NASA partners with Global Energy Corporation to develop 10kW Hybrid Reactor Generator

  • FWIW I have had a bucket with around 10 litres of grey water sitting under the bench for almost 3 weeks, lab temperature a steady 18C (I like it cool). Checked today, it has lost less than 2 litres of the original volume.


    Just as I predicted...


    (P.S. Any rodents in your lab?)

  • So, now we have a _new_ question: Heater on or off? Proof of that?

    Off. Definitely off. But you should feel free to test what would happen if it were on. Turn on an electric heater with a fan, put it right next to a bucket, and see if it evaporates the bucket overnight. As I said, a modern 1.5 kW U.S. electric heater with a blower will do a better job at evaporating water than the passive gas heaters used in the 1970s in Japan.


    As it happens, the heater in this particular lab was next to the window, at the other end of the room. At the location I was standing when I took the photo. There was no way you could cram it where the cell was placed. It wouldn't even reach, and you would not want one of those blue rubber gas hoses trailing across the floor. They were fragile and sometimes pulled out of the tap.


    You would not want a gas heater next to the lab equipment shown in the photo. The place was chaotic as you see. One piece of paper drifting down into the heater might have caused a fire. People were constantly warning you to shut those things off, for good reason! You also had to turn off the hot water heater in the kitchen, and the bathroom bathtub heater, which were open flames, or firewood. These were complicated gadgets that often failed and -- it was said -- sometimes exploded, as shown in the movie "Adrenaline Drive" (which is hilarious).


    Looking back, heating, cooling, cooking, walking with street traffic and no sidewalks, and life in general in Japan was dangerous in 1975. It was still an impoverished, post-war country in some ways. People I knew made about $6,000 a year income. There was never air conditioning in summer, and in winter it was cold everywhere, always, except in the public bath. Cold as in: the toothpaste would freeze. Even in large cities they had cesspools which stank. It was miserable in many ways. It made me appreciate modern technology and U.S. prosperity.


    If you wish to know what it was like, read the comic book series "Maison Ikkoku." I don't think much of comics, but that one describes my youth.


    Here is the photo of the lab, again:




    The cell was on the floor behind the blue cabinet to the left, in a small space between the cabinet and the wall. I took the photo from the desk at the other end of the room. This is Fig. 2-4 in my book. The door is open and you can see across the hallway to another lab.


    A 50 mph wind, or even an 18 mph wind, in these rooms would cause utter chaos.


    So, based on that, I should have been using 100C in my sensitivity analysis, but I didn't, I used 75 and 60 to allow for some cooling, which Jed says I disallow. But, but...to allow for cooling I can't claim that "a cell left in open air will not cool down". There he (JR) goes again....

    Of course you should allowing cooling! You are the one who claims the cell stayed for 3 days in the underground lab. You should have ordinary cooling in an unheated room in April in Sapporo, in a 1940s building.


    I do not see what you are getting at here. The parts you quoted above this describe the cell in the underground lab. As you see from the photo I uploaded earlier, it was sitting in the paraffin blocks, open to air. There are no fans in the tent, but it stays at around 20 deg C year 'round, being underground and all.


    After the power was turned off, the cell should have cooled to room temperature within hours. As you see from the pen-recorder graphs I uploaded, it started to cool and then heated up again. The time when the power was turned off is marked. The pen recorder was disconnected after it was moved from the underground lab.


    You said -- repeatedly -- that it was hot after three days as shown in the pen recording because they heated it. Meaning (I suppose) objects at over 100 deg C left in room temperature conditions don't cool down. Newton's law of cooling does not work. Except you also seem to believe that water magically evaporates in room temperature conditions at rates far faster than it actually does evaporate. That, you can easily check, with the worst case conditions of fans and heaters. But of course you will not check it.

  • L-F folks, this comment by JR shows a complete lack of understanding of the hazards associated with operating F&P electrolysis setups. Please don't trust his word on this. He is wrong, and if you are running electrolysis based experiments, please do so anticipating your setup will blow up as described in the Andrew Riley case.

