Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from Alan Smith

    ETA - Speaking of skill and money, sometimes $11.5M can't buy you a good experiment.


    Amen. Sometimes, a barrel of money becomes an impediment. That can be true of product development. Too much money gives the designers too many options, and too many nifty toys to try out. That is why programs in the 1970s for computers with only 16 KB of RAM were sometimes elegant, fast and reliable compared to today's bloat-ware.


    Still, I would rather have too many resources than not enough.

    Robert,

    about mathematical considerations it was just a joke for skilled..

    Alan is right, all the money in the world doesn't replace ground skills ( both from DW or Google )

    Some examples:

    Mizuno heater doesn' t stay in front of nickel layers so there is a large temperature gradient between left and right side ( if layout is right ?)

    The heater should have a certain spectral profile to take advantage of that.


    Let the magnetism drop, as Alan says, because large distance between heater to layers, there is no magnetism consideration here.

    About AISI 304 or 316, there are amagnetic...because , it"s strange, because in fact high rate of nickel inside.


    Having received a first donation on GoFundMe a first purchase looms.


    It makes sense to buy something that avoids debate.


    Candidates: Ni screens, Pd, and a Sheath Heater.


    Investing in the metals makes burnish results viewable. Have access to Material Science tools. Near the General Motors Technical Center which attracts technology support companies, schools, and perhaps volunteers.


    Much discussion about cleanliness, pumps, and skill inspires me. Thanks to all weighing in. I appreciate it.

    I would like to say that I have no objection whatever to THH or anyone else looking for errors, or asking questions. I ask lots of questions, in two languages, no less. My main role in this project has been to kibitz long distance, and to ask stupid questions. Recent example:


    Me: You said the Y-intercept is 32. It says 1.5. What did you mean?


    Mizuno: That's a log scale graph. 10^1.5.



    THH zeroed in on some vital issues, such as whether the fan produces the same wind speed in all tests. That's laudable. Here is what I object to:


    THH: I think the fan may produce different wind speeds.


    Me: Here is where we covered that. We show that at a given power level, it produces the same wind speed. We show that the power remained the same in all tests. Even if the wind speed varied, it would not change by a factor of 6. The fan would stop working or burn up instead.


    THH: . . . <No response>



    A week later:


    THH: I have shown that the fan produces different wind speeds. It is unreliable.


    Me: No, you haven't.


    THH: <Silence. No response, no acknowledgement>



    A week after that:


    THH: We can categorically dismiss this experiment because I proved the wind speed is wrong. This is a fatal error.


    etc.

    Quote from sam12

    Have you thought about contacting

    Google about funding replications

    or the LENR researchers they funded

    to see if they are interested?

    I don't know how to reach them. But, not to toot my own horn, I am pretty sure they know how to reach me. Surely they know who Mizuno is. I have no idea whether they have talked to him.

    • Official Post


    No need to contact them. David is still trying to work something out. Not sure what the issues involved are, and why taking so long? Next week will be more communication, so maybe then I can tell you more.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    THH: We can categorically dismiss this experiment because I proved the wind speed is wrong

    Can THHnew please adjust or remove

    the relevant post from this thread


    Points 4,5,7 egregious error.

    The rest is teaching grandma to suck eggs.


    unadjusted the post may mislead the naieve

    into thinking they should aim for laminar flow

    in their velocity traverse

    or that turbulent flow velocity measurements

    are not OK.

    My comments in red

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Okay, find someone who is used to fabricating laboratory grade equipment, that is clean when delivered, and that does not leak. Mizuno says he trusts the company he buys from to deliver a clean cell. He takes no extra steps to clean it before baking out.


    I doubt that stainless steel truck exhaust pipe meets the standards I describe. I do not think a person should devote weeks or months to this experiment, and risk failing because he uses truck exhaust pipe, or $10 cloned Swagelok valves. That seems like misguided economy measures, risking the whole project to save a relatively small amount of money. I recommend you do everything you can think of to enhance the likelihood of success, even if it costs more money.


    Is it worth stipulating where exactly Mizuno buys his cells from, what parts he orders etc? Or is this 101 for those skilled in the art?

