Mizuno's bucket of water

  • Otherwise my imaginary figures above seem broadly in line with the Zeuss's sane ones.


    My only issue so far is with your ‘1L’.


    3.8L/day comes from total amount evaporated divided by number of days. If you only consider the first day, this actually rises to 10L/day.


    If you search for “Kirk Watch”, there’s a post (maybe a couple below that one) where I justify the numbers used in the spreadsheet. Or perhaps "thirsty cat” might find it quicker.

  • Zeuss's sane figures do not take into account the fact that evaporation at that rate will significantly cool the bucket so without some external source of heat will not be sustained.



    It’s true, I don’t take any cooling into account - but that’s only because I deem it insignificant - you can estimate the water starting temperature using equilibrium of temperature equations (what I refer to as the 1st L of T), and its not high enough, in my opinion, to justify the effort of making the spreadsheet differentiate/iterate a more accurate answer.


    Anyway, ignoring cooling tends to overestimate the degree of natural evaporation possible

  • Anyway, ignoring cooling tends to overestimate the degree of natural evaporation possible


    Indeed: but considering cooling gives a realistic answer not otherwise possible. For this problem: how much water evaporates over days - by far the most reliable indicator is total energy absorbed by the bucket, not the dynamics of evaporation at given temperature since the bucket temperature is affected by evaporation and will adjust to give the rate determined by the energy absorbed.

  • > Mizuno had a cold fusion

    > electrolysis cell running and it got very hot, and even when he cut the

    > current it stayed hot. To cool it (and here I start using your own text,

    > abbreviated):

    >

    > <Mizuno>

    > I filled a large plastic bucket with water and partially submerged the

    > cell in it [the cell temp drops from 100C to 60C and stays there]

    >

    > The next morning [...] The water, which had been around eight-tenths

    > full [sic], was nearly all evaporated, [...] (nearly 9 liters).

    Okay, that's ~9 l

    > At that point I decided to get a big 20-liter bucket. I filled it with

    > 15 liters of water [...] Three days later, the water had again

    > evaporated.

    > The waterline was below the cell.

    ~10 l evaporated. There was still about 5 liters below the waterline. (His

    estimate and mine, looking at the bucket later.)

    > For the second time I filled the bucket with 15 liters of water.[...]

    > I added 5 liters on May 1, and again on May 2.

    > Then on May 7 when the

    > holiday ended, the water was about half gone [...].

    To determine the total volume of the last three additions, start with 15

    (full bucket), add 5, add 5, subtract the 7.5 that remained in the bucket

    when the cell finally cooled (it was "half full").

    15+5+5-7.5=17.5

    So that's 9+10+17.5=36.5. In my introduction I made the first and second

    additions ~10 liters each. (Note the tilde in my text.)

    > </Mizuno>


    OK - so These figures are OK except that they ignore the volume of the reactor (and whatever it sits on). How heavy was it? What volume was it? How do we know this?


    That question is highly relevant to another completely different explanation of these observations that we might call the hot core hypothesis.


    Still, on basis of these figures (without clarification), I'll suppose:

    reactor + stand volume is 10 litres

    The estimated 15l filled comes from a 3/4 full 20l bucket and therefore is actually 15-10 = 5l.

    The estimated 5l comes from 1/4 of bucket filled and therefore is actually 1.5l

    The water half gone is 2.5l


    We have: 13l -2.5l = 10.5l in ? days? I count 6 + 3 + ?

    Also we have: 3l in 3 days (subject to clarification) again a factor 1/3 because of the volume taken by the reactor.


    So that is 1l/day and I agree evaporation does not look possible based on solar + ambient power absorption alone.


    The info here about the reactor being higher than the bucket makes it seem possible that the total reactor mass is quite large? In which case we cannot neglect a hot core solution. The noted

    temperatures also seem quite consistent with this.


    Interestingly this was the missing idea needed to understand Rossi's "samovar" test which at the time Jed did not consider and therefore gave a positive judgement of the test HAD characteristics.

