Mizuno reports increased excess heat


  • Robert - you are not understanding the point here. We have cal experiments already.


    Examining the relative dependence of outputs on inputs gives enormously powerful information in this case about what is going on (think about it). In the process that provides better validation. And, given what we have here, it could easily be done.


    In addition, if R20 operates as M believes, then it is highly unstable and my suggestion is just sensible, to reduce wastage.

  • It is easily checked... as are a 1000 other things.


    The prime directive in replication is to replicate

    KISS.

    Refinements later.


    Well, if this were replicated with similar results it would quickly provide $100M, Nobels, etc. Glad you want to do this, but I'm willing to bet anyone that such replications will not deliver clear results (like R19 or R20).


    Why not? Because I think it unlikely R20 is as billed.

    That means I also think it unlikely R19 is as billed, though Jed's excellent data seems fine to me.


    But - I'm happy to wait and see.

  • Thanks Jed. I'm not entirely clear about the way that things are switched from cal to active. Is it one PSU + common voltage and current measuring, and a manual or relay switch?


    I don't recall how they are switched. There is only one Hewlett Packard data collection gadget, so you cannot run them at the same time.


    The first report lists a series of tests in chronological order. You see the calibrations interleaved with the active runs, from the two cells in the calorimeter. In the second report, Table 1 shows 111 days with one cell. That's the same cell, left on nearly the whole time, except from 5/18 to 5/20. The calibrations were done before and after that. As I said, they are always done when the chamber is closed up. Every time you close it, the performance is a little different. I guess the insulation is jogged or the wires and gas tubes coming in are a little different.


    If that had not been the same cell with the same reactant, it would not have produced such similar results at the same power level, day after day. With two different reactants, the data points in Fig. 8 would be clustered in six groups instead of three, I think. (There are three groups: 0 W, 100 W, and 200 W input.)

  • IMHO THH

    your performance here is timewasting

    a bunch of idle words


    there is no free pass.

    Please show in calculation how you infer from the results

    that this is borderline unstable,

    and what is your definition of borderline stablilty

    and how this applies to these results

    since you are a mathematician THH.


    Words fail me. Numbers please.

  • Well, if this were replicated with similar results it would quickly provide $100M, Nobels, etc.


    If this is replicated, perhaps it will lead to that eventually. I hope so. However, if this were replicated today, right now, at a university, or at the DoE, or China Lake, it would lead to the same thing Melvin Miles' replications led to: a swift kick in the butt. They cut off his phone and reassigned him to the stock room. They would have fired him outright, but he was a "Distinguished Fellow of the Institute" and one of the most distinguished electrochemists in the U.S., so that would have been awkward. He got the message and retired. * If anyone else had done that, they would have fired him and made certain he never worked in any lab again. They would have ended his career. Any equipment or lab notebooks he left around would be torn up, smashed and thrown away, which is what happened in the Italian National Labs recently.


    If you don't think so, you know nothing of the history of cold fusion, and you have not spoken with researchers. Every one of them, except McKubre, was either fired or harassed and forced to stop. That includes Mizuno, who was not allowed to work on cold fusion for the last several years he was at the university.


    Mizuno's results are larger than most others. They appear to be more reproducible, and the experiments seems to be easier to replicate. We hope so. However, strictly from a scientific point of view, measured in the conventional metrics of signal to noise ratios and so on, his results are no more convincing than Miles' were. If the managers at China Lake would throw Miles out for publishing those results, there is no reason why they would not throw out someone for replicating Mizuno today. Perhaps they would be more impressed by higher power, but there is no rational, scientific reason to be more impressed. That is a naive response. It would be like looking at the Chicago Pile-1 controlled fission reaction and saying: "It is less than a watt! So what? Get back to me when you can blow up a city." Anyone with knowledge of physics would know that the 1 W reaction could lead to a 20 kT fission bomb. Anyone looking at Miles' results could have -- and should have -- seen that this is a nuclear fusion reaction. There was never any reason to doubt that, and there was no reason to think it could not be controlled and scaled up.



    * See p. 153, https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

  • Alan claims that the heating coil provides magnetic field stimulus.


    That's not a claim it is a fact that a solenoid coil carrying a current creates a magnetic field. You know that to be a given. You also (I hope) know that magnetic field strength drops very rapidly with increasing distance...I advanced the hypothesis based on my own observations that a stronger magnetic field is the cause of the improved cold fusion reaction rate. As you say that can be tested. AC or DC makes no difference to the facts I mentioned, but merely add the frisson of field polarity reversal.

  • In addition, if R20 operates as M believes, then it is highly unstable


    Nope. It is as stable as R19.



    Why not? Because I think it unlikely R20 is as billed.


    And you "think" that because you have a vivid imagination. That's also why you think condensed drops of water become invisible, rise against gravity, and that's why the heat that evaporated them no longer counts.



    That means I also think it unlikely R19 is as billed, though Jed's excellent data seems fine to me.


