Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Quote

    Oh. Okay. Tell us who has debunked a mainstream cold fusion experiment. Be specific. Who did this, and where was it published?

    Or are you just going to say "nonsense" with no proof of your claim?

    I said "mainstream." Rossi was never mainstream. He never published in any journal or proceedings. Others who worked with him such a Levi did put out some papers, although they did not publish them as far as I know. Anyway, have you found any errors in their work?

    Forgive me for not going round and round with you for the umpteenth time about the above. I'd rather spend the time on Mizuno's engaging report.

  • Please clarify "not surprising""

    This is not a nonmathematical.. nebulous term.

    what numbers do you use for the mean averaged speed?

    See the long link I posted when looking at this.

    There is Umax and Uav where both figures are the temporal mean (it is turulent flow) but Umax is at the centre of the pipe Uav is averaged over pipe area.

    Uav/Umax is < 1 - and equal to 0.5 for laminar flow. For turbulent flow RN 10,000 or so it is quoted at around 80% and two (different) approximations give something like 81% and 78%. These flow things are all approximations of non-analytic equations so exactly what it is I don't know but 80% is ballpark. Wouls be good to have accurate info (and how it depends on temp and velocity - though rough earlier calculations (see post long way back) seem to indicate not much difference. Would like to see it all done properly but that would take time.

  • What a sad state of affairs this has become.

    The number of posters seems to be declining and no wonder.

    When someone such as THH provides reasonable critique, all of which he provides a logical and often mathematical basis to, he is often scorned with

    childish, personal insult. THH does not direct any post directly at someone, nor does he insult or deride. Yet the "response" from a few, (namely R Bryant) is personal, meant to cause insult and ripe with simple meanness. Much of the same thing many here state that mainstream media spouses!

    Remember, when you point a finger at someone you have three pointing back at you!

    Try responding to THH's questions with actual answers or examples. Throwing shit around solves nothing and only shows what level some people operate on.

    I am not saying THH is 100% correct in everything, but he sure as hell supports his position mathematically and by example much more than almost everyone here.

    This place is becoming similar to ECW. If you do not blindly accept stuff (or in one particular case, push a factual position) you will get nothing but personal insult nd perhaps a perma ban. THH makes many valid points. IF he makes a mistake, he should simply be answered with the factual math or data that shows his error.

    Repetitive harping a point only shows the character of the finger pointer. Truly it makes them look bad, not THH.

    Then those like IHFANBOY states that he too has fought the many deceptions and misdeeds of THH, but yet he stands by Rossi! Ha, what a pile of hypocrisy that is!

    Rossi got so bad even IHFB had to pretty much shutup about him. THH and many others were absolutely right about Rossi but that did not stop the "believers" from disparaging anyone who criticized Rossi. Now the same is going to happen to those asking legitimate or at least well intentioned questions about Mizuno?

    It seems many have short memories here. We have seen Rossi, Steorn, Johnny 5, and several others.... all pan out to be fake, phony or actually fraudulent

    There is no problem with asking critical questions..... if YOU do not like them, answer them in a factual way that disputes the point... leave out the personality.

    So with all the fueding and pissing about these tests and critiques, my question (probably mostly to Jed) is the point that seemingly has been "forgotten"

    IH had Muzuno visit and show them his reactors. My understanding was that Mizuno could not get them to work for the demonstration visit. Is my memory / understanding of this correct? If so, is this reactor / series of test that has been "pre-published" the same type of reactor used in the IH visit?

    If it is, then replication is likely going to fail by others if Muzuno could not get it to work himself! If these are different, what has changed? I have not been following this site nearly as much since my banishment, but it seems like these Muzuno tests have been several years in the making. Was not the IH demo last year?

    This is not a criticism, I am just trying to clarify the situation. If this is the same reactor/protocol and Muzuno himself could not replicate outside of his lab, then it is going to be quite difficult for novices to do so. THH is correct, the devil is in the DETAILS!

  • This is how Levi and Fochi measured the HT with the PCE during phase 1 of “Indication of...”. Does this make sense to you?

    Hint1: there is a negative power factor, meaning that the PCE thinks the HT is supplying electricity.


  • Rb -

    I spent 5 min looking for the relevant post, because you did not bother to read it. I'd do this more happily if your contribution to this thread was more positive, rather than like the academics who look at a paper and critique spelling errors and background badly described without engaging or otherwise on the validity or otherwise of the key points. Also if you did not add to noise by repeating the same thing.

    Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Forgive me for not going round and round with you for the umpteenth time about the above. I'd rather spend the time on Mizuno's engaging report.

