In fairness to Mizuno we should not treat data
In fairness to Mizuno... lets ssume he makes stupid errors like THHnew
who can't even work out the reflected heat from aluminium foil
That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\
less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps
The R20 results in the paper comprise one sample datapoint
Typical deceptive horseshit.
One calorimetry run consists of hundreds of data points.
Like this one.... megabytes of data.
1) Control run is performed. Because there is less surface area exposed to the moving air, relatively more heat is lost through conduction through the bottom of the calorimeter.
No, that is out of question. The reasons are given in the papers, and I addressed that question specifically in the presentation. Reasons:
This is different from what is described in the paper if you consider that it refers to the previous paper for calibration methodology. It is pretty important to have the calibration fully described.
Yes, it is different. However the calibration methodology is fully described. It is air flow calorimetry. It does not involve the surface area of the reactors, or the surface temperatures. The reactor surface temperature varies a great deal from spot to another, so it cannot be used for calorimetry. It can be used as a crude method to confirm there is excess heat, because it is hotter when there is excess heat. Not as much hotter as I originally thought, because I got the two columns mixed up, but it is hotter. There is no question about that.
There is also no question that calibrating with different reactors and heaters all produce the same Delta T temperatures in the air flow. You cannot tell them apart, as I said in the previous message. Since the calibrations all produce a balance of zero after adjusting for losses from calorimeter walls, there is no question the losses are the same no matter what kind of reactor or heater you use. The shape, weight and thermal mass of the reactor have no measurable effect on the calorimetry.
The calorimetry is described in more detail here than in most papers. The traverse test is better proof than you usually find in ICCF papers. You can do that test yourself. Honestly, I do not think anyone can complain that Mizuno has not provided enough information. If you do not know how to set up a vacuum pump or a mass spectrometer, you are not skilled in the art and you should not be doing this experiment. All of the unique aspects of the experiment that a person skilled in the art would not know are described.
Where does the air enter Mizuno’s calorimeter? Is it one hole, or a bunch of distributed holes?
THHnew's vague calculations of 18%, 34% are based on implausible assumptions.
I estimate much less . The velocity profile in the annular region btw 3 and 3.3 cm is not zero.
A stepwise change from ~ 4m/s to zero m/s is unrealistic.
RB - my 18% is based on published anenometer spec (8.5%) + 10% average / maximum air flow bound. Those are plausible. More to the point, they are figures evidenced and stated: as opposed to hand-waving.
For you to bound the average / max airflow you need to do two things:
(1) bound the outer 3mm (unmeasured)
(2) bound the variation over the inner 30mm.
Note also that if the velocity varied linearly from max to 0 over the outer 3mm that would correspond to a ~ 10% error overall - no stepwise change needed.
In addition there is the uncertainty due to the anenometer finite size and disturbance of airflow, so the given 3mm from edge reading cannot wholly be trusted.
Figures please, if anyone thinks a tighter bound is appropriate?
Display MoreTypical deceptive horseshit.
One calorimetry run consists of hundreds of data points.
Like this one.... megabytes of data.
One run: therefore errors on the run or how it is processed need only be made once. Since data is collected electronically it makes no difference to integrity whether the run is 1 reading or 1000.
It does not advance your case to use impolite and inaccurate language.
Display MoreThis is just not true Jed. I go back to a scenario that could explain the apparent excess heat.
1) Control run is performed. Because there is less surface area exposed to the moving air, relatively more heat is lost through conduction through the bottom of the calorimeter.
2) Experimental run with a bigger reactor is performed. Because there is more surface area, relatively more heat is collected by the air moving over it than is conducted out the bottom.
I agree that controls don't necessarily have to be exact, but you run a risk of unforeseen errors by having different sized control and experimental reactors.
Had he performed a similar type of experiment as he did with the previous reactor type, this would not have been an issue.
Jed has answered point (1).
However surface area matters, because it will affect reactor temperature and therefore convection/conduction of heat to walls. Note that the exit air is mixed between the on and off reactors and therefore will be lower in temperature than the air around the on reactor.
In addition to surface area, the reactor position in the box will affect airflow.
The problem with the control here is that it varies in every possible way:
THH
There is also no question that calibrating with different reactors and heaters all produce the same Delta T temperatures in the air flow. You cannot tell them apart, as I said in the previous message. Since the calibrations all produce a balance of zero after adjusting for losses from calorimeter walls, there is no question the losses are the same no matter what kind of reactor or heater you use. The shape, weight and thermal mass of the reactor have no measurable effect on the calorimetry.
