Mizuno reports increased excess heat

The equation that calculates airspeed from blower power (3) is given by Mizuno in the patent that Ahlfors helpfully posted.

I do not understand the equations for power (1) and (2), however (3) seems straightforward.

I wonder how well (3) corresponds to the data we actually have? The exact equation is given here.

EDIT: this looks like it must be a different system from that described in the 2018 paper: 5W in the paper delivers ~5m/s air speed whereas from this equation 5W delivers 3.9m/s air speed.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed: do you agree that the quantisation noise from the V and I values used to determine blower power is replicated in the airflow speed data?

Sorry!! Do you really expect something else ?? The speed is given by input wattage and ergo the energy (air flow speed) must reflect it, if the efficiency of the motor is not varying .

Quote from Grafiker

Say for example the active reactor was in direct line of sight of the RTDs measuring air outlet temperature

Maybe there is a 4d perturbation of space in LENR that allows light to go through two layers of aluminium foil

In addition , by parabolic focussing geometry

the blower with >>4m/s airflow speed cooling it heats up to 80C

(while the rest of the calorimeter box is at <50C)

radiates geometric heat to the outlet RTD.

Thanks Ahlfors. Very interesting views of older externally heated reactor.

Quote from Ascoli65

I never talked about random numbers added to any calculation. There is no random number. The whole set of the Blower Power (BP) and Air Speed (AS) data published by graph (1) and numbers (2) can be explained by two calculations and by the effect of multiple rounding off on primary (measured) and intermediate values:

- Blower Power was obtained mathematically by multiplying the Voltage and Current to the blower. Presumably, only the voltage was directly measured by an instrument. The current was probably obtained multiplying the voltage drop through a resistor by the inverse of its resistance;

- Air Speed was obtained mathematically by using a formula which fits the curve shown in Figure 4 of (3). This formula is probably similar to the exponential relationship shown in the formula (5) described at page 14 of a 2017 paper (4). However, due to the very narrow range of the 49 data sample provided by JR, the exponential relationship between BP and AS is undistinguishable from the linear one that you have proposed.

As you correctly noticed, the numbers provided by JR (2) include only 14 different values in a series of 49 pairs of data. This is true for both the BP and the AS series and, more importantly, the two values are always coupled in the same way up to the fifth significant figure. This only fact is by large more than sufficient to affirm with absolute certainty that the values of the two series are mathematically tied each other!

This is the list of all the 14 possible pairs of values:

Display More

1) I guess someone else decided you said it was a "random" number. That person was confused as to what you meant.

2) Trying to guess the quanti-sized voltage and current from this data series is a total waste of our time, i.e. like solving a meaningless puzzle or playing solitaire. Either Mizuno should give us this information, or we should just move on. Hopefully he will provide the data. There is real work to do here. The replicators data will come in soon. Rest up because this will heat up real fast.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The equation that calculates airspeed from blower power (3) is given by Mizuno in the patent that Ahlfors helpfully posted.

I do not understand the equations for power (1) and (2), however (3) seems straightforward.

I wonder how well (3) corresponds to the data we actually have? The exact equation is given here.

EDIT: this looks like it must be a different system from that described in the 2018 paper: 5W in the paper delivers ~5m/s air speed whereas from this equation 5W delivers 3.9m/s air speed.

Display More

The patent provides information that was not in the papers. Good find.

Note: the mathematical formula using exp(-Wb/w) _may_ be approximated with the linear function that I got from regression over a relatively small move (the 49 points range) in power -- I will have to work on that to prove it. My point is the exponential function is not _necessarily_ inconsistent.

With regard to Jed bringing in more digits -- the linear regression will still solve for something that will be VERY similar. I doubt the extra dights are significant and because regression is a robust numerical technique, the conclusion will not change over the relatively small range provided in the 49 points.

If Jed gives us the entire spreadsheet (not here) we can then fit the exponential using a regression of the log, or similar numerical technique. No big deal here -- nothing to see. This is all normal and our guess was right as proven by the patent.

Quote from JedRothwell

Well, it [the regression] gives the wrong answer. Aside from that, it is pretty good.

Depends on what wrong means. If being able to predict the dependent variable for the data set to within 5 decimal places, it works perfectly as described by the standard deviation of its error.

That a linear function can approximate an exponential that was hidden from view is not surprising. I will endeavor to verify this and report back.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Such questions as THH, Ascoli raise are OK, if we see only about 20-30% excess heat and have a low COP.

If you are used to cook in a kitchen then you very well know the difference

Richtig Jurg

I conducted some Doyoubi no Daidokoro no kenkyuu this morning

I applied the Japanese Tamagoyaki method to test if the blower could get up to a temperature of 80C.

The blower got up to only 33 C on the lowest blower flowrate.

which is

approx. 100 cu.m/hr

based on an S-Pitot tube

traverse.

To test the heat output of Kambrook Reactor

I conducted the "GekochtesWasser " test.

500g. delta t= 28C, 2 min. Heating rate = 488 Watts

Solder test showed reactor surface temp was > 221C.

No RTD , but the glass thermometer could have

been heat affected and had a stroke?

Kagemusha yori.

Quote from JedRothwell

The text in that patent will be in an upcoming paper. I have no idea when it will up-come. It takes anywhere from six months, to six years, to never.