  • Kirk is (perhaps foolishly) defending his position as logically correct (which it is) and then being attacked by many here on the grounds that, for the specifics in this case, which BTW were not all established when he made the original comment, the thing he originally suggested does not look possible.

    As soon as this claim was made, many years ago, I supplied all of the details about temperature, wind flow and so on. I have give these details many times after that, including in this thread. Shahanan has ignored them.


    So let us do it. We have as variables (some given rough values) at the time when Kirk made his original claim:

    Water temperature
    Air temperature
    Air speed
    Solar irradiance (is the sun shining directly on the bucket through a window).
    Water evaporation rate.

    Okay, let me go over this again:


    Water temperature. Tap water in Sapporo in March is cold. Not hard to estimate. (For that matter, even if he had started with boiling water, it would cool rapidly and not much would evaporate, so the starting temperature is irrelevant. You don't think so? Try it!)


    Air temperature, not far about 5 deg C, as I said.


    Air speed. Close to zero. There was no fan.


    Solar irradiance. As noted, this happened overnight, so there was no solar irradiance. It was ~8 hours, not 24. Mizuno came in every day.


    Water evaporation rate. Put a bucket into a cold room without a fan and see for yourself. You will not be able to measure any evaporation using an ordinary household weight scale. Try it!


    I'm going to leave the additional claimed evidence (the bucket was too hot to touch) for another post.

    No one said the bucket was too hot to touch. The cell was too hot to touch.

    Evaporation rate. A bucket holds approx 10l. So for say half of the water to evaporate we have 5l. But, the bucket contains a submerged reactor (not sure how big). Also we do not (if I recollect clearly) have a clear statement of how much the water level went down, nor what was the bucket size etc. So I'm going to be conservative here and rate the water loss as 1 litre.

    That is completely wrong. Please do not make up such incorrect details. Stick to the description here:


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


    As stated in the text, the first bucket capacity was 15 L, not 10 L. The cell was transferred to a 20 L bucket after all of the water in the first bucket evaporated overnight. The amounts of water evaporated were in the log book. It was not 1 L. There was plenty of room for 10 L of water in both buckets. You can estimate the volume of the cell from the book and photo I posted here. It would not fill the whole bucket. If it had, Mizuno would have used a bigger bucket.


    I (and I guess Kirk) do not expect informal recollections to be accurate. Why should they be? People get things wrong. In this case a 10l loss looks pretty high for this case: it would need a big bucket and a small reactor. Not impossible though.

    "People" do not get things wrong. You and Shanahan got things wrong, because you did not read the source material. I am 100% certain the buckets were 15 and 20 L because I saw them, photographed them, and they have the number of liters marked in the plastic inside (as all buckets do), and with a magic marker on the outside.


    It would be good to have this more definitive information. I'd like to move on to other mechanisms...

    It would be good if you would read the source material, which has been available at LENR-CANR.org for many years. All of your statements here were wrong. You have been careless.

  • THH, weight of the reactor was 7.45kg. I assume it was stainless steel. Volume is unknown (to me, but I believe there is a photo somewhere).


    I think you’re getting to into very tenuous territory if Mizuno is explicitly stating the volumes of water that were filled or evaporated, and you are suggesting that each time he is ignoring/forgetting the volume of the reactor... But each to their own, I guess.

  • For your reading enjoyment, some selections from a Mizuno Bucket Anecdote discussion

    on sci.physics.fusion - this link begins 9/10/2001 but the discussion could have started earlier


    More enjoyment if you read the whole thread on Google groups.


    Have fun!


    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.physics.fusion/JedRothwell$20Mizuno$20bucket|sort:date/sci.physics.fusion/cFgl1mvoxRc/YFqMZDgl5HAJ


    Dieter Britz writes: 9/11/01


    [minor snips by KLS]


    I note a few inaccuracies in what Rothwell writes here. This is

    strange because all this is described in Mizuno's book, and the

    English edition was translated by none other than Rothwell himself.