Jed, that is welcome additional information which if documented and written up would make the integrity of the calibration more certain.
(1) Are you saying that the calibration and active reactors have both been calibrated? If so precise details would help your contention.
(2) Are you saying that reactors have been tested in all possible positions in the box, and with another inactive reactor side by side? Everything depends on the airflow which is critically dependent on position and whether there is one reactor or two.
I fully agree that careful documentation of these control tests would make the results much clearer, but vague statements like "the output temperature does not change for different reactors" need to be linked to precise tests if this is to be helpful.
Display MoreThat is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\
less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps
Unfortumately THHnew does not know how to work out reflected heat.
A proper calculation involves both the emissivity of the reactor wall and the emissivity of the aluminium foil
and gives much more reradiation than 10% .... ~ 30%
Well, as often the case you are not paying attention. I agreed at the time here that I had been forgetting the fact that absorption of the radiation scales with e2, and therefore, for shiny foil, would be much smaller. Not however for discolored foil so given potentially high temperatures I guess one would want to check that. So - since I know accuracy is something you value - the correct statement about my historic posts would be: "THH knows how to work out absorbed heat, but surprisingly forgot this initially when posting here. A good example of human fallibility".
This has nothing to do with the nature of the scientific proof, or the quality, magnitude or the number of replications. None of those criteria apply.
I am an outsider to this field who, like most people, would prefer that future human generations not be decimated.
I also have a great deal of respect for academic scientists and non-conformist scientists. My first response to Dr. Mizuno's results is to believe that they are genuine observations stated with honesty and sincerity. But when I think about how I'd behave if I had world-changing results, I keep coming back to this: barring some good reason, I would immediately hand my setup over to independent observers and begin working on a second copy. I would say something like this to myself: "while I know that I am honest, and I have seen these results with my own eyes, I understand that there seem to be many disbelievers, and so I realize that I will need objective outsiders able and willing to confirm the results I am seeing from my device in order to convince the disbelievers." I would not leave things in the hands of potential replicators, given that I could provide proof myself, even if only for one instance of my device.
If there were some good reason for which I could not find people who I would trust as objective and competent outsiders, I'd tell the world my reasoning.
Replication efforts are fine; it just seems like that basic first step has been skipped. If this were some minor result, I could understand that. But this is more or less the future of the world. If I had a device which heated a room on 300 W input power, when the room typically required 1kW+ to be heated, I would be paying people to come look, because I'd know that if I could demonstrate my capability to an objective outside observer, I'd save the planet, become vastly wealthy, and win the Nobel Prize. I would feel confident that by having an outside objective observer team observe my device, I could bypass any number of (hypothetical) academic scientists worried about their funding.
Perhaps this exact thing has been done with Dr. Mizuno's device, but those objective outside observers have also not been able to convince anyone. But I haven't heard about that.
What has made this Mizuno thing so unique in the annals of LENR history, is that he has been so transparent. By his count, he already gave 12 reactors away (not sure if those are R20, or R19?) to be tested, and sent Jed here with the operating manual for others to replicate. Does not get more open than that.
Do agree with everyone, it would have been great optics, and PR, had he shown the reactor in his home, hooked up, with some first hand testimonials of how warm the room was. I doubt it would have won over skeptics, but it would be real cool.
What has made this Mizuno thing so unique in the annals of LENR history, is that he has been so transparent. By his count, he already gave 12 reactors away (not sure if those are R20, or R19?) to be tested, and sent Jed here with the operating manual for others to replicate. Does not get more open than that.
Do agree with everyone, it would have been great optics, and PR, had he shown the reactor in his home, hooked up, with some first hand testimonials of how warm the room was. I doubt it would have won over skeptics, but it would be real cool.
The one comment I remember from somone who has got a reactor is that it showed +10% or so. Therefore not R19 or R20. Whether those have been given away I do not know, but I expect not.
What has made this Mizuno thing so unique in the annals of LENR history, is that he has been so transparent. By his count, he already gave 12 reactors away (not sure if those are R20, or R19?) to be tested, and sent Jed here with the operating manual for others to replicate. Does not get more open than that.
