but they left out the part where the system does not produce excess heat when observed by people from Industrial Heat and after moving it and reassembling it in the labs at IH, in the presence and with the complete help of Dr. Mizuno, the results could not be reproduced. I'd like to see that added to the paper. Seriously, it is convincing... all except the part I added. 1kW of excess heat except when properly observed it doesn't happen? Yeah, I know the excuses. Maybe Mizuno should have stayed longer. I bet SOMEONE rich would have paid for it. Darden maybe? With a few thousand dollars of the several billions he has from his Cherokee earnings?


    Once again, it is all about credibility and once again, no, I am not saying Mizuno lied or had delusions. I have no data for that. But the fact it didn't work when properly observed and when replication was attempted **AND** that Mizuno did not persist to MAKE IT WORK under observation and replications -- to me, that smells bad. I don't know what the smell is, just that it is not good.