Mizuno's bucket of water

  • Then I would suggest that person read a legitimate textbook on calorimetry, rather than wade through crackpot theories that have never been tested, without evidence


    I think Hagelstein's phonon theory has a lot more experimental evidence

    for it than the primitive 2001 THHnew-Shanahan CCSH,,

  • Okay, list one study that you do not dismiss.


    I do not dismiss any study - but where I can't see error bounds smaller than the results I don't consider results show anomalous excess heat.


    That's called "dismissing." You are saying the results do now show anomalous excess heat. You have no justification for saying that. You have not found any errors in any of these experiments.



    For example (keeping things simple) I have not seen this bounding done for R19 - though I think we know enough to do it. Your 2W error bound is wrong,


    Do we know that!?! Oh, I can't wait to find out why! No doubt this will be another masterpiece, like your dismissal of the boil-off experiments because invisible drops of water defy gravity and magically negate the conservation of energy.

  • Quote

    With so many replications, there is no doubt this event was real.

    Typical highly misdirecting and misleading error. Mizuno's alleged experience with the water bucket and the anecdote surrounding it are unique. That situation has not been replicated. If it had, JedRothwell would have posted it in response to kirkshanahan . JedRothwell is deliberately equating other alleged demonstrations of "heat after death" with Mizuno's unique water bucket claim. While they may be somewhat similar, in Jed's mind anyway, they are not at all the same thing environmentally or equipment-wise and can not be considered replications. And there is indeed doubt that the event was real. And it's explanation is completely undetermined. Mizuno has been invited and encouraged to replicate it and has not. One can hope the highly functioning version of R20 will not suffer the same fate.

  • Dear all,


    Just as an epistemological note. Jed and I have essentially an epistemological argument.


    Jed reckons either results are valid, or they are dismissed as invalid.


    He sees my inability to state one or the other as my inconsistency.


    Whereas I see results as complex, and am unable to determine whether they clearly show excess heat without a full error bound analysis. If it is not given I can't answer. Maybe it can be worked out from the paper, and will be fine. Or maybe not.


    The point at issue here is that Shanahan has claimed that CF authors (AS link above, also Marwhan et al) dismiss one part of this analysis as unnecessarily. Jed and RB claim this part does not exist. It has been explained here a few times but maybe I'll need to do it again if/when I have time with equations. If you can do high school maths and physics you can validate these for yourselves no textbook needed.


    I did look for a textbook that gave error bound examples where Pin >> Pout - Pin and there is a known bound on how much change in cell conditions (for example where heat is emitted) changes cell heat loss and hence calibration constants. I could not find any such case, but I do not have a large collection of calorimetry textbooks. I expect Jed and/or RB to find such a textbook example, and then I will not need to do anything.


    THH

  • THH: For example (keeping things simple) I have not seen this bounding done for R19 - though I think we know enough to do it. Your 2W error bound is wrong,

    JR: Do we know that!?! Oh, I can't wait to find out why!


    No problem, that at least I can do easily!


    :)

  • Let me rephrase. Saying this can be distinguished "from a scientific experiment" and it is a mere anecdote is a puerile dismissal. An anecdote is not an event witnessed, measured, graphed and described in detail by two professional scientists. Heat after death is a replicated phonomenon. You have no basis to dismiss it, and no reason to doubt Mizuno's account.

    I have neither dismissed it or expressed doubt about Mizuno's account. I did not say "mere anecdote". All of these things are your predictable triggered response and projection upon anything remotely unenthusiastic about matters LENR.


    And thus ends my little test of the hypersensitivity of "the LENR community". Results as predicted.

  • For example (keeping things simple) I have not seen this bounding done for R19 - though I think we know enough to do it. Your 2W error bound is wrong, as I will explain on another thread if people would be interested. It is complex because there are two separate bounds for absolute and relative to control results.


    The wizard of circuit board design will explain us things he can't know. That will be a thrilling story.


    But I agree. Error bounds must be done properly and must be based on experimental setup. Not the Kirk way with recombination in the brain only.

  • Typical highly misdirecting and misleading error. Mizuno's alleged experience with the water bucket and the anecdote surrounding it are unique. That situation has not been replicated.

    Except for several hundred times by F&P, and a dozen or so times by others, that I know of. But they don't count because . . . because . . . You say they don't! You say it is unique, so that makes it unique.

