For this you would need to know some un-patented details...
One detail is that his calorimeter heat recovery could easily be improved 20%, and almost another 10% with a bit of work, which would reduce the uncertainty caused by calorimeter heat almost never reaching or exceeding input power levels because it physically can’t.
In the Mizuno system, the excess heat is reported to start immediately as the temperature increases from the Joule heater in active experiments. The ratio of excess heat to intentional Joule heat is almost constant once begun.
I tested the calorimeter design, and it works fair. I still don’t like the proportional heat curve shown in the experiments.
R20 appears very similar to the LEC in my mind .
R20 appears very similar to the LEC in my mind .
I would think that a LEC-like effect is too subtle for the Mizuno calorimeter to detect.
i wasn't aware you used Mizuno calorimeter for LEC detection ?
I only expected that Mizuno's R20 and LEC are running on the same path, the beta decay.
i wasn't aware you used Mizuno calorimeter for LEC detection ?
I only expected that Mizuno's R20 and LEC are running on the same path, the beta decay.
Perhaps, but then Mizuno must have the reaction rate (or something) improved by many orders of magnitude over the LEC design in order to make 100's of kWh of heat
Nobody has done any calorimetry with a LEC AFAIK. The electrical output is from the first systems is only nano-watts, so the heat would be hard to see. But electrical measurement is probably simpler and more sensitive than calorimetry in this case.
However i don't find at which temperature these XSH
Btw 200C and 400C is my guess..
however the R&D with Miura may now be looking not just at temp...
but also composition ... other variables
Thank you robert bryant
So we can see clearly a temperature dependance for XSH.
Mizuno reached 400° according to this chart, we can imagine higher results if temperature should be closer to Iwamura temperature reactor.
[attach='19829','aucun','true'][/attach]
Btw 200C et 400C est ma conjecture ..
cependant, la R&D avec Miura ne regarde peut-être plus seulement la température...
mais composition... autres variables
There has been another successful replication by a third party Japanese publicly traded company. They are working on the final report now, and when done it will be posted here on the forum. Not sure what reactor, but results were 644W input/764W output.
644W input/764W output
Joke ...
644W input/764W output.
I think the significant figures are questionable
just +/- 5% would make the result 640 760
I think the significant figures are questionable
just +/- 5% would make the result 640 760
Here is a little more:
644W input/764W total heat or about 12.4% XH. 80W absolute XH. max. Standard Deviation on input power was 3.2W and on Temperature was 0.2C.
644W input/764W total heat or about 12.4% XH. 80W absolute XH. max.
I think describing it as 12.4% is the wrong approach. The absolute value of excess power is more important than the percent. 120 W excess power is easy to measure even with high input power. As I have often said, input power is not noise. It is very easy to measure and subtract from the total. Depending on the calorimeter, you might have difficulty measuring output power to within a few percent, but input power from resistance heating can be measured with confidence to within a fraction of 1%.
Granted, if this were the difference between 12,800 W and 12,920 then subtracting the input power would be more tricky.
Anyway, it is great news! It will be a considerable relief to me personally if this pans out.
The absolute value of excess power is more important than the percent.
In an experiment, I mean. For a real world application it would be important to lower the input power. The difference between 644 W and 764 W can be measured with high confidence, but it would preclude any practical use for the device.
I doubt this is a long-term problem. If they can control the effect, I expect they can lower input power to the point where it makes little difference. We sometimes forget that practical generators and motors have high overhead energy, from friction and low Carnot efficiency. If someone could make a cold fusion device with 250 W input and 1,000 W output, I think it could be made into a practical generator without much trouble. It would produce a lot of waste heat. It would be inefficient and bulky. I doubt you could use it for an automobile engine, given the additional losses from low Carnot efficiency and mechanical friction. But I think it could be used for generator. I think it would also be good for a small, low powered thermoelectric device, perhaps for something like a cell phone. Maybe not? Maybe it would be too hot for your pocket? Certainly it would be good for a space-based generator, a robot on Mars, or a railroad crossing signal and gate in Alaska. (People use natural gas-fired thermoelectric devices for railroad crossings in northern climates, rather than photovoltaics.)
Standard Deviation on input power was 3.2W
two SD 6.4 .. /644 = 1% ... pretty good... but 640/ 760 is probably a better round
I think describing it as 12.4% is the wrong approach. The absolute value of excess power is more important than the percent.
Looking at it in the other direction, 1.00 W of input and 1.12 W output would be difficult to measure. Much harder than 640 W to 760 W.
Of course it depends on the calorimeter. 120 mW excess would look gigantic with a microcalorimeter.
i think it's not useful to restart some potential boring controversy about calorimetry.
I think Mizuno's XSH are real , here is only one more confirmation.
Now, i don't expect some evolvement about the process mastery or real understanding of what is happening.
However we have to remain positive.
Looking at it in the other direction, 1.00 W of input and 1.12 W output would be difficult to measure. Much harder than 640 W to 760 W.
Of course it depends on the calorimeter. 120 mW excess would look gigantic with a microcalorimeter.
Now, i don't expect some evolvement about the process mastery or real understanding of what is happening.
A reliable method of producing significant heat could be a tremendous help. It might be used to master the process or develop a real understanding. It is awfully difficult to master the process when you have to spend all your time just trying to make it work once in ten experiments.
It could help. It is necessary, but not sufficient. You also need skill, and luck.
You also need skill, and luck
and money...lots of it
other techniques apart from calorimetry are even more expensive
a HPGe spec will set you back >$75000
https://www.ipen.br/biblioteca/cd/ieee/2004/DATA/1N33C-074.PDF
Joke ...
What exactly is the joke? Please explain.
