Oh Jesus! Rossi is already trying to take credit for this through his sock puppets.
What is next, Rossi suing Mizuno and Jed for revealing his IP?
Modestino
Dr Rossi:
After your publication http://www.researchgate.ner/pu…nge_particle_interactions the replication of your effect are multiplying:
Modestino
It is modestino who is being immodest as well as sycophantic.
but publicity wherever is a plus.. I may drop the UBC a people a line
about Mizuno, also Staker
when is the date for official publication of these papers?
Display MoreThis is wrong for three reasons:
1. This error would overestimate the heat. At low power calibrations, the apparent heat would be more than the input power. It is always less than input.
2. Mizuno confirms the airspeed by measuring the time it takes for smoke to clear from the box, as described in the first paper.
3. The estimates of heat losses from walls are not simply input power minus air-flow measurements. They are confirmed by various other methods. You can do this yourself, with the information in the first paper, plus the R-rating of the insulation, which you will find at the website for Home Depot. In other words, we know approximately how much heat is not captured in the flow, and we know the remainder that is captured is about equal to what the flow calorimetry measures.
You are looking for ways to explain a problem that does not exist. The data and the cross-checking confirm the flow rate is correct. If there were a problem, it would make sense for you to look for the cause, but there is no problem.
Ok, so as my swansong here before a bit of a break I'll just pursue this a bit.
(1) The Reynolds number calculation is definite.
(2) The fact that average speed < max speed is definite, and the difference is of order of 20% for turbulent flow, and 50% for laminar flow. Specifically:
The velocity profile for laminar flow is the well-known parabolic form
u(r)/umax=2(1-r^2/R^2)
The resulting average velocity is one half of the maximum velocity
uav/umax=0.5
For turbulent pipe flow among the numerous empirical velocity profiles, the simplest and the best known is the power-law velocity profile expressed as
u(r)/umax=(1-r/R)^1/n
where R is the pipe radius and n is a parameter (exponent) which depends of the Reynolds number i.e. n=n(Re).
An empirical approximation of this dependence can be expressed as
n(Re)=c·ln(Re)
where c=0.62 for Re≤2·Re^5 and c=0.65 for Re>2·Re^5
Based on this approach on obtained the following relationship between the average velocity and maximum velocity for turbulent flow
uav/umax=2n^2/(n+1)(2n+1)
It is to mention that
-the value n=7 is applicable to a wide range of pipe flows and is the one commonly used resulting uav/umax=0,817
For a better reference: http://www.itcmp.pwr.wroc.pl/~…bulent_flow_Modelling.pdf
Section 2.1
From which we get the empirical value of n = 5.3 (Re=10,000) and uAv/uMax = 0.77 for Re=10,000.
Alternate approximation (for Re = 10,000), using f = (100Re)^-0.25
Umax ≈ V(1+1.33 sqrt(f)) = V*(1 + 1.33/sqrt((100Re)^0.25)
V = (1/(1+UMax * 0.81
So we get a average mean velocity (and hence power) is 81% or 77% (depending on which approximation is used) of the measured centre of pipe mean velocity
For lower Re (and we can go down to 6800 at 2m/s, or lower at high temperatures, this number will be smaller.
| T | density | dynamic viscosity | change in Re ~ rho / mu |
| 25 | 1.18 | 18.37 | 1 |
| 100 | 0.947 | 21.7 | 0.68 |
The temperature correction for 100C relative to 25C decreases Re to 68% of its previous value. The change in V relative to UMax from this comes from:
Re' = 0.68 Re
f' = 1.10f
V'= 0.99V
OK this correction is very small due to the relative insensitivity of average velocity on Re.
So, given this, and given that Re ranges from 4000 - 12,000 (worst case) unless air temp is very high, the correction factor here does not change more than 2% over the range as long as air velocity > 2 m/s, T < 100C.
I think my previous post using the f calculation was not quite right, as I said then, but these calculations are now all consistent and show the effect (significant) and its dependence on T an V (not significant).
If as Jed says he has accurate data showing that V/UMax ~ 100% here then we have an inconsistency. But the overall heat loss calculation in this system is more complex than the relatively well known difference between centre mean and average mean velocity on pipe turbulent flow.
Working out flowrate from smoke travel speed will not be accurate because again flow rate through a duct will vary across the duct, and only the true average will be correct.
I'm still not considering the R20 results until that sample result is replaced by comprehensive testing. If the sample data is correct then R20 will unlock $100M + from IH etc etc, and careful testing becomes irrelevant.
THH
"We don't need people who would ignore these results. Better they should ignore them. If "most people" are so stupid they would ignore 50 W in, 300 W out, that's good, let's hope they ignore it, because they would be a nuisance to deal with. We only need people who are smart enough to realize that "working without input" is a trivial engineering problem that should be dealt with later, in a properly equipped engineering facility."
I can hardly wait for the trivial engineering problem to be solved. There will be a lot of red faces around then! Any idea how long it might be?