    I have only skimmed the papers so I will have few comments yet on them. I have also been slogging through the many comments. I am trying to find time to accord the papers much more attention. But the quotes below annoy me and I will answer those immediately. I understand that JedRothwell worked very hard with Mizuno under an unpleasant time difference and other difficult conditions. I understand that Jed has a big emotional investment in the project and is quite certain it will be the final definitive proof of cold fusion/LENR that everyone has been seeking. I understand that in the past his feelings were hurt by critical comments from me and others. Because of all the hard work he did, and his well meaning nature, I won't reply in kind to his sarcasm and insults. I will, however, respond in detail to his ... well ... mostly absurd remarks.


    Quote

    Now that our first resident pathological skeptic (PS) has chimed in, let me post this set of responses I prepared for them. I want to save Seven_of_twenty and other skeptics the time and effort of responding. Here are their objections and my responses. For once I take their side in the debate.

    Sure you do.


    Quote

    Pathological Skeptic: I have not read the paper but I am sure it is wrong.

    Me: Please don't read it.

    I'm sure THHuxleynew read it and is rereading it (both papers). I have skimmed them and I won't comment specifically on the overall conclusions until I can read them carefully and they are well worth the time needed to that if I can find it.


    Quote

    PS: The results are not real because they have not been replicated.

    Me: Actually, they have been replicated. However, anyone who replicates a cold fusion experiment is incompetent by definition, and the results are always wrong. When 180 labs replicated Fleischmann and Pons that only proved they were all wrong. 18,000 could replicate but it would mean nothing. Replications simply don't matter. They don't count! This is the Ballinger rule:

    Just wrong. The results are interesting as is. Sure, they would be way more solid if they had been replicated by knowledgeable people but there is plenty of time for that if the results are valid. Of course replications matter but who replicates matters too. The work surrounding alleged replications of Rossi has never been impressive for example. And all the spoonbenders in the world won't convince me that it's a psychic phenomenon. But good, completely independent replication of Mizuno's work would be a fascinating development. Not that I think he is lying but I suppose he could have made some unexpected errors. I have not found any but I have not looked much yet.


    Quote

    "It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann.

    Wrong again. And nobody I know said that and I don't care whether they did or not. It's irrelevant. I have no idea if Mizuno's work connects with P&F and to me, it is of very little concern. This string is about Mizuno! I've been waiting a long time to see his results with the large and powerful reactors. I have said that many times and asked about results like these many times.


    Quote

    "Putting the 'Cold Fusion' issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison-Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible."

    - Professor Ronald G. Ballinger, MIT Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering, [In The Gordon Institute News, March/April 1991]

    I don't have the faintest idea what that has to do with Mizuno (subject of this thread). WhoTF is Ballinger anyway? Why should we care?


    Quote

    PS: The power is too low.

    Me: Yes, 3 kW is not enough. The goal-posts has now been automatically moved to 10 kW, and if that is achieved, they will move to 50 kW.

    I know you think that (I have no idea why) and it would be true if Mizuno's input had been 2.9 kW. But it's not. It's <300W IIRC. I and others have always said 100 or more watts with a large power ratio (out/in) would be very convincing if the experiment was without faults.


    Quote

    PS: The COP is not high enough.

    Me: Indeed, 10 times input does not count. Again, the automatic goalpost moving mechanism tells us the COP must now be at least 100.

    Actually, the combination of a gross output of 3kW with a power ratio out/in of 10 is more by far than I ever asked for or would ask for and if proven to be valid would be wildly acceptable and truly amazing.


    Quote

    PS: I have a crackpot theory that large drops of water become invisible and move against gravity and that proves the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. So, you are wrong.

    Me: Well okay then!

    Moving right along --

    Intended for who? Surely not me or THH.


    Quote

    PS: The calorimeter is not reliable.

    Me: Right. The calibration shows that over 24 hours when average input was 50.6 W, the calorimeter only captured 46.6 W, or 50.5 W after taking into account heat losses from the calorimeter walls. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

    I am a great fan of calibration and blanking and I have been since I was a young student doing simple experiments in undergraduate physics and basic electricity. I have relied on calibration my entire career in technology and science. I hated it when I had to work with some systems (biological mainly) which resisted the use of full range calibrations for one reason or other. I was one of the first to criticize Rossi and Lewan for lack of calibration and was roundly dunned by believers for it starting with Rossi himself with his immortal quote: "Why should I run a dummy reactor? I already know what it will show. It will read zero."