    On the whole, his story is OK, but some aspects are distorted. For

    example, he states that Mizumo (and Akimoto) found tritium but no

    neutrons, unless I remember incorrectly. This gives the impression

    that tritium was found in that famous hot cell that evaporated 37.5 L

    of water (a figure that in fact does not appear, neither does the 17.5 L

    figure, in the book). They did find some tritium, but that was in another

    experiment, before this one. At that time they also found some neutrons

    but at 4 OOM below the tritium. They also dutyfully record that the

    electrolyte in which they looked for tritium contained ppm levels of

    Pd and Pt, both of which produce chemiluminescence, which is the way

    tritium is measured... They then go on to separate this from the tritium

    signal, quite convincingly. They seem to be good scientists, as I have

    noted before. The point is, they themselves point to the lack of

    agreement between the low neutron signal and the tritium they found,

    and hint at a possible error in the tritium measurement. Rothwell

    simplifies all this.


    Rothwell also writes that, when the cell got hot, they wrapped it in

    towels and put it into a bucket of water. In fact, they first simply

    moved it onto a steel platform in another lab and only a day later

    into the bucket. Rothwell could also more accurately have answered

    Schultz's question about letting off the pressure: Mizuno was confident

    that his steel cell could hold up to 200 atm at 500C, and it had a

    safety valve that would vent at 100 atm, so he didn't see the need to

    let off any pressure. They wanted to see what would happen. The book

    (Rothwell's own English words) does not mention anything about wanting

    to preserve the evidence, this being an interpolation by Rothwell.


    I am not going to argue about where all that energy came from, and

    Mizuno himself did not try to explain it. This story is in fact the

    part of the book that rings bells with me and made me all the more

    agnostic on CNF, rather than skeptical. But I wish Rothwell would

    report more accurately when arguing here.


    -- Dieter Britz http://www.chem.au.dk/~db




    Tom Kunich wrote on 9/11/01 (quoting JR who was quoting Tom K.):


    "Jed Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message


    news:9nj3db$vkc$[email protected]...


    > Tom Kunich writes:

    >

    > > Apparently you are having a hard time following Richard's logic. Over a

    > > couple of days HOW MUCH of the water was "evaporated" by the hot cell

    > > and how much from the environment which in some cases might very well

    > > account for the lion's share of it.

    >

    > It could not possibly account for it. You can test this easily yourself, and

    > I recommend you do so before making any more comments. Place a 20 liter

    > bucket of water in a room for ten days, replenish as needed, and measure how

    > much water evaporates from it. You will never find that 37.5 liters

    > evaporate, even in a very warm room. Or if you do, and you publish this fact

    > and convince people it is true, you will win the Nobel prize.


    Jed, sometimes your statements are breath-takingly stupid. The idea I

    was trying to convey is that YOU don't have any idea of what transpired

    in that experiment. You have confessed as much. If you DON'T know what

    happened then why do you suppose that anything having to do with it is

    either possible or impossible?


    > > Your suggesting that really interesting data were obtained from this

    > > experiment shows how little you respect science.

    >

    > This is first principle experiment. Neither you nor Schultz can come up with

    > a plausible explanation for these results other than a nuclear process.


    Why is anyone expected to come up with an explanation for an undocumented experiment?


    > If you think that 37.5 liters of water can evaporate from a bucket ina room in

    > 10 days, you have no knowledge of everyday grade-school level science.


    And if you can suggest that 37.5 litres of water were really evaporated

    AND THIS DIDN'T SHAKE the foundations of their sponsors, then perhaps

    you are missing something important in what you are saying. You said

    that this experiment wasn't repeated. This is like the Wright brothers

    taking wing for a 15 minute flight over the White House and then packing

    it all up and never flying again. A preposterous statement. My

    suggestion is that they HAD an explanation for evaporation of all that

    water and it had nothing to do with cold fusion.


    > > And the weather during that time period was?

    >

    > You could look it up, couldn't you?


    Jed, you are the one suggesting extraordinary science. You are the one

    that has to field the questions. Not me.