    This is nonsense. I never said that recombiners never fail, and cells never blow up. I said that if the recombiner had failed, Mizuno's cell relief value would have opened. Or the cell would have ruptured or exploded. It would not sit there working for weeks or months. That is impossible.


    There could not have been any significant free H2 gas in the headspace, because if there had been, the pressure gauge pen recording trace would go up, and then the valve would open. There is no way you could store 85 MJ of heat as gas in the headspace. The whole cell was only 1 L inside. If all of the water in it had been converted to free D2 and O2 and the cell magically contained that, it would still not be 85 MJ of potential energy. Obviously the valve would have opened long before that happened.


    The SRI cell blew up because the relief valve stuck. It did not open. The pressure gauge also failed, in a dreadful set of coincidences. Those valves are reliable so when you have one, explosions seldom happen. So you should not "anticipate" the setup will explode, but it is good idea to check the pressure gauge reading and be careful. You should anticipate that the recombiner might fail. That happens more often than relief valve failures.

  • Shanahan apparently thinks there is a contradiction here:


    "No one could have disturbed the cell or dumped the water in his absence. No one else had access to the lab. It was during a national holiday. He is the only one who entered the lab. It was locked and secured. This was in the Nuclear Engineering Building in a National University. It was a secure building with lots of expensive equipment, heavy machinery, radiation danger signs, heavy doors, badge access, 24-hour guards, etc."


    but from above:


    "In every hallway, there was a designated person who was supposed to check all rooms before leaving (a professors, who had the keys). . . ."



    Did I say no one else had a key to this lab? Do you imagine that a laboratory in a nuclear engineering facility at a National University would give the professor one key, and no one else would have any way to enter the lab? On what planet would that happen? You talk like someone who has never been in a laboratory. Why do you say such crazy things?

    OBVIOUSLY the department head, the campus police and the building guards had keys. Yes, they might have come into the room. That is why Mizuno left a piece of paper saying "DANGER! DO NOT TOUCH" as described in the book. However, it would be impossible for these people to heat the water and fool Mizuno, because they had no idea when he was coming back. It would also be out of the question for a building guard to come in and monkey with the experiment. If they had come in, they might have called Mizuno at home to ask: "What is this dangerous experiment you set up?" They would not have touched it.
  • What I was doing was exploring what it took to evaporate the claimed quantities of water. One thing I did in that process is assume different temperature values for use in the evaporation rate calculation (same one you used). I did so because there was lots of talk about the 100C (and greater) temperature being maintained for many days. Thus technically speaking, any temp from 100C down to 0C (winter) could be used to explore the resultant evaporation rates. You however, somehow drew a line in the sand and said "No! Only temps between x and y are allowed!" Under what authority you do that I have no idea, but I decline to accept it. So, you resort to ridicule to counter what I write. Not very scientific of you.


    ...It's thanks to the authority invested in me by the laws of thermodynamics - I suggest you read them sometime. Oh wait, you decline?? And you say I'm 'un-scientific'!


    If someone assumes there's continuous output from a 'heater' in the bucket, they can argue for whatever water temperature they like.

    When you assume there is no continuous heat output in the bucket, a line in the 'water-temperature' sand is immediately drawn by nature. You could, if you wanted, and were able, calculate where this line is. It's somewhere below 30C. You failure to understand this, even now - as evidenced by your above statement, despite several very simple explanations - is blatantly ridiculous, and leaves you open to some well deserved ridicule.

    Everyone's allowed the occasional howler, and apparently yourself more than most, but if you repeatedly make the same mistake, in my book, that's the very definition of dumbness. It's not an ad-hom to say this - it's fact - and should be pointed out, if only for your own sake.


    Basically, you repeatedly ignore nearly 200 years of science all to protect your own ego. This makes me laugh, and that spills over into ridicule. Yes, I know this doesn't exactly help you from an ego standpoint. But you need to let go of that, if you ever plan on attaining nirvana - or just appearing competent, really.

  • “If someone assumes there's continuous output from a 'heater' in the bucket, they can argue for whatever water temperature they like.”


