Here's another great one. As you read it keep thinking "Rossi Rossi Rossi..."
Mizuno's bucket of water
-
-
Here's another great one. As you read it keep thinking "Rossi Rossi Rossi..."
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...
-
Mice can do even more surprising things than drink a bucket of water:
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/…a-ton-of-missing-maijuana
-
Lost in a fire, one spliff at a time.
-
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.
