No real mystery there for me Jed - the magnetic fields generated by the heating coil are providing more stimulus.
That is an interesting idea. I will ask Mizuno to measure the magnetic field generated by a sheath heater.
I think heat gradients may also be enhancing the effect. I do not know why, but I am pretty sure the gradients are bigger than they were before.
For the R20 calibration and excess heat data:
A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the
50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This
is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate
is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat
test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat.
Was the exit pipe airflow speed tested during both calibration and active runs here, explicitly? If so, with what instrument?
What was the airflow speed in both cases? (I get 7 m/s, which means a different fan, or much larger supply - I'd be interested in the details of this)
Was the input power explicitly measured during the calibration and active tests? If so how?
Thanks, THH
EDITED 9 -> 7m/s
(I get 9 m/s, which means a different fan - I'd be interested in the details of this
Are you interested to replicate,THH. Good oh.
The velocity's will depend on what pipes people have available,and fans
I'm thinking of using 800 mm PVC pipe from my drain, for the velocity calibration section.
Internal crosssection area = 0.0055 m2
Was the exit pipe airflow speed tested during both calibration and active runs here, explicitly?
As I said, it is measured every time the reactors are installed the chamber is sealed. Also, the fan is cleaned out. It has never varied over several years, so there is no reason to think it might magically vary when you do a calibration, then an active run, then another calibration.
If so, with what instrument?
With the instruments and methods described in the first paper, such as the traverse test and filling the box with smoke.
What was the airflow speed in both cases? (I get 9 m/s, which means a different fan - I'd be interested in the details of this)
Yes, it was the same. Otherwise the calibrations would have given the wrong answer. As I said, perhaps you think that between calibrations it magically changed and then changed back. How would it know to do this?
Was the input power explicitly measured during the calibration and active tests? If so how?
As stated in the first paper, the input power to the reactor and to the blower is measured and recorded at all times, every 5 seconds. There is no significant change to the blower power. As you see in the calibrations (Fig. 4), when the blower power is deliberately stepped through 14 steps from 1 to 5.5 W, the air flow rate is the same at every step, every time you calibrate. That's dozens or hundreds of times by now, but as you see, the points for 1 W, 1.5 W and so on are smack on top of one-another. So, obviously the fan produces the same amount of wind at the same power level. Perhaps you think the amount of wind it produces is measured incorrectly. Even if that were the case, it is still the same amount of wind, and since the power does not vary, that means the amount of wind does not vary. Here are two 24-hour samples of data for the fan, each with 17,292 readings:
Excess heat run in Fig. 5, blue line
Voltage: average 10.0749, average deviation 0.00055
Amperage: 1.28741, average deviation 0.00163
Calibration shown in Fig. 5, orange line
Voltage: 10.08480, 0.00033
Amperage: 1.26228, 0.00161
If you claim the amount of wind is measured incorrectly, you have to explain why independent tests such as measuring the time it takes for smoke to clear, and measurements of heat from the walls of the box, all agree with the flow calorimeter measurements. It is not possible the mass of air is measured incorrectly but the enthalpy comes out right. That can't happen. As I said, the amount of heat from the walls is:
Input electric power minus output measured in the airflow.
And it is also:
Heat measured radiating from chamber walls measured by various other methods, which I invite you to do yourself.
Those two are in reasonable agreement, at all power levels. That cannot be a coincidence.
Display MoreAs I said, it is measured every time the reactors are installed the chamber is sealed. Also, the fan is cleaned out. It has never varied over several years, so there is no reason to think it might magically vary when you do a calibration, then an active run, then another calibration.
With the instruments and methods described in the first paper, such as the traverse test and filling the box with smoke.
Yes, it was the same. Otherwise the calibrations would have given the wrong answer. As I said, perhaps you think that between calibrations it magically changed and then changed back. How would it know to do this?
As stated in the first paper, the input power to the reactor and to the blower is measured and recorded at all times, every 5 seconds. There is no significant change to the blower power. As you see in the calibrations, when the blower power is deliberately stepped through 14 steps from 1 to 5.5 W, the air flow rate is the same at every step, every time you calibrate. That's dozens or hundreds of times by now, but as you see, the points for 1 W, 1.5 W and so on are smack on top of one-another. So, obviously the fan produces the same amount of wind at the same power level. Perhaps you think the amount of wind it produces is measured incorrectly. Even if that were the case, it is still the same amount of wind, and since the power does not vary, that means the amount of wind does not vary. Here is a 24-hour sample of data for the fan, with 17,292 readings:
Excess heat run
Voltage: average 10.0749, average deviation 0.00055
Amperage: 1.28741, average deviation 0.00163
Calibration
Voltage: 10.08480, 0.00033
Amperage: 1.26228, 0.00161
If you claim the amount of wind is measured incorrectly, you have to explain why independent tests such as measuring the time it takes for smoke to clear, and measurements of heat from the walls of the box, all agree with the flow calorimeter measurements. It is not possible the mass of air is measured incorrectly but the enthalpy comes out right. That can't happen. As I said, the amount of heat from the walls is:
Output measured in the airflow minus electric power input.