    How about McKubre, Miles or Storms? They are more engaging and far more convincing. If you were seriously interested I suppose you would read them. You do not believe them, or any other cold fusion experiment, so why do you find this one "engaging"? It hasn't even been replicated yet.

    Who are you trying to kid here? Yourself? You will reject this just as surely as THH did. It was preordained. Neither of you will believe cold fusion until the scientific establishment and Nature tell you to. Then you will claim you believed it all along.

  • I'm surprised others have not picked this up re R20 because the above thermal analysis is true for all exothermic temperature sensitive reactions that have the type of dependence Mizuno states. Higher COP means more unstable. If 50W delivers 300W, then 50W worth more insulation will deliver 300W without external power input.

    I spent 5 min looking for the relevant post, because you did not bother to read

    I am really interested in your mathematical derivation of "Higher COP means more unstable."

    You are an expert on control theory, I think

    Your assumption

    Let us take a simple example of F(T) = CT (linear)

    what is this based on

    is this based on experimental data?

    How does it incorporate the findings from 2017 that


    " The reaction activation energy Ea was calculated on the basis of the linear region between 100 and 523◦C

    in Fig. 40 to be 0.165 eV/K/atom"

    Does this not mean that at higher temperatures the activation energy is higher? Which makes the reaction rate less?

    Which means that the increase in reaction rate increase dependence is lower than for Arrhenius type reactions

    ( around 298 K there is ROT that reaction rates double for every 10K rise in T)

    How does this impact on your CT(linear)??

    Of course this whole phenomenon may not be able to be modelled on anything remotely resembling Arrhenius

    because it may not be collisional

    instead relying on delocalised magnetic forces as per Cheng's Niobium93m findings

    where a sudden increase in the number of active sites above a critical number switches on or off the reaction

    over huge distances at particular temperatures.

    In any case the assertion that "Higher COP means more unstable"

    seemsto be based on assumption rather than any detailed understanding of

    the actual reaction kinetics that are occurring.

    More research is needed to understand the reaction kinetics

    for sure... based on available 2017 data it is not Arrheniustype.

    I really value your mathematical input:)

    I am not saying THH is 100% correct in everything, but he sure as hell supports his position mathematically

    Right on... Bob#2:) Welcome to the forum May28 start... do you, Bob#2, have a technical comment?

  • is personal, meant to cause insult and ripe with simple meanness. Much of the same thing many here state that mainstream media spouses!

    Like when THH says things like "evidenced by some of the 'don't raise questions - it makes you evil' crowd here," for example? That kind of insult and meanness? No, of course not, because in your mind pseudo skeptics are always nice, even if mean.

  • In any case the figures for mean centre of tube versus mean averaged over area speed in turbulent flow seem pretty definite, and it is not surprising there is a 20% difference.

    Nope. The difference is far less than 20%. It does not even show up with the anemometer. See Fig. 4. Perhaps if you could measure within a millimeter of the wall you would see that, but there is no measurable difference even 1 cm away.

    As I said, the calibrations and independent estimate of heat losses from the wall prove that. A fact that you cannot and will not deal with.

    More to the point, even if the air flow rates were drastically wrong, the excess heat would still be a sure thing, based on temperature differences alone. As I wrote in the report:

    "A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat."

    If the calibrations and measurements of heat loss from the wall is correct, that 10°C indicates 250 W of excess. If you are right, then the 10°C difference indicates somewhat less. Maybe 200 W? 150 W? I do not think you can demonstrate that your hypothesis cancels out the entire 250 W.

    Generally speaking when the instruments show one thing, and you or someone else has a theory that no instrument reading supports, I assume the instruments are right. When the anemometer shows the same flow rate everywhere on the outlet, and no sign of a 20% difference, your assertion that the 20% "seems pretty definite" seems pretty crazy to me. "Definite" in what sense? How can something that does not show up on any instrument be definite? How can it be definite if it would radically change the outcome of a calibration, and give a wildly incorrect answer?

  • Look, JedRothwell , I will make it really simple. McKubre, Miles and Storm's results confuse me more than enlighten me. Mizuno's recent claims have way more power and a way larger power ratio than is needed to rule out noise or subtle experimental errors. They are the first claims of that type I have ever seen. Either Mizuno is correct and has found a way to performing robust LENR with lots of excess heat or he has made a pretty gross error. In the latter case, it will then be a matter of localizing the part of the experiment liable to big errors and figuring out how to modify or redo it to eliminate those. That is interesting. In addition, from what I saw of the papers thus far, they are pretty clear and probably due to your labor, the English is clear and the descriptions are understandable.

