Measurement Error and LENR: Why scaling up small Cold Fusion claims never works

  • I still cannot receive an answer to my question: with all of these claimed positive results, why has every effort to every effort to scale this up and verify these claims outside of the sphere of the claimant lead to failure?

    Here is your answer: You made that shit up. What you say is not true. Not even slightly true. Cold fusion has been scaled up from a few watts to about 100 W.

    From what I can tell, 100% of the times companies have spent millions of dollars to scale these claims up and verify them, they have not been able to.

    You obviously have not read the literature. You haven't even looked at my 6-minute video. You make stuff up and then call it "what I can tell." This is "what you can tell" from your own imagination and ignorance. It means nothing. A person who has read nothing and knows nothing cannot "tell" anything.

  • Have any of these results been replicated by an independent body not actively involved in CF/LENR research? If not, I would question them.

    Any researcher that replicates a cold fusion result will then be actively involved in CF/LENR research. You and Mary Yugo will then summarily reject that researcher as biased. Any positive result will poison the researcher's credibility, according to you.


    Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of world-class laboratories. Prior to 1989, not a single one of them replicated. You would never have claimed that China Lake, Los Almos or U. Minnesota was biased. I expect you have never even heard of many of these labs even now, and unless you happen to know the names of the world's leading electrochemists in 1989, you would not know the people either. Yet you would "question them." On what basis? What the hell do you know? Who the hell do you think you are, dismissing papers you have not read by experts you have never heard of, in a field you know nothing about?


    I would question you as an ignorant, biased, egotistical know-it-all who thinks he knows more about electrochem than than the likes of Richard Oriani or Martin Fleischmann, and more about physics than Schwinger. It's ridiculous! I'll bet you think you know Japanese better than I do, and how to play baseball better than Jose Altuve.

  • LOL. Still with this Mizuno's claim....


    lenrisnotreal


    If you are looking for big errors in Mizuno's test and paper for example read the relevant deep critical analysis already highlighted here months ago but in a whisper so as not to disturb the fusionists' dreams. :D :D :D


    That GSVIT report is very detailed work, both theoretical and experimental with the two confirming each other.


    While they document lots of maybe not significant "typo" errors, there are very significant ones as well. They do a good job of explaining why the control and active readings can be different. They also show the active flow rate wrong by 100%.


    In the rewrite it seems M acknowledges the 100% error in flowrate, but does not change his power results?


    I have to agree with them that these results are essentially of no value.


    THH

  • Also, there might be an error in figure 24 of this document. According to the text, this figure should show an input power of 100W. Figure 24 appears to show an input power of 50W. If this is indeed an error, this entire paper, and all prior research by this organization, is , in my opinion only, possibly invalid due to errors in record keeping, measurements, and presentation. I'll finish my review of this document for more errors when I have more time.


    lenrisnotreal : Before the next piss please read the text:


    Figure 25 shows three position of temperature changes for outside body of reactor center and reverse side of the center, and 100 mm from the center of the reactor at 100 W of input power during excess heat generation treatment.

  • Air-passage openings of 50-mm-diameter were made at the top and the bottom side of
    the box. A blower of 12 V, 0.6A, 7.2 W was installed on the top air-passage port.


    A blower was installed at the upper air outlet port,


    The blower was supplied with 5 W (constant voltage of 12 V, 0.42 A). The voltage and current data of the blower
    were continuously recorded by a PC. The air flow rate of the blower was calibrated with a digital anemometer (Custom
    Co. Ltd. CW-60) that shows Fig. 15. The thermoelectric anemometer ranged from 0.2 to 20 m/s, the resolution was
    0.1 m/s, and the measurement temperature range was 0–50◦C. The temperature of the air outlet and the wind speed
    were measured continuously by the equipment by the location of the outlet. In this way, the air leaving the blower was
    sufficiently agitated. An anemometer equipped with an air volume and a thermometer was used to confirm that both
    the wind speed and temperature were uniform


    Revised Report: S is the area of the air outlet, 8.2 × 10−3 m2


    Geometric calculation: D= 50mm = 0.05m => A = pi/4 D2 = 1.96 x 10-3 m2


    Revised Report: In a usual test, the input power of the blower is 5 W, so the wind speed is 4 m/s. Since the air outlet sectional area
    is 4.4 × 10−3 m2 , air volume of about 1.6 × 10−2m3/s passes through the interior of the box


    Original report: In a usual test, the input power of the blower is 5 W, so the wind speed is 4 m/s. Since the air outlet sectional area is 8.2 × 10-3 m2,

    air volume of about 3×10-2 m3/s passes through the interior of the box.