But, it's not that people are so stupid that they don't understand the importance of 50 W in, 300 W out. It's a question of confidence in the claims. Those who were once bitten by a much larger ratio claimed by Rossi, that never led to the trivial "working without input" solution, are twice shy of subsequent claims. The point is that with zero input, opportunities for errors are greatly diminished.
"You seem to imagine this is some sort of well equipped laboratory in a properly funded scientific project."
No, I'm just wondering why he has no fear of optimizing the fuel, but is afraid of increasing the insulation. The dangers are the same, and if anything, adding insulation is a more predictable exercise.
Ok, so as my swansong here before a bit of a break I'll just pursue this a bit.
(1) The Reynolds number calculation is definite.
I do not know whose Reynold's number calculation you refer to, but Mizuno's Reynold's number calculation in the unpublished paper shows it is FAR above the textbook numbers where turbulent flows begin. Way above. So the flow is quite turbulent. That was deliberate. As I said, Mizuno seems to have consulted with an expert, or he read a textbook. Turbulent means well mixed.
Nickel 200 twill wire mesh, 0.055 x 180 mesh size, size 200 mm x 300 mm, 5 sheets
Oops. I misunderstood this. Here is an image of the invoice detail line:
Text:
ニッケル200 綾織金網 0.055Ｘ180mesh 200X300 5枚
Let me insert commas. Meaning:
Nickel 200, twill wire mesh, 0.055 x 180 mesh, 200 x 300, 5 sheets
You see in the original that "Nickel" and "200" are run together: ニッケル200. But words are usually run together in Japanese. So are: "180mesh" and "5枚" (5 sheets).
Apparently, that means Nickel-200 in a 180 mesh. Nickel-200 is 99.6% nickel. It is described here:
Ok, so as my swansong
Please don't leave for long.
Your fluid mechanics expertise is essential on this forum.
As I said, Mizuno seems to have consulted with an expert
The selection of pipes sizes and the fan speed are not random
I am sure that selection of the air calorimeter dimensions has
been done with the aid of mechanical engineering expertise from
the University in Sapporo to ensure turbulence.
No, I'm just wondering why he has no fear of optimizing the fuel, but is afraid of increasing the insulation. The dangers are the same, and if anything, adding insulation is a more predictable exercise.
If you decide to do this experiment, let me know. I will stay far, far away.
I’m curious as to why Mizuno is still working in such dilapidated conditions. Surely there is some spare space at a university that would be honored to host him and or why hasn’t IH, Google, etc offered to fund him for a meager amount to continue his work in better accommodations.
Would the replicators of his work not offer assistance as well?
If they will not step up to the plate perhaps an additional crowdfunding is in order.
I’m curious as to why Mizuno is still working in such dilapidated conditions.
That's a stupid question. Do you also wonder why poor people sleep under bridges?
Surely there is some spare space at a university that would be honored to host him
Honored?!? Is that supposed to be a joke? I suggest you read about the history of cold fusion. Start with Beaudette's book. Universities do not "honor" professors who try to study cold fusion. They harass them. They accuse them of fraud and criminality. They do all they can to fire them, or have them deported. At China Lake they banned Miles from the labs and assign him a menial stockroom job. He was a Distinguished Fellow of the lab, meaning someone who can study any subject, but he wasn't allowed to use a telephone after he published a positive cold fusion result. Professors at MIT opposed to cold fusion called the newspapers and accused the researchers of criminal fraud. Other professors dump horse manure in the experiments. When researchers go on vacation, opponents come and take away the equipment and lab notebooks and dump them in the trash, as happened in Italy recently.
Academic politics are vicious. They are no-holds barred fights. Opponents are determined to prevent any research. They say it is because this is fraudulent science, but I suspect it is because they want to protect their funding. Whatever the reason, not only do they fire people who do the research, they say they will "root out and fire" anyone who so much as talks about it. That's what Robert Park promised a large crowd at the APS. They cheered and gave him a standing ovation. I was there.
. . . and or why hasn’t IH, Google, etc offered to fund him for a meager amount to continue his work in better accommodations.
You would have to ask them.
Would the replicators of his work not offer assistance as well?
If they will not step up to the plate perhaps an additional crowdfunding is in order.
Mizuno and I strongly feel that the only solution to this problem is to have many people replicate this experiment -- or some other experiment. We must overwhelm the opposition with scientific proof. If that does not happen, the opponents will win, and cold fusion will be forgotten when we die. Frankly, there isn't much time left. People who replicate need not offer any assistance. They just need to publish their results and encourage others to replicate.
Our goal in publishing this was to encourage replications. That's what the Abstract says, and that is what we mean.
I am confident that IF 5 or 10 people replicate, then 20 or 30, then in a chain reaction 100, then thousands replicate, the opposition will fade away. If that happens money will fall out of the sky and Mizuno's problems will be over. "If," I say. I am not at all confident that will happen. Based on the history of cold fusion, I expect there will be some small number of botched replication attempts. We will never know whether they botched it, or whether Mizuno's own work was wrong. That is the usual outcome in this field. I think it is unlikely that a person skilled in the art in a properly equipped lab will attempt to replicate this. I doubt there are any labs that would allow that. But, there is always hope.
