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.
Display MoreTHH
"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 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
So is there an experimental result of 1 kW at 300C, as indicated in the abstract?
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.
I guess Mizuno is intently investigating the !KW question but much more importantly sustaining it and at the lowest possible energy input.
Mizuno only puplishes science. COP's above 4 are business. Don't expect he will tell you about this!
A COP of 1.7 or 2 is way less than 3 or 4 which will make the process economic.
A COP of 1.7 or 2 would be one of the most lucrative discoveries, ever, IMHO.
A COP of 1.7 or 2 would be one of the most lucrative discoveries, ever, IMHO.
Well, not quite. Since this COP figure is heat, and since generally speaking electricity is twice the price of gas per unit heat, it would only be useful in some very particular circumstances.
I don't have gas at my house. Would I like electrical heat to cost half as much? You bet. It would make electrical heat cheaper than firewood here. No more stuffing the firebox once an hour or two, at least.
But that is barely my point at all. A solid, controllable COP of about 2 could be the tip of the iceberg, and for a crack at that opportunity, individuals and companies would be climbing over each other with handfuls truckloads and more of cash, plus nearly unlimited equipment, lab techs, and lab space, etc.
But for some reason it doesn't catch on, because it isn't cheaper than burning gas? LOL
Paradigmnoia " A solid, controllable COP of about 2 could be the tip of the iceberg"
That is what Mizuno is working on in Sapporo, in between scrounging around for meagre funds for the research to trickle on
A full replication with a number of calorimetric methods will cost a sizeable amount of those meagre funds.
There remains the durability problem
Isotopic changes producing tritium,helium ,carbon, nitrogen, oxygen ..even xenon are possible
especially when the number of reactions rises at temperatures of 1000 C
These may poison the fuel and destroy the reactor structure over the long term.
Cleaning an oxidised or nitrided Pd/Ni surface currently takes hours of plasma discharge.
Pd is at record prices.. how often does it need to be replaced?
These are only a few of the issues that Mizuno is dealing with.
You'll have to keep the home fires burning unfortunately.
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
Yes please. And of course I'd like to see the original data, and the data after the flow rate revision to half previous? You have not yet answered my question except by saying Mizuno is bound to get it right. It is proper for you to make that judgement, and equally proper for me to have no confidence that Mizuno will get such things right.
The only distinction here is that from this very experimental write-up we have evidence of Mizuno making a mistake that doubles his heat output from what it ought to be, as well other issues that make for errors (I'm thinking of the effect of wall temperature on the output temperature sensor). The fact that M could have this X2 error in the original write-up shows exactly that he has not been checking things the way you would expect, even when they are simple, let alone more complex artifacts as suggested by GSVIT.
Pd is at record prices.. how often does it need to be replaced?
These are only a few of the issues that Mizuno is dealing with.
If results like these were properly reported, with a well-controlled carefully conducted experiment, he would have billions of investment and Nobel prizes to deal with. His reactor it seems works for many weeks. That is more than enough time to do proper calorimetry. Were I as confident as you I would be very frustrated by the lack of rigour and precise reporting of experimental methodology in Mizuno's work, when extra checking and careful attention to detail costs nothing and would have such large gains. As it is Mizuno has a record of calorimetry errors, and no record of results that remain when verified with proper calorimetry (or if he has you could point me to this and I'll look).
You would have thought that after this time those people believing they have real large LENR excess heat experiments would follow best practice.
Bocjin: 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
I can't understand this. GSVIT are merely saying what I'm saying (with a little more detail). Their write-up as stated is based on the original and revised paper. My comment on the same. You have introduced the idea of additional data not published that will somehow help. Surely either you must address the criticism of the two papers (mine and GSVIT's) making correct counter-arguments, or put clearly on the table a third paper, or something equivalent, which will make matters better? If you need GSVIT to say more it is presumably because you disagree with what they (and I) have said. In that case why not post your disagreement here so we can all examine it?
What would help is two sets of detailed results, showing how the power was calculated in the initial paper, and how it is calculated now. Making it clear how the airflow error comes into this. For example, does the revised paper refer to new experimental data, or recalculation of the original excess power results? It does not seem to be the case from what is published. But perhaps you have information on that.
For anyone wanting to look at this, Bocjin will I hope post the additional data he is using to make a judgement.
I am going on (for preciseness) :
the revised paper (archived by GSVIT and translated by Jed)
the original paper (archived by GSVIT and I guess translated by Jed)
Perhaps anyone with additional material (e.g. a third revision of the paper, or extra data) could post it with these?
THH "Yes please"
120W active reactor data courtesy of JedRothwell..... any problems with download? contact him
https://drive.google.com/open?…r0UahtG1ZPAJmAJmejB6EMipY
120W calibration reactor data
https://docs.google.com/spread…guD8iWilv7s3rgqXA/pubhtml
GSVIT calls the environmental heat the dispersed heat.
This is the sum of radiative convective and conductive losses not picked up in the sensible heat loss measured by the airflow sensors.
GSVIT wrote that Mizuno had wrote that the dispersed heat was negligible.. which is a false assertion.