    Arguing about incomprehensible graphs or charts and lots of vaguely reported "one of" experiments which have never been replicated or properly validated, most for low level results is of no interest to me as I said many times. Mizuno, on the other hand, meets every criterion I could think of for major interest for me. And this is entirely consistent with everything I've written before. I have been highlighting Yoshino for years because although they seemed to get nowhere, the claims, apparently in the form of projections that never happened, were similar.

    Is that clear enough even for you? It only remains to make sure the result is real and valid and can be reproduced by others - believable others. I suggested some. You do read before you reply with an angry defensive rant, don't you? Sometimes your replies to me are so tangential and hostile, I wonder if you bother.

  • Right on... Bob#2 Welcome to the forum May28 start... do you have a technical comment?

    Well, ... May 28th?..... You will have to ask Shane about that I guess...... you assumption is incorrect.

    Technical comment?....., I did ask.. Is this not the same reactor / protocol that Mizuno himself demonstrated to IH?

    If yes, my memory/understanding was that he could not get it to work.

    If not, then what is the difference between this pre-publication and the IH demonstration? My reading of this thread indicates this has been

    a few years in development, so the IH demonstration surely has merit to discuss. If Muzuno himself could not get it to work outside his lab,

    then replicators need to really target what difference there is to look for. What hope do they have to replicate if Muzuno could not himself?

    If we want a successful replication, one must not hide their head in the sand and ignore such questions.... that is what the Rossi believer's do.

    I do not and never have claimed to have the technical "LENR" knowledge of McKubre or others. But that does not discredit my ability to think logically.

    There must be some significant issue if the inventor himself cannot replicate outside his lab. (Again, I may be misunderstanding the IH event or my memory may be in error) What hope would others have? Asking some of these hard questions such as THH, may well point to the answer.

    So a valid truth should withstand scrutiny on it's own merit. It will not matter if a skeptic does not believe or a believer has blind faith. What makes a real working reactor different that Rossi's frauds, is that it CAN withstand real and valid scrutiny. Rossi will not allow validation because he knows his stuff is BS. Just "Saying it works" does not make it work.

    Nor does a name.... I remember you espousing about anonymous avatars once..... I assume Robert Bryant is your real name.... but then who is Robert Bryant? I have never heard of him nor his credentials and they mean nothing to me. I am sure I mean nothing to many here, But I can tell by Robert Bryant's own posts however, that he insults and makes personal that which should be objective science. :) That makes me think his judgement is skewed. Look in a mirror.... I believe you might start seeing a reflection of Adrian Ashfield or IHFB there!

    Just like those that still believe Rossi has the goods, those with skewed bias have a serious issue with discerning facts or intention sometimes! Has it has become a personal matter? Contrary to your erroneous statement above, I have been on this site for years. I have NEVER seen THH insult you one time in a post. However you often do not seem to be able to counter your impulse to do so with him. You often site passages, perhaps you should meditate on 1 Corinthians 13:4-13 some! Simply my opinion. :thumbup:

  • IH had Muzuno visit and show them his reactors. My understanding was that Mizuno could not get them to work for the demonstration visit. Is my memory / understanding of this correct? If so, is this reactor / series of test that has been "pre-published" the same type of reactor used in the IH visit?

    As I recall, M indirectly countered that by saying he did show them XH.

    As to the type reactors being the same, they are not. if you carefully read the ICCF21 report, and this new one, they show an evolution over the last 5-6 years, of the reactors shape, operating methods, preparation, fuel, fuel prep, and heater placement. The early versions that IH probably tested, were the old cruciform style. The fuel was a Pd rod wrapped in Pd wire, with water flow calorimetry to measure. Worked well, but took months to activate, and difficult to set up. That may explain the issues IH had, as M was only there in NC 3 days I believe.

    That led to the R13 model presented at ICCF21. It was cyclindrical, Ni mesh either rubbed, or electroplated with Pd, measured with air calorimetry. It was easy to work with, but only got 12% out>in. He used that one for 111 days -from Feb to May 2019. This latest version (R20), is almost the same as R19, but uses the Pd rub technique exclusively. He also improved reactor preparation, and began a different operating pressure procedure. The main difference from all the previous versions, is he moved the heater internally, and that seems to have made the huge difference we are talking about.

    Could have that a little wrong, as the reports are not very detailed in describing the reactor evolution, and improvements. If so, anyone feel free to correct.

  • Online

    Is this not the same reactor

    No it is not the same reactor.

    IH didn't get a reactor to work when he sent it to them in North Carolina

    They cooked it at high temperature's ,contrary to Mizuno;s instructions

    after that it did not work

    Bob#2 Member

    • Member since May 28th 2019

    you assumption is incorrect.

    But your first two posts, Bob#2, are today ..Bravo:).

    Please refrain from personal attacks

    Do you,#bob 2, have another technical comment?

    God Bless.