Here are a few questions that come to mind.
1) Why does the paper not give results of a test done with light hydrogen instead of deuterium? I think a comparison should be made in the paper of a test with deuterium and a test with light hydrogen. This is an OBVIOUS question and the first one that stood out. Especially, since he stated in a previous paper, that hydrogen can work too.
2) The by hand application of palladium onto the nickel mesh leaves too many variables. For example, the percentage of the mesh that actually becomes coated with palladium. Even if 50mg is removed from the palladium rod, that could be over only 50% of the mesh, hypothetically. He needs to examine the mesh with a microscope (maybe a cheap USB one would do) and make an analysis of how well the mesh is covered. Different people will rub the palladium onto the mesh differently and might apply the 50mg of palladium over a lesser area of the mesh, yielding different results. We need more detailed information on palladium coverage.
3) I'd suggest he publish the results of a run where he places the mesh around a turning drum powered by a small electric motor and uses a mechanical bracket to hold the palladium rod stationary against the mesh. I believe this could assist with achieving an even and more full covering of the mesh with palladium. Obviously, the mesh would need to be removed and flipped over so palladium could be deposited on the opposite side. I believe this would improve performance.
4) Has he looked at the mesh with a microscope (even a cheap one) after an extended run to determine if there are any changes in its appearance? Any evidence of micro-explosions or transmutations?
5) The paper doesn't make it clear why using higher pressures is not a good idea. Has a test with atmospheric pressure deuterium in the device yielded null results?
6) What is the brand and product number of the heater? What kind of heating element does it utilize? For example, is the heating element a solenoid that would produce a greater magnetic field than a heating element in the shape of a straight rod?
7) What can you tell us about the type of power that is fed into the heating element? What sort of power supply are you using? What kind of power does the heating element receive, AC or DC and what hertz? What is the voltage? What is the current?
Here's another test that comes to mind. Palladium is a very good reverse spillover catalyst. However, nickel nano-particles can work in the same way, although perhaps with less effectiveness. I wonder if there would be any excess heat if he abrasively applied a bar of nickel to the nickel mesh?
Our goal in publishing this was to encourage replications
Replications first.. demonstrating 300W output.. with 50W input
These are the priority
D2 appears to be the best gas.. Wyttenbach suggests that H2 may induce deleterious transmutation in the
reactor base.
After replications.. finance is not a problem
and there are plenty of $ and humans willing then
to do variations on the theme
Yes, sounds like BG is gearing up to replicate. Not sure he is actually part of MFMP now? If not, maybe they could get back together for this one project. Would love to see Magic, Matthew, the Hunts, on it. This has gotten a lot of attention (Barty put out an email blast today) in the short time since made public, and my guess is that there are already many thinking of jumping on this. As already mentioned by someone else, I could see starting a crowdfunding effort for a volunteer group which looks solid enough to take on the task.
As the paper states, they are available to help others trying to replicate, so all someone interested has to do is ask. Very nice of them, and a golden opportunity not seen often, if at all, in LENR land. At the least, I would hope the IH team would take them up on the offer. It is free, no strings attached, and may make the difference between good lab results, and the market, so I do not see why not?
Jed,
If you want people to apply the palladium in the exact same manner as Mizuno, then we really need a video so people can copy his hand motions.
One person did it already, and it seems to work.
Do you think it possible this person could -anonymously if necessary, show us his results?
Display MoreI'd suggest you follow instructions and do it the way Mizuno recommends. Then, if it works, bring on your turning drum, mechanical brackets and marching bands. I suspect that someone who starts off with turning drums will botch the experiment, because he thinks he knows better than the original researcher. There were many failed attempts to replicate cold fusion in 1989 done by know-it-all people who thought they knew better than Martin Fleischmann.
I commented on this at Vortex:
I hope many people try to replicate, because based on my experience, most who try to replicate will screw up. Typically, you find out years later they did their own version which was nothing like the original. I am just making up a pretend example here . . . but the paper says keep the pressure between 100 and 300 Pa. Some know-it-all guy will say: "This is gas loading, so we need high pressure. Make it 30 atm!" Which is 3 million Pa. It won't work. He'll tell the world, "This is a fraud! It doesn't work" but he won't reveal any details of his experiment, so we will never find out he got a critical parameter wrong by a factor of 10,000.
I can feel that happening! Right now! Some nitwit out there is getting ready to do this wrong, despite weeks of our efforts to provide clear instructions. So I hope enough people do it according to the instructions that some of them will succeed. But you never know.
One person did it already, and it seems to work.
I'd also like to add that unless we have details on the area of the mesh that is actually full coated with the palladium particles, the weight reduction of the palladium rod because in adequate. Even if someone does manually apply the rod to the mesh, he or she is likely to achieve a different percentage of coverage (in terms of area) and if you broke down the mesh into a grid of squares, the pattern of coverage would be different. I simply believe that with a drum technique you could more likely achieve full coverage.
Did Mizuno ever do a test with light hydrogen in these reactors?
