Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • What is it with this field and all the "secret" scientist! First Rossi was always bringing in "experts" that were never revealed. Then it is reported that important and respected "visitors" who were impressed were working on the AE project and yet a year later not a peep from any of them.


    Now this project has clandestine top notch secret scientist? Even Jed himself slightly criticized this approach a while back.


    What gives?


    Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone involved would voluntarily step forward, identify themselves, and tell us exactly what they are doing, who is paying them, and what they have seen. Unfortunately, that is not usually how the world works. Most of these scientists who get involved do not want to be associated with LENR, and those that do not care about that, tend to be publicity shy.


    So we have to be realistic in our expectations, and in this case thank our lucky stars Mizuno decided to do this the way he did. He *has* been as transparent to us as the language barrier, time zones, and his busy time constraints allow him. We should be thanking him, instead of nipping at his heels. Think about it; just 5 months ago he started seeing the big results in his lab, put his paper out only 2 months ago, directly answered some questions, and through Rothwell has answered many, many more...and we already have replications underway! Is that being "secret"?

    IMO, complaints about secrecy, and how some researchers disseminate, or tease us with information, are legitimate. However, Mizuno is not one of them. Had he handled this the way others you mention have, this would have taken years to get to the bottom of. Instead we will know soon.

  • I doubt the inlet orifice size matters . . . but then again I would not change it midway through a run! Don't block it. Leave everything alone. Calibrate, run, calibrate again.


    Blocking it might reduce the air speed slightly. Blocking it completely surely would.

    I am obviously not going to plug the inlet completely. The 5 cm hole will be compared to the larger rectangular hole.


    Clearly the large rectangular hole needs to be there in order to put the box over the experiment when the vacuum/ D2 tubing is connected. Whether that hole was plugged (leaving the 5 cm diameter hole open) after the cover was installed is not clear with the earlier published experiments.


    I don’t think that the inlet size per se will make a big difference (unless it is really restrictive), but the position of the holes may have some effect on the airflow path and therefore air heating efficiency.

  • Installed by me. A Sanwa WattChecker, $75.


    Are you meaning that you personally installed this wattmeter in the Mizuno's lab?

    In case, have you done it also for the 120 W tests held on May 2016?


    Quote

    These things are extremely reliable. The trick is to plug the meter into the wall, then plug the power supply into the meter, and then turn on the power supply without connecting it to anything. That gives you the minimum overhead for the power supply. It will consume somewhat more overhead power and produce more heat with high output, but you can ignore that. It is a reality check.


    In my opinion, expensive instruments should always be double-checked with modern, handheld digital instruments.


    I agree, these instruments provide a simple and reliable way to esteem the upper bound of the electrical power fed into the system.

    But then, why the values from this "reality check" have not been included in the spreadsheet of the 120 W active test held on May 19, 2016 (*)?


    (*) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Are you meaning that you personally installed this wattmeter in the Mizuno's lab?


    Yup. Even I can install this thing. You just unplug the power supply, put this in the wall and plug into it.


    Generally, you don't want me to monkey with anything in a lab more complicated than a pencil sharpener, but I can handle one of these meters.



    But then, why the values from this "reality check" have not been included in the spreadsheet of the 120 W active test held on May 19, 2016 (*)?


    I don't know how you could add that data, or where it would go, or what use it would be. The spreadsheet data is automatically collected from the HP A/D converter, with additional columns computed. The watt meter does not output data as far as I know. You just look at it from time to time.


  • Just some comments about this:


    (1) ambiguity on spreadsheet between what is calculated and what is measured is nothing new.

    (2) For the active test only, using V * I as power leaves open the possibility of significant under-reading of power, and hence over-estimation of COP. This is the old average rms vs true rms issue. The underestimation can be arbitrarily large, and could easily account for R19 results. For R20 a spikey waveform would be needed.

    (3) One mechanism for this would be a regulated PSU driving a higher current than specified, which therefore at higher output powers would have higher ripple and therefore higher true output power for the same V*I measured power.

