Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Does it surprise you that, even at the lowest air velocity Mizuno measures (2m/s in a 50mm pipe), flow would be turbulent? That's because you didn't bother to calculate the Reynolds number (~6800*), instead preferring to repeat several seemingly-authoritative, but entirely wrong, assumptions about a topic you appear to know little about.


    * i.e. well into the turbulent regime.


    It does not surprise me particularly. I was incorrectly thinking laminar was flat, turbulent was unflat, when on more fault I should have realised it is the other way round.


    As for 6800. That is much too precise! It depends what is the air temperature :). And 6800 is a 15% derating of average velocity relative to max (at 25C, more derating at higher temps), so surely this is something interesting.


    I am near to stopping enjoying posting here. Are not these calculations not intrinsically fun for you - quite irrespective of point scoring or what they show? So why turn them into an anatomical length-measuring contest?


    For me these calculations, and analysis, are fun, and enough for me to relish looking at stuff. I've said many times that I do this quickly (and not always with enough attention) and therefore make mistakes. I expect the same of others. That is OK because we can all check each other. In that case however, although without looking it all up and doing it properly I was wrong, my gut feeling that this needed checking was right. And my guess that in fact it would be a nicely flat velocity profile was wrong. As was yours (even more so).


    But I'd appreciate more checking. The numbers are not amenable to rough estimate type treatment since the flow is near enough laminar to be non-flat.


    One other reason the average velocity is important is that it allows from calibration data the heat transfer efficiency to be calculated. Lower transfer efficiency means that the output heat might be more dependent on details of the setup than high transfer efficiency. In principle I'd hope this type of setup could have quite high efficiency.

  • For this calorimeter:


    Raw data from which the results are derived: temp in, out, air speed, air cross-section, air speed profile, exact geometry over which these are measured
    Details of blower power vs voltage and back pressure, blower spec, Blower voltage in experiment. (Useful as sanity check for airflow measurements)
    Description of precisely how calibration is done, and of calibration methodology. Ideally replacing the reactor by an identical object (with same D2 connections) without nickel gauze heated electrically


    All of this is in the first paper:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf


    This will be reported again, in more detail, in an upcoming paper. Mizuno and I have no control over when that paper will be published. (It usually takes forever.) The upcoming paper covers topic such as the Reynolds number threshold. I quoted from it yesterday. The point is, he has analyzed the problem in more detail than we put in these two papers.



    Precision can always be improved, and is always helpful. there is a trade-off. In this case, due to the extraordinary nature of the results, a lot of precision is expected and helpful.


    I have never seen better precision with air-flow calorimetry. It seems to me that when the precision is ~0.1 W, there is no chance of an error measuring 250 W of excess heat. Are you saying we need better than 1 part in 2,500 to be sure? That seems excessive to me. I think there can be no error when the outlet air temperature is 10°C warmer than the calibration at the same 50 W input power level. Thermocouples don't make mistakes as big as that. He checked the temperature with other thermometers. There is just no way it was only 3°C warmer, instead of 13°C.


    As we said in the paper, air-flow calorimetry is recommended. The calorimeter plays an integral role in the experiment. Other methods such as Seebeck calorimetry that put the cell in similar conditions might work. I don't know if they will work, so I suggest people should start off with air flow. Water flow through tubes wrapped around the reactor vessel does not work. It reduces or eliminates the effect, probably by cooling the reactor surface too much.

  • I made some minor changes to the paper and uploaded a new version. Biggest change, p. 12:


    Rubbing is done with a palladium rod, 100 mm long, diameter 5.0 mm, 99.95% purity. Before rubbing the mesh, weight it with a precision scale. Then vigorously rub the entire surface, left and right and up and down. Turn the mesh over and rub the other side. Weigh the mesh again. Continue until the weight increases by ~50 mg.



    Some people say the images are blurry. I will check the Acrobat settings.


    pag. 17, after cleaning, between bullets (1) and (2) still requires mentioning insertion of Deuterium gas, preferably indicating at what gas pressure.
    Sorry for nagging Jed, but this helps the paper to be student proof.

  • The question however is how much of this cross-sectional area has air at the speed shown. From Figure 9, as I've said twice before on this thread, the inner 3/5 of the tube must be so, from the tests. The outer 2/5 has not been tested. To take an obvious over-estimate of the error here, if the untested part all had low velocity, then the average velocity integrated over area would be only 36% of the measured velocity.


    AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, the calibrations would show a large error. The amount of heat apparently recovered would be much higher than than the input power. Because the air speed would be overestimated, and the mass of air per second would be too high. The calibrations would show apparent excess heat, which would obviously be wrong. We would see that. As you see, the calibrations always show less heat captured in flow of air than the input electric power. Not only that, but the losses from the calorimeter chamber walls have been measured and accounted for.


