Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from JedRothwell

See pages 5 - 7 and Figs. 5, 6 and 7. It is something of a mystery to me why you would accept results in a table from one reactor, but reject graphs from another reactor, when they were both tested in the same calorimeter. How could it be the calorimeter can measure a 45% excess heat reaction but not a 500% reaction? The latter is easier to measure with confidence, not harder. Do you seriously think at 10 deg C temperature difference might be an instrument artifact?

My guess is that you are grasping at straws trying to come up with reasons to reject the results. That's what you always do.

See the ICCF21 paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf

The ICCF21 paper went through months of peer-review which was better than Nature provides. I have seen comments by Nature reviewers and editors. They are . . . unimpressive.

Note also that I had corporate training at a major U.S. company and decades of experience writing technical manuals, which is as demanding as writing journal papers. So I know a thing or two about presenting information. This paper reads more like an instruction manual than a scientific journal paper. That was deliberate.

Not to blow my own horn, but I think this paper was more informative and it has more scientific information than the recent Google research paper in Nature. I think I know how to do this better than Nature's editors. Granted, that isn't saying much.

Display More

Thanks for that, Jed. Beg to differ over professionalism of write-up. It may seem to you a game, but communication is often that, and matters.

Ok, actually I did not note properly the R20 results. I still cannot say much about these. They are billed as sample results and only impressive because of the comparison with the control. Unfortunately we do not have enough information to evaluate this.

If the control and the rest of the setup is identical I agree these results are impressive. That is likely not true.

You can see that the active graph from Figure 5 takes some time to reach its final value, presumably due to stuff heating up. The control graph is flat. No heat-up. We need much more information about how this control is made.

Re the previous paper - please see my note about the velocity profile measurements. If the probe is small then my point is exactly as stated - proof of at least 36% that assumed. of course it will be more, but no way to know how much more, and the amount will vary with speed of flow a lot. These measurements are useless - and proper peer review would pick that up.

More to the point, if the calorimetry is not working correctly, how do you explain results such as the 50 W calibration? Quoting the paper "Over 24 hours, average input electric power was 50.6 W. An average of 46.6 W of heat was captured in the stream of air. After taking into account heat losses from the calorimeter walls, the average was 50.5 W." Do you think that is a coincidence? It just happened to be within 0.1 W? There are many other calibrations at other power levels. This is first-principle calorimetry. In other words, if the air flow is measured incorrectly, the results will be wrong. It does not depend on a calibration, although a calibration does confirm it.

If calibrations do not prove the instrument is working correctly, what would? How can anyone prove anything, if we don't believe calibrations?

Jed - if you read my original post properly you will see that I agreed either calibration or direct calculation (first principle calorimetry) could be enough to make this safe. I'm OK with calibration only, though I'd rather both. But for calibration you need exactly the same conditions guaranteed between calibration and active tests. For first principle calorimetry you need safe measurements.

Now in the original paper the results were too small for possible differences to be ignored.

The new paper has much better results. But these are quantitative (R19) based on we do not know what, and the quantitative measurements referenced (e.g. airflow profile) prove nothing. Or they are referenced to a control (R20) but it is unclear what is the methodology or differences between the two cases. That would need tying down. perhaps wait till we have definite, rather than sample, results before analysing R20.

All I want is one precise description of tests that show these replicable +50% results and how they were obtained. should not be difficult if they are real, but has not yet been done.

The merit of this +50% is that with this calorimeter (and some care) both first principle results and calibrated results should be easily safe and prove large amounts of excess heat well beyond anything expected. Two different methods doing this provides better integrity. But, as shown in the second paper, neither method is proven.

I'm wondering if by adding an insulation layer to the reactor one could model the heat exchange coefficient such that it resambles air flow cooling although water

is cooling at the outside.

Jed, you are not precise in reading what I say and answering it.

Are you sure it is "likely not true" that conditions are identical? Why would they be different? Or, let me put it this way: Can you suggest a way that would make the conditions more identical than this? How would you do this experiment?