    Dieter Britz wrote on 9/11/01 (quoting Jed):


    Jed Rothwell wrote:

    [...]


    > At one level, I know exactly what happened. The cell stayed hot for 10 days

    > and evaporated 37.4 liters of water. No other information is needed to


    Spurious accuracy, methinks. Reading the book, one does not get the

    idea that they measured the evaporated water volume with any kind of

    accuracy - they slopped it in as needed, and initially they didn't

    expect a lot to evaporate anyway (it came as a surprise, remember?),

    so they would not have started keeping track carefully. Or will you

    state, Rothwell, that they did in fact keep account of the water to

    that sort of precision, and do you think Mizuno would back you up if

    I asked him? Where in fact does that figure of 37.5 L come from? It

    is not in the book, and neither are the figures 20 and 17.5, which you

    have added to produce that sum. I don't believe they would have stated

    17.5, implying a precision of 0.1 L. Explain, please.


    > I said it was not repeated on this scale, with this kind of material,

    > because Mizuno et al. feared it might blow someone's head off with a steam

    > explosion. Heat after death experiments have been repeated many times,


    That seems untrue as well, since the book shows that he was

    confident that his cell could hold 200 atm at 500C, and in any case

    had a safety vent set at 100 atm.


    Why are you making all this stuff up? Why not report it as reported

    by Mizuno himself? He impresses me as a scientist, but I am afraid

    you do not.


    -- Dieter Britz http://www.chem.au.dk/~db




    Lynn Kurtz wrote on 9/18/01 (quoting JR):


    On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:21:59 -0400, "Jed Rothwell"

    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Lynn Kurtz writes:


    [snipped by KLS]


    As I said above, I can read. What he actually wrote in your first

    quote above IS NOT what you attributed to him in this latter quote.

    You are attributing to him things he did not say. Standing on your

    head shouting "read the chemistry books" does not change that.


    --Lynn




    Jed Rothwell wrote on 9/10/01:


    [snip by KLS]


    The cell temperature was not constant. Placed in the water, the electrolyte

    temperature fell to 60 deg C within a few days, then rose back to 80, and

    then gradually cooled down. All cathodes in heat-after-death gradually cool

    down. 10 liters evaporated in the first 24 hours. In the last days, 1 or 2

    liters per day were replaced. The steel cell was 20 cm long, OD 7 cm, ID 6

    cm. The inner sleeve was Teflon, 1 cm thick (ID 5 cm).

    - Jed

  • Quoting Dieter Britz:


    Spurious accuracy, methinks. Reading the book, one does not get the idea that they measured the evaporated water volume with any kind of accuracy - they slopped it in as needed, and initially they didn't expect a lot to evaporate anyway (it came as a surprise, remember?), so they would not have started keeping track carefully. Or will you state, Rothwell, that they did in fact keep account of the water to that sort of precision, and do you think Mizuno would back you up if I asked him?


    This is typical disingenuous skeptical nonsense. It would make no difference whether there accuracy was to the nearest milliliter or to the nearest liter. The conclusion would be the same. There can be no significant chemical heat from this system. If there were no anomalous nuclear effect there would not have been any measurable water evaporated from the cell. Not 1 liter would have evaporated, never mind 17 liters.


    No one claimed there was great accuracy, spurious or otherwise. Accuracy makes no difference to the conclusion.


    Note also that he uses loaded words such as "slopped."


    If Britz wished to communicate with Mizuno he could have done at any time without making rude comments to me. Was that supposed to be some sort of threat?

  • Do you have a problem with that? Have you reviewed the Meffert (Georgia Tech) report and found an error? Or the Imprise Corp. consulting engineer reports? If you have not reviewed these reports, or you have not found an error, I suggest you refrain from commenting on them.


    It is likely the Dean of Mech. Engineering and the others at Georgia Tech knew what they were doing. You are off base poking fun at them and saying "here's a another great one" with reference to this work.


    This does not seem to resemble Rossi's situation, since the people from Georgia Tech. designed, installed and operated the test equipment, as noted in the reports.