    That's Mizuno's data, not mine. And it shows the reactor is incredibly stable. Actually, too stable for comfort. It produces such similar results at the same temperature, it makes me fear the results might be an artifact, although I cannot imagine what artifact that might be.


    You have no reason "think" it is "unlikely R19 is as billed" but I just gave a reason, and it is the opposite of your imaginary and invisible reason: the reaction seems too stable, not unstable.



    Keep the fanspeed the same.. for Godsake...in calibration experiments

    eliminate variables .


    Introduce changes to experiments systematically.. one at a time.


    Amen. A variable fan speed would be a gratuitous change. It would adding extra "moving parts" (complexity) for no reason that I can think of.

  • That's not a claim it is a fact that a solenoid coil carrying a current creates a magnetic field. You know that to be a given. You also (I hope) know that magnetic field strength drops very rapidly with increasing distance...I advanced the hypothesis based on my own observations that a stronger magnetic field is the cause of the improved cold fusion reaction rate. As you say that can be tested. AC or DC makes no difference to the facts I mentioned, but merely add the frisson of field polarity reversal.


    AC or DC makes a difference in case a certain amount of dH/dt (delta electrical magnetic field / delta time) is key as a trigger.

    Therefore it may be very relevant whether the heater is AC or DC powered.

  • Robert - you are not understanding the point here. We have cal experiments already.


    Ah, but you don't believe them, do you? I gather because you think the airspeed varied. Isn't that your reason? Or have you come up with something else? Or will you just pretend the issue no longer exists?


    Let's assume you still say the airspeed varies . . . or we can't measure it, with an anemometer, or smoke or any other method. It just can't be done!


    The calibrations show the airspeed is a function of the power going to the fan. What else would it be? That has been demonstrated hundreds of times in the traverse tests. But, I gather you think the airspeed does vary even though the power to the fan does not. And we are not talking tiny little variations here. On no, you think the fan runs six times slower during the excess heat test, even though the power going into the fan does not vary by even 1%. That's astounding! It is contrary to all known physics. But you believe that, rather than accept that these results are real and they show what Mizuno claims.


    It is amazing to me how you and the other pathological skeptics so casually throw away grade-school level physics. Fans can produce six times less wind, even then when they consume the same level of power. Drops of condensed water can become invisible and travel up against gravity with nothing pushing them, and that somehow magically cancels out the heat needed to evaporate them in the first place. Calorimetry invented 230 years ago does not work. You toss out, you ignore, you spindle and mutilate any law of physics, any instrument, any common sense knowledge, no matter how well established, to sustain your delusion that cold fusion does not exist. You invent endless ridiculous reasons to reject the facts. You see "instability" in data where no such thing exist. Where it is actually too stable! This is the extreme opposite of a scientific point of view. It makes creationists look sensible in comparison. And it isn't just you! The whole damned scientific establishment is infected with this attitude, with regard to cold fusion, in any case. Everyone from the editors at Nature to the managers at China Lake. They are so irrational, so ignorant of basic science, and so blind to the scientific method, I wonder how they ever got a job at such places.


    This is why cold fusion has been held back for 30 years, and why the establishment made the lives and careers of the researchers hellish. Look in the mirror. Examine your own behavior and your own extreme irrationality, and your refusal to follow the elementary rules of science and accept concepts as simple as "the speed of a fan is a function of the electric power." People like you are everywhere, and they are the reason cold fusion has been persecuted and rejected. It has nothing to do with science. It is politics, egoism, emotion, jealousy, raw hate, and fear of the unknown. Learn history, and you will see this has happened again and again, although never so severely or for so long. It is a disgrace. You are a disgrace.


  • Jed, just wanted to commend you. I feel like the "old" Jed is back. IHFB

  • 1) Have the specifications for the heater been provided? By studying the heater the magnetic field can be modeled.


    2) Can you provide info about the electricity fed into the heating element? AC, DC, voltage, waveforms, harmonics?


    These are important issues. Optimizing the electromagnetic stimulation could dramatically enhance the excess heat produced.

  • It is amazing to me how you and the other pathological skeptics

    Please don't burnish THH so hard. Too much burnishing causes spalling.

    I am sure that THH"s intentions are for the best..

    he wants to help potential replicators understand the issues:):):)

    in his nebulous and seemingly vexatious manner

    even though he will not replicate himself.

    Of course he has little relevant practical experience..but he tries.


    I think that most replicators can verify easily the power/ flowrate curve for their axial fan

    if they choose to use the fan as a sensor.

    They may choose another sensor eg a carburettor hotwire mass flowmeter


    . Whatever sensor they choose,

    They will have to calibrate their sensor output with anemometer traverses.

    It is HVAC... not rocket science.


    and they should not listen to any THH nonsense about varying the fan speed.

    This will change CONTRARILY the heat transfer coefficients

    throughout the airbox and ducting , change the heat losses

    and mess up any chance of heat recovery calibration.

  • Robert, do you know the product number of the heating element? I want to learn about the geometry of the resistive element so we can know more about the shape of the magnetic field it produces. I think there is a ton of low hanging fruit here to optimize.