    So, the area from given dimensions is 20cm2. The stated area in the revised report is 82cm2 and also 44cm2. The 44cm2 figure is revised down from 82cm2 in the original report? Anyway it is still not consistent with the clearly stated port diameter and geometry. The geometry calculated area gives a much lower flow rate. But no reliance can be placed on this, or on the other figures.


    GSVIT also point out that the fan in the photo is not the same as the fan in the write-up. The report fan shows a no back-pressure flowrate of 1.33 x 10-2 m2/s. The photo fan shows no back-pressure flowrate of 1.08 x 10-2m3/s. However this is at 12V, 7.2W. The actual power is 5W giving a lower flow-rate, inconsistent even with the revised figure. (There could perhaps be some small negative pressure due to the natural convection, but this must be less than the pressure from the system since the blower increases flowrate from its natural value).


    The revised air flowrate is 1/2 the original, and looks more plausible. But the calculated output power is the same? Figures 28, 29 are identical in the two versions.


    The whole calculation in the write-up contains enough errors that it cannot be relied upon. The nonlinear power out versus power in still needs explanation, but these so badly inconsistent figures, and lack of raw results from which other errors could perhaps be corrected, makes such explanation impossible to do with any confidence.


    I don't mind the errors, I mind continuation of errors through revision, and the lack of all the detailed data when delivered data has shown multiple errors. An acknowledged X2 error on output flowrate and hence calorimetry (though that seems not acknowledged) is so large that normal checks would prevent it from being stated even in a preprint. We cannot trust that there are not other very significant errors. GSVIT have outlined a plausible mechanism that would (I think) deliver the nonlinear power out vs power in curve.


    This level of experimental reporting is not helpful for scientific discussion, and I cannot see it as a useful scientific write-up without much more detail and validation.


    It is a shame, it looks superficially so good...

  • THHuxleynew : The usual blow in the wind.... May be in/outlet have different dimensions and sombody mixed it up. As the Italian say: Red Ferraries are faster than yellow ones...


    Or do you really believe that your FUD has an impact on the COP ??


    (1) If you read the data, both blower and speed measurement is on outlet, as are dimensions. But I'm giving him this as suspicious but unproven.

    (2) If you read the analysis, the (revised down by factor of 2) air flow is not totally unreasonable

    (3) BUT - why has he not also revised power down by 2?


    Someone is going to say that he knew the power independently of the calorimetry calculations....


    Err, yes, I don't need to answer that!


    I'd hope there are enough people who actually read stuff here not to view this paper as in any way credible. Because it is not credible.

  • lenrisnotreal : Before the next piss please read the text:


    Figure 25 shows three position of temperature changes for outside body of reactor center and reverse side of the center, and 100 mm from the center of the reactor at 100 W of input power during excess heat generation treatment.

    The text clearly states that Fig. 24 should show 100W while the actual Fig. 24 shows 50W. Therefore, there are possibly errors in this paper. This possibly invalidates it. I'm not focused on Fig 25. Only Fig. 24.

  • lenrisnotreal "The text clearly states that Fig. 24 should show 100W while the actual Fig. 24 shows 50W.

    Therefore, there are possibly errors in this paper. This possibly invalidates it"


    Fig 24 shows black horizontal lines for 50 150 200.