  • They did find some tritium, but that was in another

    experiment, before this one. At that time they also found some neutrons

    but at 4 OOM below the tritium.


    @Jed: You are talking with people that for 90 years used the wrong equations for relativity on nuclear level. They don't even understand the basic laws of Newton and still believe that there must be neutrons/ strong radiation with LENR.

    I would simply ignore these adepts/ members of the so called standard physics church...

  • that means that using any temperature over 30C inacurrately represents a possible scenario for the situation? I think you are the one who is unqualified and delusional on top of that! You know that 1000C is '>100C' right? As is 1,000,000C. , etc. etc. Given that highly accurate reporting, I was highly reasonable to use temps of <100C.


    I'd like to remind you what I said here:


    even if a 7.5kg steel reactor was so hot that it was literally glowing red (i.e. ~600C), if it were then placed in 15L of cold water, the equilibrium temperature of the water (and reactor) would only be 40C.... (Assuming no further energy production, of course).


    You could confirm these numbers yourself, if you choose to. It's called equilibrium of temperature.


    Do you finally understand that JR says the bucket was at 100C or greater for around 15 days?


    The bucket, or the reactor? Do you believe this is true? How do you explain it if so?


    All you are actually doing is proving you are deliberately trying to convince people I am wrong when I'm not.


    You are wrong to suggest the observed evaporation could be due to known natural causes.


    And lastly, in the comfort of my living room, from my perspective there is only one wind "around here" - the intricacies of your employment history don't figure much into this.

  • Do you finally understand that JR says the bucket was at 100C or greater for around 15 days?

    Mizuno said the reactor internal temperature was 100 deg C or greater. Not the bucket. As you see in the schematic and photo, the thermocouple was inside the reactor. See also the pen recorder trace. The bucket could not have been at 100 deg C.

  • Posting response to Zeus46's continued insults from here: NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator


    And in the comfort of my living room, the "only wind around here" from my perspective is emanating from your good self - the intricacies of your employment history don't figure much into this.


    So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history' illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of lying on my part.



    Yes I do. And do you believe this is true? How do you explain it if so?


    See points a and b from here: NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator


    And,


    Your case of dropping a hot steel object in water is not relevant to my use of 60 and 75C. It is relevant to my use of close to room temp temperatures, which I also reported and which led to point 2 from here: NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator



    So again, you mangle what I say a la JR and get totally confused in the process.


    [Addition]

    You are wrong to suggest the observed evaporation could be due to known natural causes.


    Missed this earlier. Classic strawman, a la the group of 10 authors. I claim it could be due to UNknown natural causes. My whole point in this discussion is that we don't have enough info to assign causes.

  • JR said:


    "Mizuno said the reactor internal temperature was 100 deg C or greater. Not the bucket. As you see in the schematic and photo, the thermocouple was inside the reactor. See also the pen recorder trace. The bucket could not have been at 100 deg C."


    Thermo 101:


    Water has a phase transition at ~100C. The exact temperature is modifiable by a few degrees by dissolved chemicals. The phase transition is from liquid to gas and is called boiling. Boiling can be obtained by placing a hot enough object in a small enough volume of water (see prior lessons for calculating those quantities), or by heating the water, either externally, as with a pan of water on a stove, or internally, as with placing a heater in the water. The temperature will remain at the phase transition point until all the material has transformed from the initial to the final phase. In the case of the 'hot object' method, it is possible to either a) boil all of the water, b) boil part of the water (leaving the remaining water at <100C), or c) boil none of the water (leaving the remaining water at <100C) (see prior lessons for calculating those quantities).


    From http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf :


    "April 22, 1991. Electrolysis stopped.

    April 25. Mizuno and Akimoto note that temperature is elevated. It has produced 1.2 H 107 joules

    since April 22, in heat-after-death. The cell is removed from the underground lab and transferred to Mizuno’s lab. Cell temperature is >100 deg C.

    April 26. Cell temperature has not declined. ...