  • You say they don't! You say it is unique, so that makes it unique.

    SOT might like to read Kindle.. Mizuno writes..

    "An Anomalous Heat Burst

    It was March 24, 1991. Exactly two years had passed since I began these experiments. I had changed the experimental conditions, increasing current density by a factor of 4, to 0.2 amperes per square centimeter. Mainly I had in mind the goal of accelerating the reaction. Current was 6 amperes, input voltage was 4 volts, total electric power 24 watts. The power supply was taken from the ion separator I used in my old proton accelerator experiment. It was a superbly stable model, rated at 40 volts, 50 amps. Before commencing electrolysis I raised the temperature of the cell to 75 ° C with the coil heater. At this time the cell constant was about 1 ° C per watt, so with 24 watts input the cell temperature rose to about 100 ° C.

    At the beginning of the run for some reason the recombiner did not work well, and once every two minutes or so an explosion would occur, abruptly pushing the pressure up to about 30 atmospheres. This condition continued for about three days, after which the recombiner stabilized, the palladium gradually absorbed the deuterium, pressure reached approximately 7 atmospheres, indicating that deuterium loading had reached 95% (D/ Pd = 0.95). Two weeks later, on April 6, the temperature slowly rose to between 105 ° and 110 ° C, and as it did before it oscillated some 10 ° C daily.

    At this time anomalous heat had already started. But the increase was so small I had continued measuring without noticing it. Then on the morning of April 22, I stopped electrolysis and waited for the deuterium in the palladium to deload. Usually, when you stop electrolysis, the deuterium in the palladium deloads quickly and combines with the oxygen in the cell head space, producing heat. I knew this reaction would finish in about ten hours. The palladium I employed weighed 100 grams, which is close to 1 mole (106 grams). If this was fully loaded with 1 mole of deuterium, as the deuterium de-gassed it would produce a half-mole of heavy water, and the total heat release would be 151 kilojoules at most. Divide this by duration and you get 4.2 watts average power. This value is about one tenth of the energy needed for electrolysis, so it should only cause the cell temperature to rise about 2 ° C. But, even after deuterium deloading subsided, the temperature did not fall below 75 ° C, remaining instead at 90 ° C. I realized this was happening on the morning of April 25, when I looked at the data log. To my surprise the temperature was 100 ° C. Moreover, it was slowly rising. This happened just after 9: 00 a.m., when Akimoto stood beside me examining the neutron readings.

    Figure 20. Changes in the Pd D/ Pd ratio, pressure and temperature in a cathode under intense electrolysis. Current density is 0.2 A/ cm2. When electrolysis is terminated at hour 780, the temperature drops, but then it begins to rise again, in stages. This was the beginning of the extended heat after death event. At hour 838 the cell was transferred to a bucket to cool…..


    When the heat did appear, I was totally ill-equipped to deal with it appropriately. You never know when this heat will appear; later I experienced it many times.”


    Mizuno, Tadahiko. Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion (Kindle Locations 1210-1211). Infinite Energy Press. Kindle Edition.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    Saying this is a problem resembles Seven_of_twenty's repeated assertion that input power is noise.

    Repeatedly misquoting people fails to increase your credibility not to mention respect. Please show me exactly where I said that in those words (not in your interpretation, usually wrong, of my words). Show me where I said exactly: "input power is noise." $100 to your favorite charity if you do. I'd offer more but sometimes I write under the influence of Pusser's rum so I suppose my writing such nonsense is remotely possible. If it's indeed a "repeated" assertion, locating it should be simple.


    If you can't find the quote, stop saying I wrote that!

  • Repeatedly misquoting people fails to increase your credibility not to mention respect. Please show me exactly where I said that in those words (not in your interpretation, usually wrong, of my words).

    Your words are right here:


    Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.


    Quote:


    "What you are missing is that small increases in output power compared to blanks indeed can subject the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio based on noise in the output measurement. If the out/in ratio is very poor, then the input power contributes to the output noise because more power is needed to run the experiment."


    You said, "input power subjects the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio based on noise in the output measurements." That would only be true if input power could affect the output measurements. It cannot, because it is all subtracted out. If it were not 100% measurable, it could not be subtracted out. That would be noise, by definition. "Noise" means you don't know how much there is; it varies randomly; and it is not controlled. In short, only noise can subject the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio. A signal that can be measured to one part in 10,000 cannot do that.