Mizuno was well aware of the dispersed heat. It was calculated to be 26% of sensible heat for the 120W input.
GSVIT did not have available the data. They now have that data. I await their riposte in 2018.
Mizuno has measured it for the active reactor using calibration factors e.g 1.26 based on the heat balance from the inactive reactor.
This calibration factor method took me a while to twig to.
I assume that Mizuno has a table of 20 or so calibration factors based on a range of inactive reactor energy balances.
The calibration factors will increase with the output of the reactor and with the temperature.
If you need to confirm this with Mizuno contact him directly
If you have problems with Mizuno's method contact him directly.
For the calibration (inactive) reactor:
Spread sheet analysis gives 2.55 Mj for the sensible heat... (m x c x delta t) transferred to the flowing air.
including the 1.26 environmental calibration factor converts this to 3.21 MJ total heat out.
For the active reactor sensible heat = 3.09 MJ. Total heat via 1.26 gives 3.89 MJ total heat out.
Using 1.26 is conservative because active reactor is a little hotter than the inactive reactor so its factor should be larger.
Here is a summary
Note the electrical input for the active reactor is 23% less than for the inactive.
| |
Electric Energy In |
Sensible Heat Loss |
Environmental HL |
Total Heat Loss |
COP |
| Active Reactor |
2.48 |
3.09 |
0.8 |
3.89 |
1.57 |
| Inactive Reactor |
3.24 |
2.55 |
0.66 |
3.21 |
0.99 |
Summary.
COP for the inactive reactor is 0.99. COP for the active reactor is 1.57.
The first two columns are readily calculatable from the data and can be filled in in the table below without the calibration factor method
Kirkshanahan appears to have calculated them but his response to my request to fill in the table is algebraic.
“Not going to do it for two reasons: A) I don't trust the data. B) I don't trust your method. A + B = waste of my time."
It would be nice to confirm with you that first two column calculations are OK.
perhaps including 0.3 MJ outlet fan electrical input for both the active and inactive
will make a difference to the final COP .. but I doubt it.
Happy New Year and God Bless.
| |
Electric Energy In |
Sensible Heat Loss |
Environmental HL |
Total Heat Loss |
COP |
| Active Reactor |
?Happy NY |
? Happy NY |
|
|
|
| Inactive Reactor |
? Happy NY |
? Happy NY |
|
|
|
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.
Err, no. Pumping power is Vdot deltaP where power is (in SI units) Watts, Vdot is volumetric flowrate m^3/sec and P is Pascals (N/m2). It doesn't matter what density the fluid is. It could be water or high altitude air. This is why small car engines get better gas mileage than the same car with a bigger engine; the throttle is open wider and the pumping losses are less. Fortunately for your argument, you used air density as 1 and did not affect the equation. A check on this is a dimensional analysis. Vdot deltaP is m^3 sec-1 X N m-2, which is J/sec or Watts. Adding density to the equation would add an incorrect kg/m^3.
Sorry about the nit picking, and BTW, propellers for light airplanes are about 70% to 80% efficient.
But for some reason it doesn't catch on, because it isn't cheaper than burning gas? LOL
While I agree about COP" representing the tip of an iceberg which could lead to improvements in future, I think you miss the point. Of course you would like a heater that uses 50% of the electricity you use now, But if that heater costs 10X as much as the simple heater you have now and has an uncertain service life, would you still want it? I think not. And neither would anybody who CAN burn gas.
As for the idea that people would be scrambling to hand you truck loads of money for the rights to such a tech, I'm afraid that is a very naive viewpoint. Early stage technologies with long development curves are worth very little in investor's eyes. For example, I developed two different chemistry-based products in the 1970's. One was a novel way of making food container sealing compounds (every food can has a gasket inside the rolled seams) which is a huge market. The other was a method of synthesising very cheap surfactants based on starch rather than petrochemicals. Both were sold on by my employers for relatively trivial sums because they predicted (correct in one case, the detergents, but wrong in the other) that the development curves were too long for them to follow up. Eventually they bought out the entire company they sold the can-sealing tech to, but I was in pastures new by then. My point is both of these techs were probably worth billions in the long term, but very little when they were at the laboratory bench stage.
Err, no. Pumping power is Vdot deltaP where power is (in SI units) Watts, Vdot is volumetric flowrate m^3/sec and P is Pascals (N/m2). It doesn't matter what density the fluid is. It could be water or high altitude air. This is why small car engines get better gas mileage than the same car with a bigger engine; the throttle is open wider and the pumping losses are less. Fortunately for your argument, you used air density as 1 and did not affect the equation. A check on this is a dimensional analysis. Vdot deltaP is m^3 sec-1 X N m-2, which is J/sec or Watts. Adding density to the equation would add an incorrect kg/m^3.
Sorry about the nit picking, and BTW, propellers for light airplanes are about 70% to 80% efficient.
Thanks Dan,
You are quite right - careless of me!
I guess that best fans are 70%-80% pneumatic efficiency (if that is a word) too. For total efficiency you multiply that by the electromechanical efficiency of the motor, which for small motors is small unless they go very very fast (Dyson have some extraordinary fast motors to get higher efficiency).