    May 7. The cell is finally cool" (emphasis added)


    Note that there was an assumption made that the cell was at ~100C or greater on April 22.


    The bucket, or the reactor? Do you believe this is true? How do you explain it if so?



    See above.

  • Water has a phase transition at ~100C. The exact temperature is modifiable by a few degrees by dissolved chemicals. The phase transition is from liquid to gas and is called boiling. Boiling can be obtained by placing a hot enough object in a small enough volume of water (see prior lessons for calculating those quantities), or by heating the water,

    The water in the bucket was not boiling. It was hot, and it all evaporated overnight, but it was not boiling. Of course if the cell had been hot enough the water would have boiled, but it wasn't that hot.

    Note that there was an assumption made that the cell was at ~100C or greater on April 22.

    It is not an assumption. That is what the pen recorder data shows. The pen recorder line stops at April 25, when the cell was removed from the underground lab neutron detector. After that we have only periodic temperatures in the log, taken directly from TC voltage. We also have Mizuno's observation that the cell remained palpably hot. Apparently, you think his sense of touch might have been wrong and it was actually room temperature. I do not think that is possible.


    Another question arises. If, as you claim, there was an 18 mph wind and other extreme conditions that would make a bucket of water evaporate overnight, why did the water stop evaporating on May 7? Why didn't it continue indefinitely? For that matter, why was there no 18 mph wind when I visited years later?


    Actually, it would have to be more than 18 mph because the bucket was on the floor, far from the doorway. Also, there were no forced air duct heating and cooling systems in those buildings. Only individual gas heaters in the rooms, and individual air conditioners where needed. Most rooms had no air conditioning.

  • JR just keeps getting more and more confused.


    Let's back up the train a bit. JR started all this by bringing up the Mizuno bucket anecdote several months ago. In fact he and I had discussed this on spf in 2001 (or 2). I referenced some of that somewhere here on L-F. Because anomalies are interesting, I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations aimed at assessing what conditions would be required to evaporate the claimed volumes of water in the claimed time frame. I didn't do just one point, I did several, in what is commonly know as a 'parametric study' or a 'sensitivity analysis'. That technique is a simplification of something known as Response Surface Modeling (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…nse_Surface_Modeling_(RSM) ). Choosing values to plug into the equations does NOT mean that these values are being asserted for any specific purpose, other than to get the Response Surface. Jed doesn't understand this because he's not a scientist, and frankly because if he did, he would have to admit I'm not a 'crackpot' as he likes to call me.


    One thing I was taught when I was taught to do RSM was to be 'bold' in choosing my parameters. Go outside the box a little and see what you see. Don't unduly restrict yourself. JR and Z see this as 'crazy'. They obviously have never designed an experiment. (BTW, the 'DOE' in the above Wikipedia ref is not the US Dept. of Energy. It stands for 'Design of Experiments', a statistical method to optimize experimental efficiency.)


    So to summarize what I found, I quote myself from here: NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator


    "1) A bucket of water with a heater in it placed in a location with high air velocity over it can evaporate in 1 night.

    2) A bucket of room temperature water place in a stagnant air flow location will not evaporate overnight."


    I also conclude:


    "a.) The Mizuno bucket incident was never replicated, so no valid scientific conclusion can be drawn from it." and "e.) Key variables in said equations were not documented in the reported results."


    Also, in a post directly above I give a Thermo 101 lesson regarding a >100C object being placed in water.


    Given that, let's look at Jed's comments and respond...




    The water in the bucket was not boiling. It was hot, and it all evaporated overnight, but it was not boiling. Of course if the cell had been hot enough the water would have boiled, but it wasn't that hot.


    Of course, the point of the Thermo 101 lesson was to assert exactly this. The water was not boiling. But it could have been hot. So what is JR rambling about?


    It is not an assumption.


    Sorry if I was unclear. It was my assumption, way back in 2001 in fact.