In addition to Dr. Mizuno's providing twelve reactors, I believe that besides his willingness to be transparent, he in unique in having results which claim power and COP levels that can be confirmed or refuted without worrying about calorimetry. That is the reason it would be unfortunate if no objective outside observer has been invited to observe the effect and then dismantle the R20. Unlike many other experiments of which I have heard, this one should be extraordinarily easy for any outside team to confirm or refute.
I confess I am incapable of imagining why the R20 would be used to heat a room for a period of weeks without also having been observed to do so by outside objective observers, who would now be stepping forward to say "I saw it with my own eyes, and..." It is beyond my abilities to imagine any reason for the set of facts before us all, without some fact being incorrect or missing.
Though I am other than all knowing, I will assert that Mizuno's results are unprecedented. Google can replicate these results and the attempt and their transparency will help everyone - including non-readers of this forum and the result of the earth-dwelling animals oblivious to reading, science, and human-built heaters.
Mizuno R20 Google Team. Chant it with me: MRGT, MRGT, MRGT, ...
Thank you for your participation.
that would correspond to a ~ 10% error overall - no stepwise change needed.
Figures please
Please show calculation..
the error compared too what?
For the ideal- semi empirical velocity profile in the edge annulus
there are a number of software available undoubtedly but one could use Benedict or StreetWattersVennard(~1990)
There is a textbook somewhere online.
Please show how a systematic error of +10 % or _10%
in the active and the calibration run
in the airmassflowrate would reduce a COP of 300% , 30% to ZERO!
I refer THHNew to the dog
"
Rather than get into the nitty-gritty of the fleas on a dog's rear end
its better to first look at the purpose of the dog
Is it a police Alsatian a poodle or the next dish at a Shanghai restaurant?
The focus of the calorimetry is output/input.
Calorimetry measures mass flowrate m and temp difference delta T
A rough guide to output/ input is m x Cp x delta T
Lets say for the calibration/active the delta Ts are 3/3.5
Output = m x Cp x 3.5
Input= m x Cp x 3
Lets assume the error in m is 10% ..The systematic error due to
the edge annulus overestimate of velocity is 10%... unrealistically
Dividing Output/Input gives m x (1+10%) Cp x 3.5 divided by m x (1+10%)Cp x 3
Equals 3.5/3 ....COP = 1.17
The effect of a 10 % systematic error on the O/I is negligible.
COP equals 1.17 regardless.
One run: therefore errors on the run or how it is processed
the basic calculation in processing is
for the delta temperature's of 12C and 3C
Output = m x Cp x 12
Input= m x Cp x 3
Does THHnew suggest that Mizuno suddenly changed his mass flowrate m by a factor of 10 or or so
or that the the delta T's from the thermistor are in error by a factor of 4? suddenly??
Of course such egregious errors are it is possible if Mizuno is like THHnew who never checks his
5 second effusions on LF. .. But I doubt that Mizuno is so loose.
If there were some good reason for which I could not find people who I would trust as objective and competent outsiders, I'd tell the world my reasoning.
Replication efforts are fine; it just seems like that basic first step has been skipped. If this were some minor result, I could understand that. But this is more or less the future of the world. If I had a device which heated a room on 300 W input power, when the room typically required 1kW+ to be heated, I would be paying people to come look, because I'd know that if I could demonstrate my capability to an objective outside observer, I'd save the planet, become vastly wealthy, and win the Nobel Prize. I would feel confident that by having an outside objective observer team observe my device, I could bypass any number of (hypothetical) academic scientists worried about their funding.
Yes, this is an interesting train of thought (and a bit worrisome) about this whole event. I am not implying anything, just that I also do not understand the logic how this is unfolding.
My understanding is that Mizuno's lab was decimated by an earthquake. It has been mentioned that he has little to work with as much equipment was destroyed.
It is also an assumption that he is not a rich man as a Go Fund Me project was started for him. His willingness to publish instructions on his reactor would indicate that he is not paranoid about someone stealing his design, as many others in the field seem to be.
So, a man willing to share and in need of equipment and money.... I would think the logical perfect match would be a partnering with a group/company that has the funds available, allows him to replicate himself in his own lab to the satisfaction of the investors and then consult with an independent party for a third party replication. This would seem to be the best and possibly fastest way forward to bring this technology to production so that it could start doing real benefit to mankind.
It is known that some in the LENR field have claimed working reactors for many years, yet not willing to partner with nor able to convince a partner, we are years later with absolutely nothing to show for it. Claims are made, but nothing else. As Jed has stated, it will take a LOT of money to bring this field to fruition, if it ever is even possible. Jed has also clearly stated, that this is not easy, that it will take experts to replicate.