    At first glance, the calibration for this system looks fine. I will have to examine the details to be sure experimental and control runs are sufficiently similar. I have not done that. You did mention possible future use of a Seebeck effect calorimeter. That type would be a natural for this work because the high heat output would require fewer thermocouple junctions (or other differential temperature sensors) than usual thus simplifying construction, maybe at the sacrifice of a little uniformity. There are fortunately very few ways to mess up Seebeck calorimeter measurements and there would be no argument about flow rates and Reynold numbers and sensor positions in flowing media. An added bonus would be if the calorimeter were liquid cooled, which I expect to be necessary at the claimed power level. Then mass flow calorimetry with the coolant would provide a first principles back up (though IMO less accurate and stable than the Seebeck readings). Still two birds with one stone.


    Quote

    PS: The reactor has to be used as a room heater before I will believe it.

    Me: Ah, I see you haven't read the paper. Good. It was used as a room heater. But that doesn't count because it was not purchased at Walmart.

    OK, I have to tell you I found that claim disturbing, in part because it is so Rossi-esque. But I will withhold final judgement until I read more detail. Seems silly to me. Of course, room heating alone is a multi billion dollar application if the effect is real.


    Quote

    PS: You will have to pay a world-class laboratory $1 million to test this before I will believe it.

    Me: Alas, we do not have $1 million and no laboratory would touch the machine even if we had the money. Because we live on planet Earth. This is difficult for you to understand because you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and you have unlimited supplies of leprechaun gold, and any laboratory in your world will do whatever you ask.

    If the data continue to hold up, try EarthTech. If they find it convincing, and they are extremely open minded and very capable with calorimetry, I am reasonably confident they would do at least preliminary tests for free. The main problem would be getting a working device to them without damaging it and with enough operating instructions or an experienced person to help them out. Give that some thought. Maybe contact Scott or Marissa Little (I am less confident in Dr. Puthoff).


    With results as good as Mizuno reports, you could get interest from any number of places, civilian and military, especially in Japan. I wish you luck with that. Now back to finding time to read. How about SRI? This is much more interesting by far than Brillouin (IMHO of course).


    Sorry if typos... not proof read.


    ETA: sorry if I missed it but does Mizuno have adequate protection from patents?

    Robert, the device I am referring to has two temperature probes, one heated one not. The device adds power to the heated sensor to maintain a 50C temperature differential between the two sensors. As it turns out, the power going to the heated probe is proportional not to velocity but to the mass flowing past the sensor (in other words the number of gas molecules flowing past the sensor. The unit is factory calibrated with the desired gas and pressure (in this case atmospheric air and pressure) and gives an accuracy of 0.5-1% in the mass flow of air which is a more direct measurement for calculating caloric flow than velocity which has to be converted to volume, and then mass by pressure and temperature. An anemometer measures only gas velocity which you have correctly pointed out is subject to uncertainties due to flow profile and Re number, temperature and pressure, etc. whereas with the mass flow meter I am suggesting all these uncertainties are removed. (Note molar mass was a mis-type which caused a misunderstanding...

    Although I am new to this field I have been a long time anti-psuedoscience and and anti-pseudoskeptic proponent. Real science always accepts skepticism. Not only accepts but actually good skepticism actually causes real science to thrive and go forward. Just my observation that I see SOT's comments fair and balanced. Those on all sides of this debate would do well, for everyone's benefit, to treat skepticism with professionalism and not resort to sarcasm which is just a passive aggressive technique to belittle the skeptic. Address the scientific issues with professionalism. Resorting to sarcasm actually only belittles the person being sarcastic. Just my two cents...

    Quote from Daniel_G

    The device adds power to the heated

    Hpw is the power measured ... by voltage or by current,,, or both . You said the sensor detected mass ..

    this is actually quite new physics because mass may well be electromagnetic.


    Many a truth is said in error.. work on that thought ... maybe Randell Mills's GUTCP has something relevant:)

    Seriously

    DG ,,, are you interested to replicate?

    Do you have experience in lab work of the engineering prototype kind?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.