    (4) This would also potentially explain the different heater giving better results, it could load the PSU differently, or be used at different voltages, however the R20 COP=6 is not as easily explained in this way.


    There are various tests that could be made to rule out this mechanism.


    Although Rossi has successfully used this issue to provide large false positive results I'm not suggesting any such mistake here, if it exists, is deliberate. But I wonder have checks ever been done to rule out significant AC component on the heater supply during the active tests? A full-rectified supply measured as av V * av I would provide pi^2/16 reduction in input - enough for R19 results. To obtain COP = 6 for R20 results you would need a triode switched supply that was very spiky, and I doubt that here - it would tend to give higher pseudo-COP at lower power. But this is a loophole that needs to be closed esp for R19.

  • There are various tests that could be made to rule out this mechanism.


    It is ruled out using various digital watt meters, including the $75 one I added, and another that cost $16,000.


    It is also ruled out by doing calibrations. Especially at low power they recover nearly all of the heat in the air; very little is lost from the calorimeter box walls. If the power was being significantly under-read by the instruments, the calibrations would show false excess heat. That never happens. They always show a deficit.


    Finally, this is ordinary DC power going into a resistance heater. There could not be anything easier to read with confidence, or less likely to be wrong. Electricity can be measured with more accuracy and precision than any other force of nature. It is conceivable there is a problem reading complex waveforms, but not this.

  • It is also ruled out by doing calibrations. Especially at low power they recover nearly all of the heat in the air; very little is lost from the calorimeter box walls. If the power was being significantly under-read by the instruments, the calibrations would show false excess heat. That never happens. They always show a deficit.

    Except when the recovery shows 99%, which is more likely at least a little bit of false excess heat.


    I agree that any major error (if there is one) is not likely be found on the input side.

  • It is ruled out using various digital watt meters, including the $75 one I added, and another that cost $16,000.


    It is also ruled out by doing calibrations. Especially at low power they recover nearly all of the heat in the air; very little is lost from the calorimeter box walls. If the power was being significantly under-read by the instruments, the calibrations would show false excess heat. That never happens. They always show a deficit.


    Finally, this is ordinary DC power going into a resistance heater. There could not be anything easier to read with confidence, or less likely to be wrong. Electricity can be measured with more accuracy and precision than any other force of nature. It is conceivable there is a problem reading complex waveforms, but not this.


    Jed - you are aware of the problems got using V and I inputs averaged over 24 seconds if there is any ripple on the supply? You remember this issue?


    The question is then how can you be sure that under the different conditions of the active test there is no such ripple?


    By checking with a wattmeter, obviously. Checking at other times is better than nothing, but leaves open the possibility of ripple that only occurs under untested conditions. You'd need to be sure ripple had been measured under the specific test conditions. We have no wattmeter data for these active tests.


    Normally, I'd not expect any problem with DC supplies. But I could never rule it out. For example a supply with a variable current limit could have that set wrong - even could be used in current limiting mode where the output is much less stable. There is no way this would be obvious to anyone doing the experiment.


    Your statement about electricity is true - but in this case electricity was not measured as needed - a DC average over 24 seconds was measured - not enough.

  • Jed - you are aware of the problems got using V and I inputs averaged over 24 seconds if there is any ripple on the supply? You remember this issue?


    The question is then how can you be sure that under the different conditions of the active test there is no such ripple?


    How likely is that to happen with an ordinary resistance heater? What could possibly be significantly "different conditions" in this test? A resistance heater does not know whether it is placed in an active cell or non-active one, or an empty one. It works the same way in all situations. Be realistic, please. Stop speculating about imaginary ripple conditions that last for 111 days continuously.


    As I said, it is conceivable there could be some difference with something like complex waveforms going into electrolysis, or the Brillouin gadget. But this is an ordinary heater operating at a set power level. It is not going to suddenly produce 300 W instead of 50 W, in a way that no one can detect and that does not register on the various watt meters used to confirm the input power.



    a DC average over 24 seconds was measured - not enough.