    Exactly, so when one is examining the ramifications of that, one must use more than a very narrow band of temperatures. Ditto for other important parameters like air flow rate, relative humidity, etc.


    “When you assume there is no continuous heat output in the bucket,” …


    Completing that thought:

    …you assume there is no LENR. Yes, that is correct, that assumption means no LENR, but of course you would still not explain the anomalous results doing that. Now, assuming no LENR is ONE set of test parameters in determining the span of evaporation rates, but it is not all the possibilities



    “a line in the 'water-temperature' sand is immediately drawn by nature. You could, if you wanted, and were able, calculate where this line is. It's somewhere below 30C. You[r] failure to understand this, even now - as evidenced by your above statement, despite several very simple explanations - is blatantly ridiculous, and leaves you open to some well deserved ridicule. “


    I don’t ‘fail to understand that’ Zeus. You fail to acknowledge what I have written in the multitudinous posts responding to your and JR’s silly statements about what I have written. Try getting with the program.


    “Everyone's allowed the occasional howler, and apparently yourself more than most, but if you repeatedly make the same mistake, in my book, that's the very definition of dumbness. It's not an ad-hom to say this - it's fact - and should be pointed out, if only for your own sake.”


    I think you’ve got the wrong book there Zeus. I see no mistake being made here by me. All I see is you consistently (and seemingly deliberately, since I have told you this many times) misinterpreting what I have said. I really can’t make you stop doing that, all I can do is tell you your messing up.


    But as I said, I think it is pretty much clear you are doing this deliberately. Why I can’t say. So let me be as clear as I can regarding this whole kerfluffle. This will be my last word on the subject.


    a.) The Mizuno bucket incident was never replicated, so no valid scientific conclusion can be drawn from it.

    b.) The reported results are anomalous. This is interesting. It may stimulate some people to action, i.e. experimentation. That’s their choice.

    c.) In attempting to understand the reported results, it is clear that evaporation is a key process.

    d.) Equations exist to allow computation of said evaporation rates. They serve as a starting point for discussion.

    e.) Key variables in said equations were not documented in the reported results. Specifically missing are relative humidity, air flow rates, water temperature, and full details of cell temperature readings in the lab during the incident.

    f.) Likewise missing is any information about what was done to verify the few temperature readings reported.

    g.) Of course, assumptions can be made about the missing key variables.

    h.) The assumed values need to be ‘reasonable’.

    i.) It is clear different ‘definitions’ of what is reasonable exist.

    j.) Given the above, a span of missing parameters should be examined to see what is consistent and inconsistent with reported results.

    k.) Getting more specific now, the equations supplied by Zeus46 are identical to those used by kirkshanahan.

    l.) The span of parameters used by Zeus46 and kirkshanahan are not equivalent, kirkshanahan’s span is larger.

    m.) Some sets of parameters used by kirkshanahan produce evaporation rates consistent with reported results, and those sets of parameters imply an elevated water temperature for some period of time.

    n.) Some sets of parameters used by kirkshanahan produce evaporation rates inconsistent with reported results, but consistent with what a ‘bucket of water’ sitting in an ‘unventilated room’ might be expected to show.

    o.) Given n, m, k, e, and most importantly a, it is pointless to expect a resolution to the anomalous results.

    p.) However, for some unknown and unexplained reason, Zeus46 and JedRothwell (and bocijn) seem to disagree with o.

    q.) Zeus46, JedRothwell, and previously, bocijn refuse to understand a-o.


    “Basically, you repeatedly ignore nearly 200 years of science all to protect your own ego. This makes me laugh, and that spills over into ridicule. Yes, I know this doesn't exactly help you from an ego standpoint. But you need to let go of that, if you ever plan on attaining nirvana - or just appearing competent, really.”


    Recognizing point q above, this comment is ridiculous, and is nothing but a personal attack.