    You need to address this issue. Stop saying "there could be a problem" when the calibration clearly shows there is no problem. Not just the calibration, but also the traverse test, and various other tests I have not described, such as measuring the heat losses from the chamber walls, and computing the likely losses based on the manufacturer's specifications for the bubble insulation. Mizuno & I have been working on this for years. I spent a week on the bubble insulation R-Value calculations. We have checked everything six ways from seven. It is possible we made a mistake. However, all of the issues you came up with we already checked carefully last year, and we check them again every time he sets up a test. You need to read the papers we wrote and see how we addressed these issues.

  • and alternative would be to introduced a water heat exchanger in the air stream and measure waterflow and water dT required to get air temperature back down to ambient....again, we would not need to know air flow accuracy, ITS only energy exchange.

  • pag. 17, after cleaning, between bullets (1) and (2) still requires mentioning insertion of Deuterium gas, preferably indicating at what gas pressure.


    I checked my notes, e-mail conversations with Mizuno, and data on this. I do not think he wants deuterium gas added in these steps. I was wrong about that. He pumps down to 10^-2 Pa with the turbomolecular pump. That takes a long time. Still, even at that pressure, there is enough gas coming out to make an accurate measurement with the mass spec. He sometimes waits for a day to if there is more outgassing, and then heats and pumps some more. He keeps checking for H2O.


    I think he also adds D2 and then purges it. Ed Storms and others have done this. But that is a separate procedure. I will ask him if he recommends doing that. It should be at a low pressure if it is done.


    He takes periodic samples of the gas during the test. If a lot of water showed up, I expect he would pump the whole thing down and start over. That is the kind of detail or know-how we did not include in this paper. It is what a "person skilled in the art" would know to do. Maybe we should describe it, but there is a limit to how many instructions you should put in something like this. Too many will confuse the reader.


    If a slow leak develops, the pressure will rise. That means air is getting in, and air will have water. So you have to record the pressure at all times.


    I used the term "person skilled in the art" twice in this paper. That is patent jargon. It means someone who knows what he or she is doing. Someone who has access to mass spectrometers, precision weight scales, turbomolecular pumps and so on, and who knows how to use them. I do not think a person who is unfamiliar with these things can replicate this experiment. Frankly, I wouldn't want to encourage such people to try. It would end badly. This experiment is apparently much easier than any previous cold fusion experiment. (Assuming it works.) Easier, but still not easy. There are many ways to screw this up.

  • I checked my notes, e-mail conversations with Mizuno, and data on this. I do not think he wants deuterium gas added in these steps. I was wrong about that. He pumps down to 10^-2 with the turbomolecular pump. That takes a long time. Still, even at that pressure, there is enough gas coming out to make an accurate measurement with the mass spec. He sometimes waits for a day to if there is more outgassing, and then heats and pumps some more. He keeps checking for H2O.


    I think he also adds D2 and then purges it. Ed Storms and others have done this. But that is a separate procedure. I will ask him if he recommends doing that. It should be at a low pressure if it is done.


    Ok. This may be a consideration for replicators 'skilled in the art' :).
    I agree, the paper should reflect exactly what Mizuno-san's current procedures are.

  • I uploaded it at 11:00 this morning, so you could not have read it more than 5 hours ago.


    Jed; if the first paper is new - then is it a rewrite of Mizuno's earlier paper - which I read?


    You may be thinking of the PowerPoint slides I uploaded after the conference:


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


    It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of clarity, as you should well know.


    No, it is matter of you being obnoxious, and presumptuous, and not reading the papers carefully. When I tell you that two reactors are placed in the chamber, one active and one control, you should not come back and say, "I don't think surity exists with this write-up?" It would be a lot less obnoxious for you to say:


    "Oh. Where does it say that?"


    Example 2:


    "But now we are discussing the second paper, and we cannot assume the methodology for R20 sample tests was identical to that previously used."


    We damn well can assume that, and I told you that, so don't contradict me. It is right in the paper. Twice.


    Again, try saying it this way:


    "Is the methodology for R20 sample tests identical to that previously used?"




    Teasing out what experimental results mean, and what effects could cause something unusual, requires calm, lack of personalisation or blame, and precision. Verbal or anecdotal statements do not help with any of these things.


    Verbal or anecdotal?!? Are you serious? I have been working on this for years, albeit at long distance, mainly schlepping through spreadsheet data and translating. I have asked Mizuno hundreds of stupid questions, in Japanese, in the middle of the night my time. That's not "anecdotal," it is Sitzfleisch. I know there are two reactors in the chamber. I am SURE there are. You could wake me up at 2 am and ask "how many reactors are there??" and I would mumble the answer.