    The original graph probably had blue at 100W... but that has become a grey line which precipitately ceases at timemark 82.5 ks


    As Mizuno says

    "In the field of CF there are many people who are pleased that even one mistake as if they took the head of a demon

    (Onino kubi wo tottayou ni yorokobu) . Well it probably cannot be helped. "


  • I'm looking at the pdf as presented. I do not see a line at 100W. The line at 50W is clearly darker than the other horizontal lines. As an end user, it is not my job to correct graphs or determine what was actually meant by presented data. There are some other questions I have with this paper such as the pre-heating of reactants.

  • You can't see a grey line at 100W? that descends precipitately at 82.5 ks??

    I can , I saw it 4 months ago when I read the first preprint.


    I guess it depends on your point of view.

    Preheating which reactants?? the deuterium, the palladium or the nickel?

  • I thought we decided to pretend the GSVIT Mizuno analysis never happened? :)


    It would be nothing new, only cold fusionists are wise, instead the others (mainstream international scientific community) are dull scientists. ;)

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • Shane D. wrote:

    "I thought we decided to pretend the GSVIT"


    I read the GSVIT through briefly. It needs to be address the final report which is published.

    There are significant differences between the final report and the preprint versions

    which make many GSVIT statements irrelevant .


    Some GSVIT statements are stretching credibility for the sake of argument


    eg


    1. The reading of the air outlet temperature was carried out after the air had passed through the centrifugal fan.

    Since the fan absorbed about 5W, almost all of these contributed to increase the air temperature.

    The 5W fan power mostly contributes to increasing the airspeed, not to increasing the temperature picked up by the sensor


    2."on page 24 it is necessary to reach 700°C for an estimated excess of 1kW, but in Figure 40 that same power would be reached at 400°C."

    The GSVIT extrapolation in blue to 400C ignores the fact that Mizuno is indicating a smooth curve.

    The statement "that same power would be reached at 400°C." is very debatable


    The temperature ( in the range 300-1000C ) is probably being explored by Mizuno together with a large number of other variables in order

    to raise the COP.













  • You can't see a grey line at 100W? that descends precipitately at 82.5 ks??

    I can , I saw it 4 months ago when I read the first preprint.


    RobertBryant : Even cat's can see grey lines. But nordic monsters seem to live in the dark...


    Thanks for defending the most credible LENR work done in Japan. Translating from Japanese is not easy and if a researcher can not tell everything things may easily become messed up.


    It is nice to see that the sceptics hang on a thin hair in air blowing at supersonic? spead. A fan adds nothing to temperature unless the air is cooling the fan too and no radiation escapes...But as said, in the worst case we have to subtract 5 Watts from 100.

  • I am pretty sure that this work of Mizuno's will be replicated in 2018 btw, negotiations (nothing to do with me) are underway. That will be very helpful.

    If the replication attempt is performed by a group not currently involved in LENR it might be worth review.
    I see in this experiment where they "preheated" the reactant with 50W for 10 hours. I need more information on that. Why is that energy not added as input energy or am I missing something?

  • I see in this experiment where they "preheated" the reactant with 50W for 10 hours. I need more information on that. Why is that energy not added as input energy or am I missing something?


    Why not go the whole hog and add in the energy required to produce the reactor and all it's ingredients. Energy input to ingredients before the actual experiment is meaningless. As for your comment below:-

    If the replication attempt is performed by a group not currently involved in LENR it might be worth review.


    This is (as Jed pointed out) a logical absurdity. Modifying the words used a little does not help much with that. And as for 'your review' pray tell us what value it has to anybody other than yourself? Since, as your screen-name suggests, you don't believe in LENR anyway.


  • Good to have some comment. Your analysis here picks up three minor comments (and stated as minor by GSVIT) while ignoring the elephant in the room, noted by me above and summarised also by GSVIT. Is that how you think it correct to do a Literature survey?


    Still, just as the (many) mistakes in Mizuno equations (1a,1b,1c,1d) etc from the GSVIT report speak as to whether calculations and measurements not all explicitly written down can be trusted, you might argue that these three points from GSVIT speak to their competence.


    (1) You state that GSVIT need to address the revised report. They do this, read the end of their report. As far as the elephant in the room point goes, they have commented. And I (semi-independently) identified the relevant parts of the old and revised report above. GSVIT summarises this. What other salient issues are different between old and new? I'd be interested in why you think the revision is more convincing.