    Another question arises. If, as you claim, there was an 18 mph wind and other extreme conditions that would make a bucket of water evaporate overnight, why did the water stop evaporating on May 7? Why didn't it continue indefinitely? For that matter, why was there no 18 mph wind when I visited years later?


    JR would be correct in saying "you claim, [IF] there was an 18 mph wind and other extreme conditions[,] that would make a bucket of water evaporate overnight,", but the jump to that being what I assert happened in the Mizuno bucket incident is his jump, not mine. I simply was computing evaporation rates under given conditions and comparing to those required to get the Mizuno results. JR tries to imply I am saying things I'm not, which is why he is untrustworthy for those kind of statements. He assumes he can read my mind and know my motivations, even when what I actually say contradicts what he thinks.


    As to: "why did the water stop evaporating on May 7? Why didn't it continue indefinitely? " that is part of the anomaly, which I have stated multiple times I cannot explain. So why does JR not just accept my statement on this? Because he feels the need to discredit me, and tries very hard to do so.


    As to: "For that matter, why was there no 18 mph wind when I visited years later?" I don't know. Maybe they changed something? Maybe there wasn't that flow rate present? Who knows? Why do you expect me to know this? JR actually expects me to take his word for things without question. He SAID there was no ventilation, so THERE WAS NO ventilation. Sorry JR, your word is no good with me (and others). That's been your problem for years. Shall I dig up the spf comments from others to that effect?


    Actually, it would have to be more than 18 mph because the bucket was on the floor, far from the doorway. Also, there were no forced air duct heating and cooling systems in those buildings. Only individual gas heaters in the rooms, and individual air conditioners where needed. Most rooms had no air conditioning.


    No problem with this. JR is just doing what I was doing, i.e. thinking through the options and ramifications. The only problem is that when I do this, per JR I am a 'crackpot'. So I guess he is too...:)

  • In a much earlier post Mizuno's bucket of water Wyttenbach

    quoted something that seems to appear to be from me. I would like to clarify it is not my words, but Dieter Britz's. See: Mizuno's bucket of water



    EDIT:


    Just noticed this from my noted post just above:


    I note a few inaccuracies in what Rothwell writes here. This is

    strange because all this is described in Mizuno's book, and the

    English edition was translated by none other than Rothwell himself.


    "I" is Dieter Britz, and this supports my contention that others have noted Jed's 'inaccuracies'.

  • "1) A bucket of waterwith a heater in it placed in a location with high air velocity over it canevaporate in 1 night.

    2) A bucket of roomtemperature water place in a stagnant air flow location will not evaporateovernight."

    This was a stagnant air flow area. It could not have evaporated unless the cell was hot. It could only have been hot from anomalous heat, because there was no electric power going into it, and it produced many orders of magnitude more heat than any liter of chemical fuel could have produced.


    There was also no significant free D2 in the headspace because the pressure was never high. A small amount of D2 emerged from the Pd, but not enough to counteract the cooling in air. From this source alone the temperature would fall close to room temperature during the 3 days the pen recorder was attached. As you see, it fell a little and then climbed back up.


    I also conclude:


    "a.) The Mizuno bucketincident was never replicated, so no valid scientific conclusion can be drawnfrom it." and "e.) Key variables in said equations were not documented in the reported results."

    Heat after death was replicated hundreds of times, so a valid scientific conclusion can be drawn. All of the key variables were documented and reported, and listed here. Shanahan demands variables that cannot affect the conclusion, such as the temperature and humidity of the room, and the wind speed. He can set these variables to any value he likes in his simulation, or in an actual test. The water will not evaporate unless there is anomalous heat.


    Even though he does not need any of these variables, I have given him said variables again and again. He ignores me. He pretends it is not cold in Sapporo in April. He pretends that a building might have 18 mph winds in it.


    Shanahan's claim is that there is no heat. Cold fusion does not exist. So the cell would have to be at room temperature, and all of the evaporation must be explained by wind, temperature, etc. This is impossible, as an actual test would show, but Shanahan will not do an actual test. He could leave a bucket in a room and see for himself. Any real scientist would do so.