    You have not exhibited much in the way of calm or precision in this discussion. You keep jumping to conclusions and saying we did not include this or that detail. I myself do that several times a day, in English and Japanese, so I can't blame you. But I do suggest you tone it down and make your statements more like polite enquiries rather than "Oh, no you didn't!" Also, you should stop with the crackpot theories about invisible droplets magically rising against gravity. As I pointed out, even if that happened, they already evaporated and then condensed, so the heat is already accounted for. You should realize that you have not found any error in any major cold fusion experiment. Not one! Not in Fleischmann's work, or McKubre's. So far, you haven't found any errors in this experiment. You think you have, but you are wrong.


    Keep trying, by all means. Just be aware that when you find some issue, Mizuno and I probably found it two years ago. So maybe ask rather than asserting it is problem.


    Also, stop and think twice before saying something like: "conditions are not precisely alike for the control and the active reactor." Of course they are not precisely alike. How could they be? Down to the nearest atom? What is that supposed to mean? They are as alike as Mizuno can make them. If you can think of a better way to make them alike, you should tell us what it is. If you can't think of a better way, don't say this. It contributes nothing. You are saying "perfection is desirable." Yeah, it is, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. And it also physically impossible. Don't say "precision is called for." How much precision? For what purpose, to what extent? Why is 0.1 W precision not good enough to measure 250 W excess? If that is not good enough, what would be? Put a number on it! Tell us specifically, quantitatively, what you think is needed, and suggest a way to implement your suggestion. A vague assertion and handwaving are useless. Tell us what instruments, arranged in what manner, would produce the result that you think is needed. Be specific.

  • AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, the calibrations would show a large error. The amount of heat apparently recovered would be much higher than than the input power. Because the air speed would be overestimated, and the mass of air per second would be too high. The calibrations would show apparent excess heat, which would obviously be wrong. We would see that. As you see, the calibrations always show less heat captured in flow of air than the input electric power. Not only that, but the losses from the calorimeter chamber walls have been measured and accounted for.


    You need to address this issue. Stop saying "there could be a problem" when the calibration clearly shows there is no problem. Not just the calibration, but also the traverse test, and various other tests I have not described, such as measuring the heat losses from the chamber walls, and computing the likely losses based on the manufacturer's specifications for the bubble insulation. Mizuno & I have been working on this for years. I spent a week on the bubble insulation R-Value calculations. We have checked everything six ways from seven. It is possible we made a mistake. However, all of the issues you came up with we already checked carefully last year, and we check them again every time he sets up a test. You need to read the papers we wrote and see how we addressed these issues.


    Well, the specific argument here is wrong. I'm very willing to think you have considered this in unpublished work; and I'm not saying that this matter invalidates the results. It just makes the write-up as shown now very incomplete.


    Addressing your points:


    • I think you are misreading what I said. Obviously 36% is an overestimate of the problem, as i said. I'm just making a point about the inadequacy of the speed measurements. We broadly agree about the Reynolds number I expect, as above.
    • That is in the range 12,000 to 3,000 (the lower end would be lower speed and higher temperatures).
    • That gives derating in the range 90% - 75% (error 10% - 25%). (Numbers a bit vague - need to do it precisely specifying conditions)
    • Exact figures subject to change and depend on speed and temperature, but can be calculated without too much difficulty.
    • Would this be detected? No - because the heat transfer from the reactor to the air is not 100%. This error would simply make the apparent heat transfer higher than the actual heat transfer, but still not greater than 100%.
    • Does it matter? Depends. Not if the calibration data is the same speed and temperature as the active data. Otherwise it may make a difference, and it should certainly be evaluated because it will improve the accuracy of any first principles calculation of the heat output, even though the error is significantly smaller than the heat excess (seems likely).


    BUT. If you have been analysing this based on assuming calculated heat output correlates linearly with the measured velocity that would be wrong. Also not compensating for the change in average velocity relative to maximum as temperature changes would be wrong if the temperature can be significantly high - probably only a small difference for a 50C uplift. And not considering this matter - even if in the end it is not significant - would make the paper weaker - since it clearly can be considered (relatively easily).


    There is more than one way to skin a cat. You could not use the speed measurements, except to show conditions identical between calibration and active runs. That would remove any first principle component to the results but if calibration is correct that would not matter. If you take that approach then this matter is irrelevant, but the paper should reflect this.

  • Thhuxley wrote:
    A somewhat feeling I should not bother here THH


    You should bother, but also you should be held to high standards of accuracy, mainly because you apparently are well qualifed 😉 and able present persuasive coherent technical arguments. (Which purely IMO involve a lot of blind-eye-turning, however, each to their own).