    (2) You state the 5W fan power mostly contributes to increasing the airspeed, not to increasing the temperature picked up by the sensor

    That depends on the efficiency of the fan. My general knowledge is that you are 100% wrong, and GSVIT 100% right. But let us check specifics. The mechanical work done by a fan depends on the pressure gradient it supplies, since the air speed before and after the fan blades will be the same (think about it). In this case the experiment design is such as to make the pressure gradient low and the fan lightly loaded. Under these conditions we expect only a small amount of power going into the air pressure change and therefore most of it lost as heat.


    We can do better than this. W'd expect a low efficiency for a small fan like this. Let us use the manufacturer's data to determine the efficiency. For the given fan (Figure 3 GSVIT or here for whole datasheet). we have an electrical power of 7.2W nominal at 12V for the given pressure/speed graph. power out is proportional to pressure times spped. Eyeballing this for the maximum efficiency point on the operating curve (which as I've said before we do not get, and GSVT indicate this so justifying their point) we have:

    0.4 m3/min, 100Pa. Converting to SI units we get 0.0067 m3/s, 100Pa. We finally need the air density, which is in SI units conveniently 1. therefore the power is pressure x airflow x density = 0.67W.


    That means that operating at optimal efficiency this fan still only delivers 10% of power in as air pressure out. GSVIT did not spell this out, but I'm quite sure they were well familiar with the efficiecy of small fans.


    (Large fans can have efficiencies up to 50% or higher, because as is well known electrical machines (motors etc) get more efficient with increasing size, and then the main losses are due to noise and turbulence. I know this because I looked into the Rossi heat exchanger issue - in order to work any heat exchanger would need to use more electrical power than was provided to the whole factory).


    (3) you state GSVIT are wrong to say: on page 24 it is necessary to reach 700°C for an estimated excess of 1kW, but in Figure 40 that same power would be reached at 400°C.

    You point out that the real curve is non-linear. that is true, but Mizuno states a likely linear relationship (on this 1/T vs power graph), and extrapolates from this. In fact that shows scientific naivetee, which is I believe the point of this comment. There is no mechanism for such a theoretical relationship because inverse absolute temperature does not enter directly into physical equations. If you think about what temperature actually is you can see why we would always expect to get, as a simple rule that can be extrapolated, the Arrhenius equation: an exp(-E0/kT). GSVIT highlighting this is perhaps over-egging the pudding - who cares that Mizuno does not understand how to extrapolate theoretically in a plausible way in the context of an experimental report? But it is not true that it points to GSVIT incompetence, as 1a,1b,1c,1d point to incompetence in the original Mizuno report writeup.


    I am pretty sure that this work of Mizuno's will be replicated in 2018 btw, negotiations (nothing to do with me) are underway. That will be very helpful.


    Agreed. And I'm willing to predict (confidently) that no such large and unmistakable results as Mizuno claims here will be found from any independent replication. Mizuno has a record of interesting claims that include calorimetry errors, and the write-up for this one shows the same.

  • I have never heard anyone described as believing in superconductivity or piezoelectricity or the Hall Effect or the Seebeck Effect or any other physical phenomenon. Why does one have to “believe” in LENR?


    Simply because some people don't believe it. Just logical to describe it that way. ETA -it occurs to me that subsets of QM and QED both have different belief groups.

  • THH

    "you state GSVIT are wrong to say"

    "You point out that the real curve is non-linear. ,


    I did not state or point out either. Please do not misquote me.


    The GSVIT 400 C statement is very debatable.....but expressed as certainty

    Neither GSVIT or Mizuno know what the real curve is.


    That is the subject of continuing research.


  • There can be no valid research until we have good calorimetry, which as GSVIT have amply shown, and you have not refuted, neither the first nor the revised Mizuno paper shows evidence of.

  • THH " which as GSVIT have amply shown"

    GSVIT do not write amply shown

    GSVIT writes in a mixture of if's and assertion as in..