  • c.)In attempting tounderstand the reported results, it is clear that evaporation is a key process.

    d.)Equations exist to allowcomputation of said evaporation rates.They serve as a starting point for discussion.

    e.)Key variables in saidequations were not documented in the reported results. Specifically missing are relative humidity,air flow rates, water temperature, and full details of cell temperaturereadings in the lab during the incident.

    f.)Likewise missing isany information about what was done to verify the few temperature readingsreported.

    This is false, and nonsense. Key conditions were reported in the book, and here, time after time after time. Shanahan ignores these conditions and invents impossible ones. Once again, the conditions were:


    A cold laboratory room in Sapporo in April. Room temperature 10 to 15 deg C. No heating or ventilation. The average temperatures in Sapporo in April and May are 7 and 13 deg C, and inside university and office buildings of this era at night it was only a little warmer than outside.


    http://www.holiday-weather.com/sapporo/averages/


    You can substitute a worst-case test for this. You can test a bucket in a very warm room in the U.S. with a high speed fan or an electric heater. Even with these extreme conditions, there is no way 20 L of water will evaporate overnight.


    You do not need "relative humidity or air flow rates." I told you what they are, but you can ignore me and substitute any values you like, even the most extreme ones. Make the air flow 18 mph if you like. Just do a physical test. You do not need "water temperature, and full details of cell temperature readings in the lab during the incident." You have told us what you think the water temperature was: room temperature. There was no heat according to you. You think the water was not hot. Okay, test it that way. Make the room temperature anything you like from 10 to 30 deg C. Test an actual bucket of water at those temperatures. Ignore the actual conditions in Sapporo. Put in a powerful fan even though there was none. Whatever conditions you test, you will not be able to evaporate the whole bucket overnight.


    There is not the slightest chance the room was hot or that an 18 mph wind was blowing across the bucket.


    I spent weeks in this room, and years in similar Japanese national university rooms. A scenario with a strong wind or heat is out of the question. Anyone who has attended class or worked in postwar buildings of that era will know that the temperature is around 15 deg C. People wore two sweaters, a muffler and maybe an overcoat. The lights were off at night, everything was shut down, and there was no wind of any sort. Even in buildings with HVAC they were always turned off at night, to save money.



    There were not a "few temperatures" reported. I uploaded the pen recorder trace for the whole test and the first three days of heat after death, from the book. That's a continuous analog report.



    This is how everyone in Japan dressed in Dec. 1975. That's me, wearing two sweaters and tucked into a table with blanket over it and an electric heater underneath it (a kotatsu). They did not have central heating in most houses and buildings, and no insulation, and there was none in Mizuno's lab or any other lab or classroom I was in. It was a lot colder in the labs overnight.



  • “If someone assumesthere's continuous output from a 'heater' in the bucket, they can argue forwhatever water temperature they like.”


    Exactly, so when oneis examining the ramifications of that, one must use more than a very narrowband of temperatures. Ditto for otherimportant parameters like air flow rate, relative humidity, etc.


    So to confirm, you are now claiming there is a 'heater' in the bucket, that could raise the water temperature beyond 20-30 degrees? Although this heater isn't due to LENR, it's due to some anomalous, undefined and previously unknown process? Sounds like ATER revisited. Classic!


    RE your (a) - (q): I'm with you up to (n), probably. I say probably because we've never seen your sums yet, despite several requests. And I particularly agree with your point (h), - that assumed values need to be reasonable.


    Which directly contravenes (m), where you say some "sets of parameters imply an elevated water temperature for some period of time".


    The only way this could happen is due to a lethally high air temperature, or a breakdown in the laws of physics. Or a 'heater' in the bucket, perhaps.


    But at this stage, this is a pointless discussion. As I said, lets see your sums: Put up or shut up - It's really that simple. ...Thermodynamics is a science, not an art - and without seeing your calcs, the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth. (Via your fingers, of course).

  • You just don’t (won’t) get it do you? I have no idea why you feel the need to ‘assassinate my character’ or perhaps ‘assassinate my qualifications’, but you certainly are trying hard, and you’ve learned the JR tactics well!


    “So to confirm, you are now claiming there is a 'heater' in the bucket, that could raise the water temperature beyond 20-30 degrees?