I don't think surity exists with this write-up? You are asking me am I sure about how much I'm not sure? LOL. I've given my reasons: exact conditions of control versus active not stated, and, from graphs, time scale does not match, because active shows heat-up, control appears to have already heated up.

Did you read the first paper?

Yes, I did, some time ago. But now we are discussing the second paper, and we cannot assume the methodology for R20 sample tests was identical to that previously used.

As I mentioned, I was trained in technical writing and translation at Cornell and at a major corporation, and I made a very good living programming and writing. I have written newspaper and magazine articles on various subjects in both English and Japanese, beginning when I was in college. I have edited roughly 200 papers for the JCMNS. So I guess that makes me a professional.

Jed, I respect you as a good and professional writer, not as a professional scientist experienced at writing stuff that can be published in high impact western journals. That is no criticism. It is tough.

Quote from stefan

I'm wondering if by adding an insulation layer to the reactor one could model the heat exchange coefficient such that it resambles air flow cooling although water

is cooling at the outside.

The basic principle of this calorimeter is good: as Jed has pointed out it provides ab initio (first principle) calculation of heat output with relatively small losses (maybe 20%). It can also quite easily be calibrated.

However there is a bit of work needed to do either of these things safely.

Hi All,

Why bashing Rossi for taking too long, while applauding Mizuno who has been studying and commencing in experiments in LENR since the end of last century?

Cheers,

JB

Quote from we_cat_global

Hi All,

Why bashing Rossi for taking too long, while applauding Mizuno who has been studying and commencing in experiments in LENR since the end of last century?

Cheers,

JB

Display More

Because Mizuno does not lie about his progress, and does not make spoofed demos?

I'm again

I would like to know if Mizuno tested directly 3 Ni layers or one by one ?

Why only 3 ?

It should be nice to know XH correlation with number of layers rather than specific surface .

Thanks again for this Lenr research contribution .

Great news and remarkable simple method.

Even with the current described nickel mesh preparation I would expect that with the first run with Deuterium gas at 100 - 300 degree C some remaining surface Nickel oxide will be reduced while forming small amount of D2O which preferably needs to be evacuated as well. Just a minor thing I guess, but maybe this is why a bigger reactor vessel performs better.

It means the anemometer probe was traversed across the air flow outlet tube.

Right. So you agree with me it shows constant airflow at:

1, 2, 2.5, 3cm relative to one wall or:

-1.5, -0.5, 0, 0.5 relative the centre.

Thus we have from -1.5cm to +1,5cm (the middle 3cm of the pipe, assuming symmetry) tested for constant flow. The remainder is not tested.

Because area scales as r^2 this means that 3cm^2 / 5cm^2 has been tested or 9/25 = 36% of the cross-sectional area is known to have constant velocity.

The equations for flow in pipes depend on Reynolds number but basically you expect flow to be much smaller close to the sides of the tube and constant high over the centre portion. So these measurements prove absolutely nothing of use here, except that it is not turbulent flow (that would not have the centre portion flat velocity profile).

We could maybe bound (from above) the Reynolds number from this data and therefore bound (from below) the average air velocity relative to the centre velocity. This is the sort of thing that decent peer review would clearly pick up.

You agree with this?

Quote from JedRothwell

Mizuno tried that, years ago. It did not work well. I wouldn't want to try it with these reactors because you must have a way to cool them off quickly.

Looking at the data, I have a sense that heat flow through the reactor and temperature gradients are important. I cannot quite put my finger on why. (If I could have, I would have put it in the paper.) It is just a feeling.

Thanks! This gave me an idea. Assume that we can control the degree of insulation, from very insulated to basically conduction in an insulation layer around the

cylinder and place it in a water bath. Then if temperature is only what trigger the reaction you could essentially just manage temperature without any heating at

all and the only electricity would go to the controller. This sounds that i'm after something similar to control rods in nuclear reactors.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes. As noted it is very important to purge oxygen before beginning the tests. See steps 1 - 7 where it says "After cleaning."

Jed, steps 1 - 6 (after cleaning) do not include the presence of Deuterium gas which is required to reduce any remaining nickel oxide into pure Nickel and D2O at raised temperature.