And it is also:
Heat measured radiating from chamber walls measured by various other methods, which I invite you to do yourself.
Those two are in reasonable agreement, at all power levels. That cannot be a coincidence.
Thanks Jed; I'm not claiming anything, just interested to get more details.
The 12W fan input looks plausible for 7 m/s given the previous cal curve (though it is beyond that).
My question about input power measurement was actually the power in to the reactor(s).
If you claim the amount of wind is measured incorrectly,
So much burnishing, I am sure that THH just wants to replicate,
it is not out of idle mathematical curiosity
From the current/voltage figures =10W
I guess a $20 =20W fan like this would be OK.
No online power vs flowrate data though
Probably what is more important and costly is
this hotwire anemometer... better than the pitot tube
I used last century
$220
https://www.gastools.com.au/ho…0AIQIhEAYYBiABEgL76_D_BwE
Another observation:
Rubbing the Nickel mesh with Palladium, basically creates a very primitive Ni/Pd alloy with partly Palladium, partly Nickel and partly Nickel-Oxide surface fractions.
I recall a Dutch patent application that was referenced in a patent application of Francisco Celani that deals with optimising Hydrogen absorbing alloys.
Part of this Dutch patent describes that reduction of oxide layer of the less nobel metal surface fractions will hardly reduce if there is a more noble metal fraction present next to such less nobel metal fraction. This mix of nobel metal / oxidised less nobel metal will allow for very easy dissociation of molecular hydrogen by the most nobel metal which then is allowing for large absorption of hydrogen atoms below the surface of the most noble part of the alloy. There might be some similarities here.
(attached the Dutch patent application, unfortunately in Dutch)
There is only a heater. The rod is used to scrape the mesh and deposit Pd. See Fig. 11.
By the way, the heater used to be wrapped around the outside of the reactor. Putting it inside improved the COP partly just because it takes less power to heat from inside. It also seems to enhance the reaction. I do not know why, but Mizuno may have some thoughts on the matter.
So the actual investment in PD can be whatever amount needed to burnish the NI mesh with 50mg of PD. A small amount I reckon. Any objections? Burnishing time might get larger using a smaller rod or a 'pad/cube' of PD.
Also as BG opined TM could be paid to prep screens. And replicators could band together to purchase a rod and share it.
I am struggling with the X6 -> X10 COP of the R20.
Basically, if this is as inferred from these results, this is borderline unstable, and stability, and therefore measured COP, can be happily modulated by changing the fan speed.
For this reactor the output power can only depend on the temperature. But the temperature does not depend on the input power, it depends on:
Input power + Output power
Airflow
During the 50W in / 300W out sample run it would be very instructive, and convince me that this device was truly extraordinary, to perform the following test.
(1) Measure reactor temperature 50W in as shown here, 7m/s fan. Measure output
(2) Set input to 40W in. Measure output. slowly reduce fan speed until reactor temperature equal what it was at 50W in. Measure output
If this is as expected, reducing the airflow will increase reactor power output just as increasing input power does. Confirming this would make it clear that the output was coming from a temperature-sensitive exothermic reaction.
In all cases, for a given output (reactor temperature) it should be possible to achieve much higher COP just by reducing reactor input and fan speed.
For these experiments it would be wiser to have active cooling where the fan speed was controlled by the reactor case temperature. That would be more stable, and also would allow very high (essentially infinite) COP. It would be easy to implement.
PS - I'm aware that gauze temperature will not be identical to casing temperature, but the two will be simply related.
I am struggling with the X6 -> X10 COP of the R20.
I commend your effort.
For these experiments it would be wiser to have active cooling where the fan speed was controlled by the reactor case temperature
Please explain.
why it would be wiser.
This sounds like you have actually done a practical experiment
A constant fan speed is cheaper... these refinements can be used later
after experimentation.
Thanks Jed; I'm not claiming anything, just interested to get more details.
You are claiming all kinds of stuff! However, it is always good to be interested, and to get more details. You can never have too many details. I have graphed the blower power but I did not try the average and avedev functions in the spreadsheet. The answers are interesting. Let me know if you want other details from the spreadsheets. I intend to upload them, but I need to translate them and clean them up. They are in Excel format, converted from a prehistoric format in Mizuno's computer. Lotus 123, I think.
My question about input power measurement was actually the power in to the reactor(s).
With regard to wind speed, the critical power measurement is to the fan. You were asking about the wind speed (the mass of air per second).
There is somewhat more variation in the power to the reactors, as you would expect. That's two different devices, with two power supplies, whereas the fan is same the fan all the time. As you see in Fig. 6, the power was turned up at 420 s. Here is the average power (V*A) from second 420 to the end of this spreadsheet, 86,400 s, Fig. 6, blue line:
Average: 50.19076
Avedev: 0.02827
Here is the average power from the 50 W calibration, for the entire 24 hours, Fig. 7, blue line:
Average: 50.54842
Avedev: 0.02997
I commend your effort.
Please explain.
why it would be wiser.
This sounds like you have actually done a practical experiment
RB - I've done many practical experiments - though not this one.