    Then whole discussion of this subject was predicated on the assumption (NOTE: *ASSUMPTION*) that the reported temperatures were incorrect, probably due to a faulty thermocouple. Not a catastrophically failed thermocouple, but one that was producing false readings. THEREFORE, I theoretically investigated the claims by trying to see what it would take w.r.t. evaporation rates to get the reported results, RECOGNIZING my point a. THUS, I never said there was no heater. I did say I was trying to see what placing a ‘hot object’ in said bucket would do, and JR, followed by you, started screaming about how it wasn’t that it was a HEATER. In other words, the hot object-heater debate is another JR fabrication. Please stop promulgating it.



    “Although this heater isn't due to LENR, it's due to some anomalous, undefined and previously unknown process?”


    The fact is we don’t know for sure there was any heating going on on a continuous basis as would be obtained from a heater because it was NEVER REPLICATED (point a again)! IF there happened to truly be heating going on, this incident gives no indication why. Because there was NO REPLICATION.


    “Sounds like ATER revisited. Classic!”


    No. There are numerous reports in the literature that are consistent with ATER w.r.t F&P electrolysis cells. The Mizuno bucket incident was NEVER REPEATED. Not the same.



    “RE your (a) - (q): I'm with you up to (n), probably. I say probably because we've never seen your sums yet, despite several requests.”


    Character assassination again. Let me remind you I have said repeatedly in this very thred that I completely agree with the equations ‘you’ posted in ‘your’ spreadsheet. So, to get ‘my’ sums, all ‘you’ have to do is plug ‘my’ values for the parameters in the equations into ‘your’ spreadsheet on ‘your’ computer, and out will pop ‘my’ sums. I can’t believe you are this dumb, so I am forced to assume this misrepresentation of my writings is deliberate and ‘with malice aforethought’. Why?


    “And I particularly agree with your point (h), - that assumed values need to be reasonable.”


    Of course, but (i) is the issue isn’t it, especially when you deliberately seek to discredit me.


    “Which directly contravenes (m), where you say some "sets of parameters imply an elevated water temperature for some period of time".”


    Obviously there is no contravention since the problem is that you chose to misconstrue what I said for your own reasons (point q).


    “The only way this could happen is due to a lethally high air temperature, or a breakdown in the laws of physics. Or a 'heater' in the bucket, perhaps.”


    Unwarranted sarcasm, due to your deliberate choice to misunderstand what I’ve said.


    “But at this stage, this is a pointless discussion. As I said, lets see your sums: Put up or shut up - It's really that simple.”


    I’ve ‘put up’, now you ‘shut up’.


    “...Thermodynamics is a science, not an art - and without seeing your calcs, the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth. (Via your fingers, of course).”


    Another ad hom of course. You imply I lied about where I used to work. Doesn’t matter, because it’s ‘my’ parameter and *I* get to choose them as *I* see fit. You can dislike all you want, but I gave my *reason* for doing so. For you to disagree is to claim I fabricated numbers. Again, why do you feel the need to do that?

  • A question about a different subject. IIRC, Mizuno was said to have visited Industrial Heat, Darden and his team, and attempted to do something in a lab there. If anyone knows (JR maybe?): what was he attempting? And if it was producing excess power/energy in an LENR experiment, what happened? Was this an attempt to replicate the bucket claim?

  • “This is false, and nonsense. Key conditions were reported in the book, and here, time after time after time.”


    OK, so what was the relative humidity at 1207 hours on April 24th in the laboratory where the bucket was? What was the *exact* recorded cell temperature (not ‘>100C’)? What was the *water* temperature at that exact instant? What was the air movement level directly over the bucket at that instant? And (recognizing you will *say* zero) tell us how that number was measured.