Jed; the section I posted above has a number of serious errors: equations (1) and (2) (time integration does not make sense in context of power, and energy is not used elsewhere). Also sentence mentions dT which is not used (dt is, in the integral, but that is obviously time not Temperature). So it would not a lot of careful checking.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

I don't understand that either. Maybe it is some limitation of the HP gadget? In other cases, there is an adjustment I understand, such as for a 3 ohm resister.

I think those are the raw voltage number coming into the HP unit. I used to have one like that. You can program it to convert voltage to various common units such as degrees Celsius. You can use a conversion factor or a lookup table. It has all kinds of great features. 1980s technology at its best. Most HP instruments are wonderful.

Difficult to understand how you get X60 - this might be seconds to minutes etc, but that does not make sense here. Voltage measured over R as proxy for current would mean a resistance of 0.0167 - which is not an E24 value. I guess it could be a homebrew 1/60 potential divider on the voltage measurement, but that is a weird division factor to choose.

I'd want to understand this further before being able to interpret those figures.

Quote from RobertBryant

Richtig Jurg

I conducted some Doyoubi no Daidokoro no kenkyuu this morning

I applied the Japanese Tamagoyaki method to test if the blower could get up to a temperature of 80C.

The blower got up to only 33 C on the lowest blower flowrate.

which is

approx. 100 cu.m/hr

based on an S-Pitot tube

traverse.

To test the heat output of Kambrook Reactor

I conducted the "GekochtesWasser " test.

500g. delta t= 28C, 2 min. Heating rate = 488 Watts

Solder test showed reactor surface temp was > 221C.

No RTD , but the glass thermometer could have

been heat affected and had a stroke?

Kagemusha yori.

Display More

RB - I'm in awe of this experimental effort.

But it does not properly answer the question. Too many variables. Looking at it naively:

The radiative forcing from 380C vs 22C is (683/494)^4 = 3.65

If we suppose Tamb = 20C, so deltaT=13C, that would scale to 67.5C at Treactor=380C.

But as I say there are too many other variables.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Sorry!! Do you really expect something else ?? The speed is given by input wattage and ergo the energy (air flow speed) must reflect it, if the efficiency of the motor is not varying .

Wyttenbach:

If you read my earlier posts you will have the context here.

ascoli's clever observation shows that the airspeed figures for these tests are calculated from blower power, as measured, using the calibration graph given in the paper, rather than measured with the hot wire anenometer.

This is not surprising, not improper. However it was not clear, without ascoli's analysis, from the paper. A reader might more likely think that the airspeed shown was directly measured.

As I pointed out this is not a big deal, it makes mistakes more likely is all, and it should be explicitly mentioned.

Just for info the power consumption of a fan/blower is typically proportional to airflow cubed..

https://www.axair-fans.co.uk/n…rstanding-basic-fan-laws/

So I've been surprised by earlier reference to it being "linear".

Quote from JedRothwell

Ascoli claimed the blower power is multiplied by one factor to produce the air flow.

I've never said this. This is what I said in my previous comments

As you can see, I never claimed that "the blower power is multiplied by one factor". Instead, I talked about a formula, in particular an exponential relationship such as that contained in the 2017 Mizuno's paper and in the 120 W spreadsheets that you have published here on L-F and on Vortex. This semi-empirical relationship contains 3 parameters.

You said (a), that you have the complete spreadsheet containing the data of the test under discussion with "extensive notes on every field". If you look carefully to these notes, you will probably find that formula and the values of the 3 parameters. Please, let us know these values.

(a) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from THHuxleynew

Looking at it naively:

The radiative forcing from 380C vs 22C is (683/494)^4 = 3.65

If we suppose Tamb = 20C, so deltaT=13C, that would scale to 67.5C at Treactor=380C

The THHnew radiative forcing calculation is in error because of the omission of the area variable

and because the model is wrong. The reactor emits and receives radiation from box..

It does not receive and emit radiation from the ambient directly.

One CANNOT model the heat transfer this way.,,its just wrong.

One needs to take into account the area of the reactor and the area of the box.

The box area at 2m² is ten times the area of the reactor at 0,2 m²

The emissivities differ, reactor ~ o.2... box ~o,o4.. There are three variables involved,, not one.

Area ,Emissivity and T.

Heat radiated = constant x Area x Emissivity x T^{4 ..} The 67.5C calculation is meaningless.

The real situation is much more complicated as the convective exchange to the air exiting the box

does not increase linearly with temperature

because the convective currents within the box get stronger with temperature.

In addition we cannot assume emissivities stay constant with temperature

For example btw 240 and 380C the emissivities of stainless steel decrease by 10%.

In addition there is no guarantee that Stefan's T⁴ dependence holds strictly

when the reactor surface may be affected by strong magnetic fields.

It is better to do an experimental model with a cooktop as I have done.

A 488W input to the 0.027m2 cooktop results in a surface temperature of about 500C,

This compares with the 295W output of the Mizuno reactor giving 380 C.

Yet with the hotplate at 500C , the blower body only situated 20cm above the hotplate only gets to 33C

I would suspect from these results that in the R20 expt ..the blower body never gets higher than 40C

which replicators can verify. The convective air currents cool the blower

to less than the adjacent box regions because of the higher air velocities in the blower

The THH indirect - heat- radiation- to -the- RTD hypothesis is groundless.