    All of the values are measured 20,000 times per second. But, in fact, if it were only measured once every 24 seconds, I am sure that would be enough. This is very stable power. If you don't think one reading every 24 seconds that would be enough, I suggest you do a test. Show us significant errors caused by measuring power once every 24 s going into a resistance heater. Show us how this could make 50 W look like 300 W, or vice versa. You make one impossible assertion after another. You never give any proof, and you never test your own ideas. I suggest you try doing this. You can do this easily with a $75 watt meter. Plug it to any room heater set for 500 W (the lowest setting). Have it record the energy (watt-hours). Every 24 seconds, look at it, and write down the instantaneous power level, which will be very close to 500 W, and invariant. After 10 minutes or so, turn it off, read out the total energy, and then see if it is significantly different from your instantaneous power readings multiplied by 24 seconds each. I guarantee you will not find an error large enough to explain Mizuno's results, or anyone else's results.


    You dismiss results with nonsensical statements such as "not enough" in this context, when anyone who has ever watched a power meter attached to a resistance heater knows that writing down the power once every 24 seconds is more than enough. Who are you trying to fool? Yourself? Why introduce such nonsense into a serious scientific discussion? What is the point? Did you even stop and think about what you were saying here? Why wouldn't it be "enough"?

  • Yes, I expect that maybe 90% heat recovery seems reasonable. So when we see 99% recovery, what is the main suspect for the extra 9% ?


    At 50 W, recovery is 95% with this calorimeter. See Fig. 3.


    99% recovery would indicates some excess heat. But how about then the air temperature alone indicates 150 W excess, as shown in Fig. 6? That is even more compelling. That is before adjusting for the losses from the calorimeter box walls. THH and his handwaving cannot explain that (or any other major cold fusion result for that matter). I know that THH will say that is a one-off result because it is the only R20 results in this paper. He ignores that fact that there 111 days of R19 data in Table 1 with results almost as dramatic as this, in many cases with far more heat recovered in the air temperature alone than input power, and no need to adjust for losses from the walls. The most recent result in my computer with more heat captured in the air temperature than input power was from July 19, 2019, a few weeks ago.


    There is no point to fretting about the recovery rate when there is more heat captured in the air temperature than in input power. If you want to pretend the calorimeter is magic and it does not lose any heat from the walls, go ahead. Ignore Fig. 3. There is still massive excess heat!

  • We have output-side errors for that from the airflow measurement: up to 18%, though more likely less than 10%.


    We do not have any such errors. That is complete bullshit. If there were such errors, they would show in the calibrations, and they would stand out Fig. 4. You made up that number out of whole cloth, just as you just now invented the nonsense about how measuring power once every 24 seconds to a resistance heater is "not enough." You are flat out wrong. Anyone can do a simple test and see it is enough. Not to mention the fact that it is actually measured 20,000 times a second, and the average value is recorded.


    Don't play dumb about the 20,000 value average. Don't say "Jed did not tell us that." Anyone familiar with A/D devices made in the last 40 years knows damn well they measure many times a second and record an average.

  • At 50 W, recovery is 95% with this calorimeter. See Fig. 3.


    99% recovery would indicates some excess heat. But how about then the air temperature alone indicates 150 W excess, as shown in Fig. 6? That is even more compelling. That is before adjusting for the losses from the calorimeter box walls. THH and his handwaving cannot explain that (or any other major cold fusion result for that matter). I know that THH will say that is a one-off result because it is the only R20 results in this paper. He ignores that fact that there 111 days of R19 data in Table 1 with results almost as dramatic as this, in many cases with far more heat recovered in the air temperature alone than input power, and no need to adjust for losses from the walls. The most recent result in my computer with more heat captured in the air temperature than input power was from July 19, 2019, a few weeks ago.


    There is no point to fretting about the recovery rate when there is more heat captured in the air temperature than in input power. If you want to pretend the calorimeter is magic and it does not lose any heat from the walls, go ahead. Ignore Fig. 3. There is still massive excess heat!

    Based on the present calculations, at 50 W recovery is 95%, with that calorimeter.

    Based on empirical testing by the manufacturer of the fan used for the older tests, that fan reportedly pushed more SCFM than the fan is capable of by about 25%.