    “Shanahan ignores these conditions and invents impossible ones. Once again, the conditions were:”


    No, Jed. I don’t ‘ignore’ them, I ignore you. The fact is that you make up the needed numbers based on ‘outside average temperatures’, and your ‘guesstimates’ of how those values would be modified by the supposed use of heaters, etc. That’s why what you say is irrelevant to a valid scientific study, in science ‘guesstimates’ don’t count. Yes, they can be used to assess probabilities by conducting a …wait for it… parametric study. But then you have to *do* the experiment, *measure* the important factors, and the *replicate*, meaning ‘get the same results’.


    “You can substitute a worst-case test for this. You can test a bucket in a very warm room in the U.S. with a high speed fan or an electric heater. Even with these extreme conditions, there is no way 20 L of water will evaporate overnight.”


    That’s not what the equations say. But you don’t trust equations if they contradict what you ‘know’ right Jed?


    “You do not need "relative humidity or air flow rates. I told you what they are, but you can ignore me and substitute any values you like, even the most extreme ones. Make the air flow 18 mph if you like. Just do a physical test. You do not need "water temperature, and full details of cell temperature readings in the lab during the incident."”


    Yes, we do, if we want to understand the possibilities. You told us what you guessed they were. I don’t limit myself to that. And, ‘substituting any values I like’ is what a parametric study is all about. But you don’t comprehend that do you. And BTW, ‘your’ values are incorporated in ‘my’ study.


    “You have told us what you think the water temperature was: room temperature. There was no heat according to you. You think the water was not hot.”


    Not what I said. Once again, you fabricate.


    “Okay, test it that way. Make the room temperature anything you like from 10 to 30 deg C.”


    I actually went up to 75C since I realized the water might be hot at some point since the stainless steel was supposedly hot when Mizuno dunked it. You keep missing that point too. This clearly shows you are fabricating statements about what I wrote. You should stop that, it ruins your credibility.


    “Test an actual bucket of water at those temperatures.”


    Why would I need to do that when I believe the ‘swimming pool equations’ (as does Zeus46)? Do you think I would get something different from that? Why?


    “Ignore the actual conditions in Sapporo.”


    What were those *exactly* by the way, *at the bucket*. No guessing.


    “Put in a powerful fan even though there was none. Whatever conditions you test, you will not be able to evaporate the whole bucket overnight.”


    Oh, I’m pretty sure I could…hurricane force wind speed, 1 Terawatt heater…you did say ‘whatever’ right?


    “There is not the slightest chance the room was hot or that an 18 mph wind was blowing across the bucket.”


    So you say. But it’s not a really relevant point, if you understand what I was doing and what I wrote. Of course you don’t, so we get your garbage posts. You I can understand, you’re not a scientist, but a fanatic CF advocate, so your rants are understandable from that POV.


    “I spent weeks in this room, and years in similar Japanese national university rooms. A scenario with a strong wind or heat is out of the question. Anyone who has attended class or worked in postwar buildings of that era will know that the temperature is around 15 deg C. People wore two sweaters, a muffler and maybe an overcoat. The lights were off at night, everything was shut down, and there was no wind of any sort. Even in buildings with HVAC they were always turned off at night, to save money.”


    I’m so sorry for you. That building I worked in in S. Carolina for 8 years got a little cold in the winter due to the high air flow. HVAC had trouble keeping up. Not as bad as you describe but I did usually wear lab coats to keep warm…


    “There were not a "few temperatures" reported. I uploaded the pen recorder trace for the whole test and the first three days of heat after death, from the book. That's a continuous analog report.”


    3 days out of 15. Yep, pretty continuous there.


    “This is how everyone in Japan dressed in Dec. 1975. That's me, wearing two sweaters and tucked into a table with blanket over it and an electric heater underneath it (a kotatsu). They did not have central heating in most houses and buildings, and no insulation, and there was none in Mizuno's lab or any other lab or classroom I was in. It was a lot colder in the labs overnight.”


    Good for them, but irrelevant here.

  • Quote

    Jed knows about this- bit AFAIK his visit was too short to accomplish anything useful.


    That would be amazing. IH has invested at least $100 M so far and has not publicly announced anything interesting or successful, right? How could they not do everything possible to hang on to someone like Mizuno at least long enough to give him an adequate test? It's puzzling events like this which don't seem to make sense which make it difficult to take Mizuno seriously. I mean unless he had to go back due to some personal tragedy and even then, he could still return to finish the work or leave instructions for how to do it.

  • OK, so what was the relative humidity at 1207 hours on April 24th in the laboratory where the bucket was?

    The same as it is anytime in Sapporo in April. Outdoor humidity was the same as indoor in those buildings. But you should go ahead as set it the worst possible case, that would cause the most evaporation possible. Pick any number you like for humidity.


    What was the *exact*recorded cell temperature (not ‘>100C’)?What was the *water* temperature at that exact instant?

    It makes no difference what the exact temperature was. You say it was room temperature, so go with that. Mizuno measured it at over 100 deg C, and he held his hand over the cell and found it was too hot to touch, so I am sure it was hot. But your hypothesis is that the thermocouple was broken and his sense of touch did not work. So, you should go with those assumptions and prove that 20 L water will evaporate with the cell at room temperature.


    To put it another way, for your argument to be valid, You MUST set the cell temperature to room temperature. You cannot admit that the cell was above room temperature. That would mean it was producing heat. There was no chemical or electrical source of energy in the cell, so that would have to be anomalous heat. The only value you can plug into the cell temperature is whatever temperature you plug in as room temperature. You can set that as ~15 deg C, or ~40 deg C -- whatever you like.


    “Shanahan ignoresthese conditions and invents impossible ones. Once again, the conditions were:”


    No, Jed. I don’t ‘ignore’ them, I ignore you. The fact is that you make up the needednumbers based on ‘outside average temperatures’, and your ‘guesstimates’

    Those are not gestimates. I know what the temperature was in the building. Anyone who has worked in this kind of postwar Japanese building knows what the temperature was. Anyone who has been to Sapporo knows that it never gets warm that time of year. It is at the same latitude as New England, and very snowy. But, as I said, you can pretend it was 40 deg C if you like. Set any temperature you want; it will not evaporate all of the water.


    “You can substitute aworst-case test for this. You can test a bucket in a very warm room in the U.S.with a high speed fan or an electric heater. Even with these extremeconditions, there is no way 20 L of water will evaporate overnight.”


    That’s not what the equations say. But you don’t trust equations if they contradict what you ‘know’ right Jed?

    I would not trust your equations. I suggest you do an actual test with a bucket of water in a room. Go ahead and set up the worst-case conditions you can, with a fan or heater. Use the hottest room you can find. You will not see 20 L of water evaporate overnight.


    You do not have the guts to do this test. You know as well as I do it would prove you are wrong.

  • It's puzzling events like this which don't seem to make sense which make it difficult to take Mizuno seriously.

    I spoke with Mizuno when he was here visiting I.H. Just to say hello. I do not know exactly how long he stayed, but I did get the impression things were rushed. I do not think he was in charge of the timing. Perhaps this should make it difficult for you to take I.H. seriously, rather than doubting Mizuno.


    But, if I were you, I would reserve judgement and not try to suss out what happened based on fragments of information and rumors. It is hard enough understanding these experiments when you have full access to all the data, you can ask the author anything you like, and you devote weeks to the assessment. Jumping to conclusions based a few internet messages will get you nowhere.


    I know a lot about these tests. But I still do not know enough to judge what happened, or whether time pressure was factor, or how close they came to replicating. If I.H. decides to tell me a lot about what happened, I might be able to reach a conclusion. Maybe not, if I have difficulty understanding. Not knowing does not bother me. Being puzzled and not being able to make sense of events I know little about does not bother me. I feel no urge to speculate about them. Perhaps I have a higher tolerance for ambiguity than you do.

  • It's a little bit strange to accuse me of screaming, and then fill your post with ANGRY CAPS, à la fellow mouth-foamer, "Mary Yugo".


    And qualification assassination? This has more the appearance of qualification suicide, if you ask me.


    I did say I was trying to seewhat placing a ‘hot object’ in said bucket would do,


    No you're not. Your doing the opposite: Starting off with high numbers (60 C), in order to explain abnormal evaporation rates - without being able to justify a number that high.


    Then... when this is pointed out to you, your response is always a long, obfuscating post that addresses every sentence, but somehow avoids answering the main point that your wild guess of 60 C* is nowhere near what's predicted by basic science (broken thermocouple/over-heated reactor or not), and this leads to the collapse of your model.


    * Or is it now 75 C? - Again, you need to publish your sums, instead of forcing me to reverse-engineer them: More "unscientific" behaviour from yourself. Although at this stage, you are possibly just defiling the corpse - to continue the metaphor.

  • ... "is getting boring. Must you lot fill every thread with arguments about a bucket of water?"


    Not necessarily


    "EVIDENCE OF THE ELECTRON-SCREENED OPPENHEIMER PHILLIPS REACTIONS 162Er(d,n)163Tm OR 162Er(p,γ)163Tm IN DEUTERATED MATERIALS

    SUBJECTED TO A LOW-ENERGY PHOTON BEAM"


    ... "This paper describes the theory behind the proposed reactions, the experiments conducted at GRC, and the experimental evidence of the suspected creation of the 163Tm isotope."

  • Ahlfors,


    Is that something new? Could not see a date. Trying to put their papers, and patent apps, in chronological order to see if there is some progression of their work towards this 10kW hybrid space generator, or their transmutation efforts. Right now though, it appears to me to be all over the place. In other words, I am confused where, and how this ties in?


    One thing obvious...these people are very active. No letting up for them, and for good reason.

  • Ermm, what on earth are you talking about? Not intentionally, if I did.

    the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth.


    The phrasing of the second quote is insulting and implies you disbelieve my assertions of:


    Yes. As I reported I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility with pure tritium. The air hoods I operated in were massive and had a 3300 cfm flow rate associated with them, but all this air was drawn through several long slits near knee-level and I calculated the flowrate there to be ~17 mph, which I then used as my upper limit in flowrates in my exploration of what ventilation rates would do to evaporation rates, which you refuse to acknowledge I did.



    CWatters

    Gosh this forum is getting boring. Must you lot fill every thread with arguments about a bucket of water?


    I 'liked' your comment because I too am bored of these continuous character assassination attempts from JR and Z. I remind all that JR started this one once again by repeating his lie about what I said:


    You go around claiming that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions,


    in what had been a semi-reasonable discussion up to that point.


    (I should note that JR is just following the example of his heroes, who wrote that JEM paper he keeps quoting, wherein they misrepresent what I wrote, defeat their misrepresentation, and then claim victory.)


    I suggest the mods take all the posts from this thread that respond to JR's post noted above (including that one and this one) and move them to the Mizuno bucket thread...

  • No you're not. Your doing the opposite: Starting off with high numbers (60 C), in order to explain abnormal evaporation rates - without being able to justify a number that high.


    So, when JR, writing in his 8-page intro that he repeatedly quotes, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf, writes:


    "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"


    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.


    Then... when this is pointed out to you, your response is always a long, obfuscating post that addresses every sentence, but somehow avoids answering the main point that your wild guess of 60 C* is nowhere near what's predicted by basic science (broken thermocouple/over-heated reactor or not), and this leads to the collapse of your model.


    Do you finally understand that JR says the bucket was at 100C or greater for around 15 days? (Why? Because if the cell was at >100C continuously, the water in the bucket would be heated up to some level much higher that what would be obtained by simply dunking an ~100C 'hot object' in the water. But if at 100C, it would have been boiling right? The water might not be at 100C, because maybe there was some heat loss large enough to give some unknown amount of cooling. (Thermo 101). )


    * Or is it now 75 C? - Again, you need to publish your sums, instead of forcing me to reverse-engineer them: More "unscientific" behaviour from yourself. Although at this stage, you are possibly just defiling the corpse - to continue the metaphor.


    As I have repeatedly reported, I actually used both 60 and 75C in 'my sums'. And you have already reverse-engineered what I did and posted your spreadsheet of it. So what are you complaining about???


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