My observation relates to the maths, not the practice. I happen to understand simple control theory, as I'm sure many here do, and have had long experience of stable and unstable systems. This one is not rocket science.
Does it need more explanation? I thought it was commonly known here?
THH
this is borderline stable, and stability
and convince me that this device was truly extraordinary
what is the purpose of these comments?
is it to cast doubt on the results
THH are you really intending to replicate this
To me IMHO these comments are vexatious rather than legitimate.
For these experiments it would be wiser to have active cooling where the fan speed was controlled by the reactor case temperature.
No, I think that would be a nightmare. As Robert Bryant probably has in mind, that sounds like a suggestion from someone who has not done air flow calorimetry.* You want to keep things simple and consistent. Avoid variation and fluctuation.
* Or maybe someone who has done no kind of calorimetry? For the life of me, I cannot think of any advantage to that arrangement, and I have done all kinds of improbable calorimetry, much of it wrong. Making me an expert by the classic definition "someone who has made all possible mistakes."
, if this is as inferred from these results
, this is borderline stable, and stability
Please show in calculation how you infer from the results
and what is you definition of borderline stablilty
and how this apples to these results
since you are a mathematician THH.
Words fail me. Numbers please.
Display MoreYou are claiming all kinds of stuff! However, it is always good to be interested, and to get more details. You can never have too many details. I have graphed the blower power but I did not try the average and avedev functions in the spreadsheet. The answers are interesting. Let me know if you want other details from the spreadsheets. I intend to upload them, but I need to translate them and clean them up. They are in Excel format, converted from a prehistoric format in Mizuno's computer. Lotus 123, I think.
With regard to wind speed, the critical power measurement is to the fan. You were asking about the wind speed (the mass of air per second).
There is somewhat more variation in the power to the reactors, as you would expect. That's two different devices, with two power supplies, whereas the fan is same the fan all the time. As you see in Fig. 6, the power was turned up at 420 s. Here is the average power (V*A) from second 420 to the end of this spreadsheet, 86,400 s, Fig. 6, blue line:
Average: 50.19076
Avedev: 0.02827
Here is the average power from the 50 W calibration, for the entire 24 hours, Fig. 7, blue line:
Average: 50.54842
Avedev: 0.02997
Thanks Jed. I'm not entirely clear about the way that things are switched from cal to active. Is it one PSU + common voltage and current measuring, and a manual or relay switch? Or is it two different PSUs, with different V, A measuring devices, where the PSUs are switched on and off?
THH
I am struggling with the X6 -> X10 COP of the R20.
I do not understand why you are struggling. Output increases exponentially with temperature, as shown in Fig. 8.
For this reactor the output power can only depend on the temperature. But the temperature does not depend on the input power, it depends on:
Input power + Output power
Airflow speed.
You are confused. The airflow speed has nothing to do with the reactor temperature. It only affects the calorimeter air temperature. The reactor is a 20 kg stainless steel tube inside the calorimeter. The temperature inside the reactor is 317 deg C. It is heated by sheath heater and the cold fusion reaction. The temperature in the calorimeter chamber outside the reactor is 34 deg C. They are worlds apart.
During the 50 W calibration, the temperature in the reactor is 28 deg C, which is much lower than 317 deg C. That difference is not used in the calorimetry, but it could be, and it does indicate the reactor is a lot hotter when it produces 250 W of excess heat.
During the 50W in / 300W out sample run it would be very instructive, and convince me that this device was truly extraordinary,
It is not truly extraordinary. It is cold fusion. Cold fusion has been observed thousands of times in hundreds of labs. There is nothing extraordinary about it, by now. As Martin Fleischmann said, it is like an old bicycle; you just have to get used to it.
"Extraordinary" is a state mind, not a fact of nature. You find it extraordinary because you don't believe cold fusion exists. Because you are in a state of denial and you find absurd reasons to reject or ignore data from Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Miles, BARC and others. Mizuno and I, on the other hand, have been looking at such data for 30 years, and we know damn well it is real. So we see nothing extraordinary about it.
It resembles the situation with entangled particles and quantum computing. A person who does not know much physics, or a person who has not done experiments with those things will find them extraordinary. A scientist from the year 1900 would find them utterly impossible. Unthinkable. But a researcher who works with them every day in quantum computing nowadays finds them ordinary. They are workaday tools, no more extraordinary than an adjustable spanner or an old bicycle.
RB - I've done many practical experiments - though not this one.
It sounds like your 'many practical experiments' are not to do with HVAC
especiailly considering your 'turbulent/laminar' error
Keep the fanspeed the same.. for Godsake...in calibration experiments
eliminate variables .
Introduce changes to experiments systematically.. one at a time.
Exploring this further: Alan claims that the heating coil provides magnetic field stimulus. This could be checked by making R20a - which had a half reverse-wound coil with no such stimulus.
In addition: M mentions a 100V 500W bench PSU. Are the heaters driven by dc or ac. If dc this would be quite novel, and of course permanent magnets would do as well. Better. Because the magnetic field from such a coil, run at 1A or so without a core, is pretty low.
I'm not suggesting there is any such effect as Alan claims, but if so it is easily checked.