  • That is not just based on present calculations. That was measured repeatedly in calibrations with different sized reactors, as shown in Fig. 3.

    I don’t disbelieve you. However, for example, maybe there is an undetected error that “loses” 10 W, and some other error that adds 10W so everything appears to square up at 95%. How do you know the difference?


    Do you have a data example, and the exact calculations used available for a couple of the 50W calibrations? (I’m fine with some sort of reasonable average of measurements from a larger data set)

  • We do not have any such errors. That is complete bullshit. If there were such errors, they would show in the calibrations, and they would stand out Fig. 4. You made up that number out of whole cloth, just as you just now invented the nonsense about how measuring power once every 24 seconds to a resistance heater is "not enough." You are flat out wrong. Anyone can do a simple test and see it is enough. Not to mention the fact that it is actually measured 20,000 times a second, and the average value is recorded.


    Don't play dumb about the 20,000 value average. Don't say "Jed did not tell us that." Anyone familiar with A/D devices made in the last 40 years knows damn well they measure many times a second and record an average.


    Jed, my reason for these output-side errors is:


    (1) The anenometer is specified +/- 8%. That gives you an inherent 8% error in airflow. Calibration does not help because the context here is measuring calorimeter efficiency.

    (2) The -10% is a reasonable bound for edge effects. -5% is more likely. But there must be such effects. I've bounded them If you want a tighter bound support it remembering you have not measured the outer 3mm of airflow.


    I think you are misunderstanding this, the output-side calibration absolute error has only the effect of making the actual efficiency up to 18% lower than that calculated. If the calibration and active runs have the same efficiency this error cancels out. I've not yet seen your evidence that bounds difference in efficiency for the two differently placed, sized and colored reactors.


    The rest of your post relates to input-side issues. Let me ask you: how can these 24 sec averages detect ac ripple on the DC supply (say at most likely 50Hz, but could be a much higher frequency from a switching supply)?


    How can you prove there is no significant ripple? I agree there should not be from lab bench PSUs used normally, but that in this case is not good enough without real measurements. Did you do this in the active runs, or under identical conditions?


    Anyone familiar with A/D devices made in the last 40 years knows damn well they measure many times a second and record an average.

    You must be misunderstanding something. That is what I'm saying, which is why the V*I calculation (from the averaged values) is wrong if there is any ripple.

  • The rest of your post relates to input-side issues. Let me ask you: how can these 24 sec averages detect ac ripple on the DC supply (say at most likely 50Hz, but could be a much higher frequency from a switching supply)?


    How can you prove there is no significant ripple? I agree there should not be from lab bench PSUs used normally, but that in this case is not good enough without real measurements. Did you do this in the active runs, or under identical conditions?


    Do you think that a $16,000 power meter would not detect this? Is that really what you are saying? Or even a $75 watt meter? They agree with the HP A/D gadget to within something like 0.0001%, as I recall.


    How hard do you imagine it is to check for things like this? Have you ever actually measured electric power? Do you think Mizuno and I are complete idiots, or what? Your questions are absurd.




    (1) The anenometer is specified +/- 8%. That gives you an inherent 8% error in airflow


    Look at Fig. 4. Does that look like an 8% error, or spread? Evidently, multiple readings narrow the error margin, as often happens.

  • I don't know how you could add that data, or where it would go, or what use it would be. The spreadsheet data is automatically collected from the HP A/D converter, with additional columns computed. The watt meter does not output data as far as I know. You just look at it from time to time.


    So, I understand that the portable wattmeter you plugged into the wall is a "third check" of the "Input power", the other two being the product V/DC*I/DC and the wired instrument, probably another wattmeter, connected with the HP A/D converter, which provides the data listed in the "Input power" column of the Mizuno's spreadsheets. Can you confirm this?


    If this is the case, the main question is why the measured data from the wired wattmeter, which should have appeared on the spreadsheet of the 120 W active test, were instead substituted by the values obtained by multiplying V/DC and I/DC (*)?


    Can you figure out the possible implications of such a substitution?


    (*) Mizuno reports increased excess heat