    Whilst those that deliver 'personal attacks' on others are surely fair game to receive it in return, you seem to avoid such unpleasantries normally, so, when used, dents the credibility of responses to your thinkings.


    Quote

    As for 6800. That is much too precise!


    I was aiming to work out the lowest possible, worst case value: Maybe 7000 would have been a better pick...


    Also... the 'efunda' online calculator appears to use the wrong type of viscosity in its workings - so best to use another one, if anyone is so inclined.


  • Well, I expect everyone to question what I write, just as I expect to question what others write. I've never ever claimed superior correctness in general - where I make arguments they are what I think (often on not much time spent). If I'm asked I will always say why I think what I think, and justify it or retract. Not fair to hold me to the level of careful scrutiny (days) needed for a properly debugged everything known correct post? For example, my comment re laminar and turbulent flow was correct in its import even though (a) I had not done the Re calc and (b) I was wrong about which of the two phases is flat. I was just saying that I thought it would be in the mostly flat regime but this needs to be checked, esp because mostly flat is not the same as all flat. And on detailed investigation that is correct - though I'd like somone else to check the equations and I'm not confident we yet have the best equation for estimating average speed /max speed from Re - the web contains lots of errors and must be checked!


  • That was my approach too - then I gave up because too complex to give a good answer. The problem is that Re depends on both density and dynamic viscosity, and those depend on temperature according to tables, and I was not sure what was the maximum feasible temperature here. So I gave up. But both those parameters reduce Re as T increases so 6800 maybe not a minimum.


    I think also one issue here is that I never accept tech arguments from others that I can't understand - and sort of expect others to have the same attitude.

  • I am near to stopping enjoying posting here. Are not these calculations not intrinsically fun for you - quite irrespective of point scoring or what they show? So why turn them into an anatomical length-measuring contest?


    For me these calculations, and analysis, are fun, and enough for me to relish looking at stuff.


    Wow, hadn't gotten to reading this whinge yet. No one is forced to post here, and yes these calculations are fun for me, thats why I do them.


    But it seems for you, that despite given the opportunity to do these quick calcs, sometimes you prefer a quantative analysis (hand-wavy, some might say). Which grates on me, as you apparently have an engineering education, and are more than capable of googling an online calculator. As for vegetable-measuring contests, I'm not sure what goes on in the lounges of the fine establishments you frequent, but I just feel the need to say things more forcefully a second time, if ignored the first time.

  • Wow, hadn't gotten to reading this whinge yet. Yes these calculations are fun for me, thats why I do them.


    But it seems for you, that despite given the opportunity to do these quick calcs, sometimes you prefer a quantative analysis (hand-wavy, some might say). Which grates on me, as you apparently have an engineering education, and are more than capable of googling an online calculator. As for vegetable-measuring contests, I'm not sure what goes on in the lounges of the fine establishments you frequent, but I just feel the need to say things more forcefully a second time, if ignored the first time.


    Yes, and I appreciate such reiterated statement when communication does not work first time round. The thing is, I'm initially, with things that seem not very important, too lazy to do a full job. However I can still say - hey look - a full job should be done - and a rough calc shows that might be significant. Or, based on estimates simply realise it will not be significant and avoid all that work.


    In this case I was unwilling initially to do the work (still not complete - to be done work out max feasible temperature in these results, work out from tables re, check equation relating re to av/max sped ratio). But it was still fair to point out that the work needed to be done, especially because the paper raises this topic by showing how air speed is measured and supposed mostly to have a flat profile.


    Now I've done more of it I'm still not sure (have not read the paper carefully enough) precisely how those R19 output powers in the table are generated from cal data and experiment data. So I'm not sure whether this issue is relevant, or irrelevant, to those results.


    BTW - I don't have an engineering education. It has always been my hobby, sometimes my job, but I was trained maths not engineering.

  • PS - re whinge - I do take a break from here sometimes. Think its time to do that again if I whinge. I just get bored of being the only one who bothers to do any of this analysis, and then being criticised for not doing enough, or making mistakes, when others do not help who clearly could!

  • THH,


    While it may not be apparent, you are well respected here. Those who you spar with in the science arena...sometimes making it a little too personal, would sorely miss your leaving. Your role here is vital, and has even drawn support from the likes of McKubre.


    I see this as a rough and tumble, albeit informal, peer review process. You are one of the reviewers, along with RB, Zeus and a few others. You have differences of opinions among you, different beliefs coming into this, and make the other pay when their opinion is found to be wrong. Rothwell, as one pf the authors, is here to defend, and will only change something in the paper when the facts presented by you the reviewers, show they are warranted.


    Emotions run rampant, feelings are hurt, but that is what peer reviews are about, as even you admitted. Hang in there. We cannot afford to lose you.