  • This was a stagnant air flow area.


    Hate to tell you this Jed, but if that were true Mizuno would be dead from carbon dioxide poisoning. You see, it is ventilation that refreshes the air supply. Completely sealed rooms can have no ventilation, but that's where you get the CO2 (or lack of O2) problem.


    There was also no significant free D2 in the headspace


    Nope. When the electrolysis power was turned off, the electrode unloaded D2 into an already present mix of water saturated D2 + O2 electrolysis gases. lots of D2 percentage wise. Absolute amount would have to be calculated.


    Heat after death was replicated hundreds of times


    Nope. Claims of such sure, but no credible accounts.


    All of the key variables were documented and reported


    Nope.


    Any real scientist would do so.


    Actually not really. Any real scientist would understand what I have been trying to tell you since 2001.

  • Hate to tell you this Jed, but if that were true Mizuno would be dead from carbon dioxide poisoning. You see, it is ventilation that refreshes the air supply. Completely sealed rooms can have no ventilation, but that's where you get the CO2 (or lack of O2) problem.

    Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well what I mean. I mean there were no fans or ventilation. There was plenty of cold air coming through the windows, which were single panel glass that did not shut well. As I recall, one of them was cracked. Post-war Japanese concrete buildings by that time were warped and falling to pieces. The windows would not shut.


    That is why we wore coats inside. National university were made in a hurry with the cheapest construction techniques, in the post-war rush.


    Nope. When the electrolysis power was turned off, the electrode unloaded D2 into an already present mix of water saturated D2 + O2 electrolysis gases. lots of D2 percentage wise. Absolute amount would have to be calculated.

    The pressure pen recorder line shows there was no significant D2 in the headspace. The recombiner worked the whole time. The pressure did not climb; the valve did not pop, and the cell did not rupture or explode, so there could not have been much free D2.


    If there had been a lot of free D2 in the headspace, it could not have gradually produced heat, over many days. The gas can only collect there when the recombiner fails, because it is wet. The moment water drips off the recombiner surface, it starts working again, and the cell explodes. There is no gradual catalysis.


    The recombiner continued working after electrolysis stopped. Any D2 that emerged would recombine. Of course it would produce a little heat. It easy to estimate how much. It would be thousands of times less than anomalous heat. You do not have to know the "absolute amount." You can easily compute the maximum amount there could be. Assume 100% loading, which is impossibly high. Take the number of moles of Pd, divide by 2, and compute the heat of formation of that much water.


    Nope. Claims of such sure, but no credible accounts.

    You are saying that peer-reviewed journal papers by Fleischmann are not credible. You are telling us that a Fellow of the Royal Society writing in a peer reviewed journal is not credible. Who do you think you are?

  • Advice to JR: Kirk is neither evil nor stupid: he just has opjnions you don't like and a way of arguing them that puts logic above overall message. In this case that leads his overall message to sound unjust to the anomalousness of this anecdote.


    Advice to KS: I don't think more elucidation comes from your continued baiting of Jed, he mistakes your dislike of broad brush and uncautious comments with an ideological fixity that cannot change. Perhaps a little projection there.

  • Advice to JR: Kirk is neither evil nor stupid: he just has opjnions you don't like and a way of arguing them that puts logic above overall message. In this case that leads his overall message to sound unjust to the anomalousness of this anecdote.


    We can always find a logic to disprove something, but in kirks case the base assumptions do not agree with his logic. Nevertheless Mizuno now has been replicated many times, recently even by fellow IH.


    I see absolutely no point to any longer discuss an old experiment, that now finally got more than three successful replications.


    Old mans pride is annoying for people that are interested in the actual progress of the area.


    LENR is now an accepted fact. Even the EU-Minister(s) claim that it has been successfully replicated and that took a long time for them to agree with this statement.


    I recommend to open a new thread for the frustrated old failing experimenters and standard model addicts, where they can discuss and complain about their lost youth.

  • So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history' illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of lying on my part.

    I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh.