Japan LENR Updates

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Can you clarify what is different between the control and working reactors?


    See pages 3, 7 and 18.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Also: on the page 11 graph, the power output drops off after about 6 hours despite input power being sustained. Why?


    I think he turned off the input power after 6 hours. I do not have that spreadsheet, but I think the straight input power line is an artifact of the way he generated the graph. What I mean is, this is data from two different spreadsheets. One with the control, with the brown and black flat lines, and the other with the active cell, orange, purple and blue. The data was collected at different times, and tests were probably of a different duration. So they don't match. It says "input" but actually that is the output you get with this input power level. The brown line is not the input power that generated the orange line; it is the control output for this same 248 W input power. It looks like the control run data I have, being very stable. It is a little confusing . . .


    In the spreadsheets I have, these lines are adjusted to take into account losses from the calorimeter walls. Which is why the brown line hits 248 W on the left Y-axis. The raw data would be below this. The adjustment is described in detail in the upcoming papers.


    In all of the spreadsheet data I have seen where input and output power is shown, both heating and anomalous power falls when he turns off heating. He always turned off active cells after ~6 hours because he did not want to leave it running overnight. Most of the composite graphs showing months or years of results actually show only data collected during the day when it was turned on. In some cases there was heat after death.


    Data collection into the spreadsheets continued even when power was off, as you see on p. 16.



    Note also the higher excess power shown in the bonus slide on p. 26, ~500 W. I did not discuss this in the presentation and it is not summarized in the other graphs.


    The calorimetry was considerably better than I described in this presentation.

    Here is a better version of the excess heat graph. This is the one we will put in the ICCF21 proceedings. As you see, the input lines are simply drawn in as dashed lines, rather than using the recorded spreadsheet data. The recorded data for input power is very stable lines in the same spot as shown here.


    Input electricity power does not have to be massaged to account for losses from the reactor. I have various graphs of output power, some of them massaged, others showing the raw data. They are all well above the calibration lines. The shape is completely different than the control calibrations.




    Here is the control calibration reactor data for these three power levels. In this case, the "input" lines show the actual input power recorded in the spreadsheet. You can see the lines are a little bumpy, compared to the dashed lines drawn in the above graph. The perturbations in output in this graph were probably caused by ambient temperature changes. A close look at the spreadsheets would probably confirm that. That's the beauty of having all the data, collected every 5 s for the entire test, in numeric format.



    Quote

    JedRothwell See pages 3, 7 and 18.


    Quote

    In this case, the control reactor is heated at the outer wall heater without the

    electrode activation process.

    That's it? (page 7) I didn't see anything relevant on pages 3 and 18. Is the active reactor heated in an identical spot and by the same identical method?


    I am and always have been particularly interested in Mizuno and Yoshino because the claims are the most easily testable and optimistic in terms of excess power. The calorimetry is still a point temperature measurement but it is perhaps the cleanest I have seen for that type. If the calibration/control values are real, they are impressively stable and accurate. It would be great if there were some independent confirmation. And if it could be made "self running" for long periods, then there would be little room for argument about errors.


    Oh, almost forgot, there is this:


    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/


    Quote

    When compared to the output of a dummy reactor, flow calorimetry usually guarantees reliable measurements. . When the excess heat is as large as here, only big mistakes or faked data can alter the results.

    We therefore looked for possible errors or inconsistencies and found many.


    I have not read that paper in its entirety. Has Mizuno commented on it?

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    That's it? (page 7) I didn't see anything relevant on pages 3 and 18. Is the active reactor heated in an identical spot and by the same identical method?


    You don't read carefully. Page 3 says: "The photo on the right shows two cells installed in the air-flow box: an active cell and a control cell. They are placed on insulating bricks to reduce heat losses through the table."


    Also, p. 7 says: "Control and active reactor tested together. Two reactors of the same size and design were tested, in one calorimeter. One is active and the other is the calibration control."


    That answers your question. They are not in the identical spot because they are in the box at the same time. They cannot occupy the same space. They are placed the same distance away from walls, sensors, fans, etc. They have to be placed in the box together and sealed, because every time you open the box and close it again, you have to recalibrate.


    Various methods of running the control cells were used, such as heating on the outside with a heating tape wrapped around the control reactor; running resistance heating inside it, and doing glow discharge inside the control reactor with non-working metals. (See p. 19.) The heat balance was always zero, as shown in these graphs.



    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I have not read that paper in its entirety. Has Mizuno commented on it?


    Oh come now. You have never read anything in its entirety. You didn't even read p. 3 in its entirety! I did read this critique from gsvit, but I don't recall the details. I do not know if Mizuno communicated with him, but some other people who were advising and reviewing the paper did. They sent me copies of their correspondence, and they sent corrections, including corrections to the equations. I put the corrections into the paper and circulated it back to the reviewers. The problems gsvit cited were fixed in the final version, as far as I know. Although the intro still says 1 kW. It should be "~1 kW." Meaning: within an order of magnitude; closer to 1 kW than 100 W, or 10 W. In the kilowatt range.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Oh, almost forgot, there is this:

    Mario at gsvit never commented on the extensive raw data even though I sent it to him

    and has never commented on the final paper, which is different from the September version

    this comment refers to.


    Perhaps Mario dismissed the raw data as erroneous..

    Maybe SOT could ask Mary about the raw data which was on this website in 2017

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They are not in the identical spot because they are in the box at the same time. They cannot occupy the same space. They are placed the same distance away from walls, sensors, fans, etc. They have to be placed in the box together and sealed, because every time you open the box and close it again, you have to recalibrate.

    The point is, if you put the control and the active reactor in the exact same spot, you have to:


    1. Put the control in, run it.

    2. Open the box, take out control, put in active.

    3. Run active cell.


    Every time you open and shut the box, it works a little differently. You have to measure everything. For example, before you seal up, you have to clean out the fan. Then after you seal up, you have to test the fan. You step the fan through several power levels, measuring the air flow rate. You measure the flow rate at different locations on the orifice. You run smoke through the reactor to confirm the flow rate. The changes introduced by opening and closing are probably larger than the difference in performance you see by putting the two reactors side by side in different places.


    It is a trade-off. Leave the box in one condition and put the reactors in slightly different places. Or put the reactors in the same place but alter the box in ways that show up as random variation.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Mario at gsvit never commented on the extensive raw data even though I sent it to him

    and has never commented on the final paper,

    Robert knows much more about this than I do. Refer all questions to him.


    Regarding the calorimetry, Mizuno had a lot of additional information which he included in the upcoming paper. He had the info. when he wrote the older paper, but he did not include it. For example, the description of the fan testing I just posted was not in the old paper but it will be in the next one, but he did that testing every time he sealed the box.


    I recall Mario complained that the photo of the fan was different from the one in the text. I gather Mizuno has several defunct fans and two air flow calorimeter boxes. Those fans seem to die often. So it is not surprising there was photo of one and the make and model of another listed in the paper. That kind of comment by Mario is nit-picking. As long as you test the fan and monitor it the whole time, it should be okay.

    Quote

    SOT has a recurrent reading problem.

    Remedial courses are recommended

    Patronizing bullshit. Amazing how the people who purport to be scholarly readers get so many things wrong. How long were participants in this forum reading about and believing Rossi and his ilk? Well, some are probably still making similar errors. Maybe a less reading and a little more thinking. Or read different stuff, for example how cons work and how sleight of hand and measurement errors work.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    The market is so big that there is room for many- think how many auto manufacturers, boiler manufacturers, oil companies there are. The market is the whole world.


    On the other hand, there are many marginal claims in cold fusion, and I expect they will evaporate if an actual technology is introduced. There will be no need for them. They will resemble the weird airplanes I showed in this paper, such as the one that Alexander Graham Bell designed, on p. 9:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf


    I think I recall that machine actually flew, unlike the others shown on these pages. But it was useless. It was a dead end. Most cold fusion experiments and approaches are probably a dead end. They may all be. No one knows, at this point.


    In the early days of microcomputers, dozens of computer designs and products came and went. The market was gigantic, but these machines had no place in it. Some of them, such as the Cromemco machine, were not bad, but they could not compete with Apple or the IBM PC. When a technology takes off, it rapidly coalesses around two -- or at most three -- basic technical standards. Robert Cringley explained why in his book "Accidental Empires." The market cannot support more than that because it becomes fragmented and because people who sell and service the products cannot keep inventory and training for more than ~3 standards. Customers do not want non-standard equipment.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.