    You say "based on noise in the output measurement." Yes, there is some noise in the output induced by input power. In Mizuno's case it is a few miliwatts in a 100 W+ signal. You cannot possibly detect it with his instrument. It is far too small.


    Input power with electrolysis is slightly more noisy than input power from resistance heating, but you can still subtract it out. It is still negligible compared to other sources of noise.

  • It cannot, because it is all subtracted out. If it were not 100% measurable, it could not be subtracted out.

    Here is a simple analogy. Suppose you put an object on a platform 20 cm high, and then you measure the total height from the floor to the top of the object. You find it is 65 cm. The object is therefore 45 cm high. If you are not sure how high the platform is, that interferes with the measurement. But, if you know the height of the platform to 1 part in 10,000, and you wish to measure to the nearest centimeter, the platform does not affect the measurement.


    Input power in a cold fusion experiment is analogous to the platform. It can be measured with any ordinary meter to 1 part in 10,000. Compared to other sources of uncertainty, it is so small it cannot be detected on the output side. It does not "subject the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio based on noise in the output measurements." Seven_of_twenty is completely wrong about that.

  • You said, "input power subjects the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio based on noise in the output measurements." That would only be true if input power could affect the output measurements. It cannot, because it is all subtracted out. If it were not 100% measurable, it could not be subtracted out. That would be noise, by definition. "Noise" means you don't know how much there is; it varies randomly; and it is not controlled. In short, only noise can subject the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio. A signal that can be measured to one part in 10,000 cannot do that.


    The issue here Jed, which your argument above does not address, is not what you say. Maybe the OP thought it was, in which case you are correct in contradicting their argument but not on the overall conclusion.


    Input power matters because it translates to output power. Although (usually) input power can be measured very accurately, that is not so true of output power. Small fractional errors in output power measurement become problematic when input power >> signal.


    In calibrated systems the assumption is that the system conditions (inasfar as they affect measured temperatures) are identical between calibration and active setups. If this assumption is even slightly wrong, we get a (fractional) error in output measurement.


    So: input power can affect output measurements, in principle, and in practice for some systems.

  • Please show me exactly where I said that in those words... hic... If it's indeed a "repeated" assertion, locating it should be simple.


    If you can't find the quote, stop saying I wrote that!


    I reckon it's time to cough up that hundy, SOT...


    How much power and what signal to noise (output to input power) ratios are we talking about?

    Maybe Celani can give a talk about why he can't use ten wires instead of one (with the same heater) to get a better signal to noise ration (COP).

    Yes, the heater would thus be more efficient and the signal to noise ratio (COP) would be much higher...

    You need high output, low input (a high signal to noise ratio) and long duration to make the case for...

    Of course. But another solution would be to design an experiment which has such a large absolute power level and signal to noise ratio (Pout/Pin) that Shanahan-type errors can't significantly affect it.


    What's your favourite charity Jed?

  • Input power matters because it translates to output power.


    No it does not. "Translates" has various meanings, but none of them apply. For example, it might mean the input controls output, the way the control current controls a transistor. Or it mean mean the input power is changed in form, the way movement converts to heat with friction. Nothing like this happens with cold fusion. The input power does not convert, control or even affect output power. The input power is not even necessary with gas loaded systems. If you happened to be living on Venus where the ambient temperature is high, you would not need any input power.


    In some cases, input power causes a high temperature or a sudden temperature change which appears to trigger the reaction, but once it is triggered, input no longer plays a role.


    With electrolysis, input power is needed to form the deuteride. Once the deuteride forms, the input power can be turned off, and the reaction will continue in heat after death. It does not contribute to the reaction. After electrolysis is turned off, the deuterium gradually leaks out of the palladium, so electrolysis has to be turned on again after a while. If you could stabilize the deuteride so the concentration does not gradually fall, you could generate energy for as long as there is deuterium left to fuse.



    If this assumption is even slightly wrong, we get a (fractional) error in output measurement.


    So: input power can affect output measurements, in principle, and in practice for some systems.


    That never happens in the real world. If the assumption is slightly wrong, there would be very slight apparent excess heat, or a very slight exothermic deficit. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know it is an experimental error caused by the inevitable slight inaccuracy in the instruments. No one would consider it significant.