Not to criticize those attempting, but even if they are successful, it will be MUCH less convincing than an organized and managed team (such as the Google team, IH etc.) makes the replication. It is hard for me to figure out why this approach.
If Mizuno is able to run a reactor for months, heating his house, then he should be able to demo a reactor at will at his lab. I realize the attempt to do so at IH failed, but I would have thought they would have been open to visiting his facility. It seems reasonable that a group would rather spend a relative small amount of money, traveling to Japan and confirming an existing test setup, than the very expensive and time consuming task of starting from scratch.
So, a well established researcher with good reputation, but little money, sparse lab, unfavorable working conditions (all previously pointed out by others here) does not partner with a group that would willingly meet those needs? Also, he continues to "work" or improve on a reactor versus gaining world wide acceptance that it even functions?
I guess people think differently for sure!
Quotebut a battery powered LENR reactor with a 100:1 COP would be very useful in offgrid areas
where solar cells can be used to recharge the batteries.
This sort of thing makes me angry/upset because it is such crap. Seriously? Someone finds a reliable 3kW reactor with 10:1 power gain and the priority is to make it "useful in offgrid areas?" How dumb does it get? Such stupidity is a hallmark of frauds if it comes from the inventor. Fortunately, in this case, it's just from the peanut gallery.
QuoteIt is idiotic that people are persuaded by Mizuno's results even though they were not persuaded by McKubre or Miles. I guess they do not understand the concept of signal to noise ratio, or the fact that even a small effect that is widely replicated must be real. I do not understand why anyone held back and did not try to replicate after 1990, or why anyone paid attention to the editors of Nature. But that's a question of human nature, which is unfathomable. There was never any rational, science-based reason to doubt these results. It was always obvious that if the reaction could be controlled, it could be scaled up into a practical source of energy, and it was clear that methods of control were likely to exist.
A small effect that is replicated could be a replicated error. A large effect which is replicated is much less likely to be an error. I don't understand why you don't acknowledge that. It seems so obvious.
QuoteI do not understand why you are "troubled." All these years you have been demanding that scientists provide information and do open research. Here we have Mizuno actually giving people reactors and you suddenly feel "troubled."
Clearly you do not understand me. You rarely do because we think in very different ways. In addition to which, you never seem interested in understanding your critics before blasting them. Bad trait if you want respect and belief.
I am not lamenting that Mizuno gave reactors to others to test. That's great. If he really did. But so far, all we have as evidence of this are claims. That's true of all of Mizuno's work. I was concerned about it because nobody confirmed it and no results were available. How long does it take to try out, in a preliminary fashion, a working reactor, as a black box, which has a high power ratio and a high power input? And which lends itself to reasonably straightforward calorimetry, at least on a first look basis? What does it take? Two days? A week in a properly equipped lab. A decade or so ago, I had access to a lab that could have done such a test in a week. Easily. Given a working reactor that only needed a vacuum system and a power source. The only tricky part would have been a mass spec... if that's really required, that would have had to be borrowed... might take a week more to figure out. If the reactor was provided pumped out and sealed, maybe the extra components would not have been needed.
QuoteHe is always doing more work. Every scientist and artist I know works until he unable, or until he falls dead, the way Moses Soyer did.
To make sense, all of Mizuno's work should now be to have others see and verify his work, not to improve the reactor further.
JedRothwell 's attitude and what he seems to say Mizuno is doing do not inspire confidence when confidence is what is most required to move this thing forward. Like who gives a flying sh*t whether the "COP" is 10 or 20 at this point? Or the power 3kW or 5? What sense does "improving it" make? Work? sure. But not that sort of work.
be: "THH knows how to work out absorbed heat, but surprisingly forgot this initially when posting here. A good example of human fallibility".
Horseshit
THHnew has selective memory
THHnew forgot for a long time over many posts until I reminded him of his forgetfulness by showing him the correct formula.
he eventually conceded. (actually it took THHnew about an hour to do the calculations).
The fact is that THHnew never used the proper formula for all his overestimates of wall temperature eg 80C
because THHnew did not know it.
This forgetfulness is quite consistent with THHnew's newbie status in fluid mechanics.
"You are wrong about the re-radiation. That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps." THH
It remains to be seen whether THHnew can calculate the velocity profile
in the edge annulus of pipe flow using the thirty year old literature