    • if the first hypothesis is plausible.
    • If α1 = 0.5 and λ = 8W/m2 ·°C is assumed, α2 = 0.16.

    • It is therefore clear that the measured temperature differences on the outside of the reactors do not show an abnormal event within the “real” reactor, but can be explained away by a difference

    • If we are right, he should have

    • If the air flow was half that supposed by the Author

    • If we suppose this was true for the “real” Deuterium-loaded reactor

    • Our hypothesis is that at the end of the test

    • However, the Author has neglected the fact that the room temperature varies

    • The Author ignored this error, but it cannot explain the difference in temperature between the different tests,

    • If our explanation is true, no abnormal reaction occurred

    • If the test with the “real” reactor under vacuum had been performed by placing it alone inside the chamber, perhaps in the same position normally occupied by the dummy, it would clearly give the same results as the latter.

    • This hypothesis would explain why the noise in the majority of diagrams increases in lockstep with the temperature.

    • and we believe it is the most likely hypothesis

    • . All this suggests that, as a result of all these errors (the most sensational is the measurement of the fan flow equal to twice the maximum value declared by the manufacturer),,  


    GSVIT still maintains "' the most sensational is the measurement of the fanflow equal to twice the maximum value.."

    I do not think this applies to the final published paper as this factor was corrected four months ago.

    and neither does the assertion that Mizuno does not know how to calculate the circumference of a circle.


    I suggest that GSVIT amply suggests rather than amply shows.

    Their ideas have some merit, and could contribute to the circumference of further research,

    but I would suggest that the Mizuno circumference crack has nothing to so with scienza intellettualmente

    and is indeed very umano


    I shall attempt to clarify some things with GSVIT in this season of cheer..

    It is cold in north Italy but a sweltering 29C in Sydney today

    I picked macadamia nuts and a pawpaw in the hospital grounds ...

    there are no Sirocco Borea, e tutti i Venti in Guerra here


  • GSVIT still maintains "' the most sensational is the measurement of the fanflow equal to twice the maximum value.."

    I do not think this applies to the final published paper as this factor was corrected four months ago.


    I'll try to answer in a single typeface. GSVIT's postlude in response to the revised paper, which you appear not to have absorbed, points out that they have corrected this, but not the power results. And my post, which you also seem not address, points this out.


    Mizuno does not disclose from what data precisely he works out the power graphs. So perhaps his results are calculated using the flowrate. Or, they do use the flowrate and should be corrected. The point is we cannot tell since he does not disclose how he gets the results.


    Which do you suggest? If he calculated results without using the flowrate he gives no indication how these are obtained from the experimental data. Otherwise the paper remains with this major error.

  • THHuxley"Which do you suggest?"

    I suggest there is no elephant in the room as you suggest.

    Mizuno is quite capable of calculating the circumference of a circle and energy balances


    The data for the 120W calibration and excess heat 120W are available on this forum.


    If you have problems finding them , I can direct you to them


    Both Jed and I have calculated from them and found agreement with Mizuno's results, based on the 0.044 area written in the spreadsheets


    GSVIT's postlude is unclear to me, and I have asked them to clarify


    This data is now available to GSVIT.


    I await GSVIT's response to 8 or so comments and queries on the GSVIT webpage.


    I would rather get the risposte from the horse's mouth than entertain THHuxley's notion of an elephant in the room

  • Paradigmnoia "So is there an experimental result of 1 kW at 300C, as indicated in the abstract"


    The abstract indicates

    there WAS an experimental result of several hundred watts, not 1KW at 300C


    In the best results obtained thus far, the output

    thermal energy is double the input electrical energy, amounting to several hundred watts"


    I interpret the 1KW as referring to the trend in Figure 40.


    "The generated thermal energy followsan exponential temperature function. When the reactor temperature is 300◦C, the generated energy is 1 kW.

    The best result at the time (2015,2016?) appears to be ~450W at 250C.


    I guess Mizuno is intently investigating the !KW question but much more importantly sustaining it and at the lowest possible energy input.


    A COP of 1.7 or 2 is way less than 3 or 4 which will make the process economic.