Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I think the SOTs and THHs of this site are very important. I am more excited about this subject than in many years. Please don't insult the "skeptopaths" If we convince them, the path is clear

You speak as a very young child.

Did you ever think that some skeptics could be paid to be "skeptical" in this hub that deals with technologies that can overshadow many?

I think back to the good man DW when he distributed all his business cards everywhere.

It's easier to observe a field by throwing peanuts in the most sensitive places.

Quote from Cydonia

Did you ever think that some skeptics could be paid to be "skeptical" in this hub

They seem to be coming pretty thick and fast.. lately... or perhaps I am being too cynical?

Maybe this Mizuno thread has attracted a whole swarm of them?

Spam.diversion, 'personalising '... all could make the path very unclear, intentionally.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

the path is clear

??? I will try to 'clear the path by answering with Piety and Wit .

not so much burnishing

Quote from RobertBryant

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?

Display More

You are welcome to look at the specifications of the manufacturer. Power cannot, by definition, be measured as voltage or current, alone as it is the product of both. I used to run an engineering company that is a global leader in caloric measurement and metrology. I have no interest in any instrument company. The $20 device, if you followed the discussion, was objected to about its calibration issues in different sized pipes than what it was designed for so I suggested the Sierra solution.

Quote from Daniel_G

Power cannot, by definition, be measured as voltage or current, alone as it is the product of both

Thanks for teaching me that DG. P=VI.

The 20$ device I did not object to.. I said it needed calibration.

The Sierra device.. you recommended ..looks great

Do you,DG, know the price?

I scanned the new paper on the train just now but couldn't see how they control the reactor temperature to prevent thermal runaway. Perhaps I missed it?

I mean if increasing temperature increases output it must runaway unless they do something about it. No?

Quote from CWatters

increasing temperature increases output

The object of the research was to see if the output could be increased above COP 2

COP4 and above are economically viable.

COP 6-10 were measured at higher temperatures.

This is the main result and success of the research.

The heat output can be reduced presumably by reducing the input heater current.

There is a time lag obviously, but at lower temperatures the system seems very

responsive to heat removal by cooling of the reactor body

as indicated by the quenching which occurred with water cooling/calorimetry

which actually prevented economic COPs being reached.

This is one reason that Mizuno shifted to air cooling/calorimetry.

Fine control was not the object of the research.

It was to prove economic level of COP.

Control

Mizuno may well be working on that aspect now...

these results are less than 6 months old

not even properly published.

With uranium fission, efficient control systems took teams a few years to develop.

Quote from Alan Smith

We use a smaller sierra mass-flow meter for our hydrogen work

Did you require good accuracy for process control?

How much did the smaller one cost?

The mass flowrate in Mizuno's experiment is quite a bit larger.

Quote from Alan Smith

$1500

$1500 Sounds about right

RRP of $1225.00 plus taxes on ebay

1.6 x 10^-2m3/s in Mizuno's expts fits into the 10 sccm to 50slpm range

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/SI…-OV1-PV2-V4-/143115981284

a tad more than $20

Accuracy isn't free. But again since its a mass flow meter not a anemometer that measures velocity, there is no issue about laminar vs. turbulent flow profiles, etc. Another idea is if people all buy the $20 car engine mass flow meters and multiple replicators could share the cost of the Sierra device to calibrate their $20 flow meters.

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.

Above comment from Jed, and others similar but less polite.

I dispute that characterisation of my position. In these papers, which are interesting to everyone because R19 and R20 results so clear, as a skeptic I look for problems. The wind speed problem, which I highlighted, I said at the time did not look to me like a deal breaker if not understood. I then said it looked a deal breaker without more data when variation with temperature/speed looked significant. I then did more work thought that variation probably was not significant, but an 80% anomaly remains. In general my approach here, when there is something anomalous, is not at all to dismiss the experiment but to note the anomaly, and reckon that an LENR hypothesis of inferred extraordinary heat generation results is less likely than some not understood experimental issue that the anomaly could be an iceberg-like sign of. In that case I put the experiment into an "interesting but unproven" category - of which LENR has a lot - where more is needed before I'd want to start hypothesising LENR. I'd expect lots of this "interesting but unproven" stuff even if LENR did not exist.

I have not replied to Jed's assertions because it remains to me unclear, and Jed obviously does not agree with that. Jed asserts (I think) the 80% factor between average and max speed does not exist here. I assert that in turbulent flow at the (agreed by us all) 7000 - 12000 Re that factor does exist. I want precision there as elsewhere because sometimes not obvious but major errors can be seen only as minor anomalies (he he a bit like what LENR claims standard physics does). That does not mean that I know this stuff does not work, it just means that there are real question marks which could and should be closed. Maybe I am wrong about the 80% factor but I'm pretty sure not. Jed has pointed out that the calculated 95% efficiency at low temps means that I must be wrong. I'm not however sure that is true because of other factors like fan power added. Jed has suggested the speed is validated by smoke time tests - I can't see how that could in any way determine average airflow speed accurately, given the variable speed profile around the reactor. So - no response from me because I'm not sure - but real issue remains. I'm not quite saying what Jed says I am saying here, but something more subtle. As a skeptic any question mark here and I think LENR is unlikely.

My other issue, with R20 and stability, I put some time in and gave example equations showing how with linear power to casing temp relationship and temperature to power out relationship the system was close to unstable. RB then said stuff about how did I know it was linear. I don't, but M himself claims it is supralinear (he says exponential though that cannot be literally true). That makes stability worse, since the KC factor increases with increasing temperature if the power out versus temperature factor is supralinear. For the power dissipated versus temperature to cancel this out it would need to be even more supralinear. That is simply not likely in this forced convection + conduction system where radiation is not significant and a linear relationship is a decent approximation, as is shown by the data on heat loss that increases more than linearly but remains small relative to the overall power. Of course of the temp to power out relationship might saturate, allowing easy operation without thermal runaway. But that is not what M observed. In fact, if it did saturate, you could quite easily by reducing airflow see constant high temp operation without any input power at all.

This is in all quite a complex but IMHO both intuitive (for those who have done stuff with such systems) and strong argument - I offered to PM it because signal/noise ratio is bad here and it needs, to be properly explored, a less confrontational appraisal than it gets here. It makes me v suspicious of the "sample" R20 result which to be fair is written up only as an informal indication. However, for that to be wrong also makes me suspicious about the R19 results which however otherwise look pretty strong., but badly documented (those missing raw values).

There is the confounding issue of magnetic field. I've never seen the LENR "magnetic field stimulus" argument in these systems as being at all likely for many reasons. in this case the R20, with claimed high results, has heater a stick inside the reactor with nearly all the field inside the sheath stick. Definitely less magnetic field at gauze than for the R19 where the gauze is located inside the windings (and also physically closer to them - though this is not significant as field inside a solenoid is roughly flat).

So I will ignore this excuse - without it the questions about COP and stability and weird lack of self-sustaining or runaway behaviour here remain for R20.

For R19 the fact that results are so consistent and COP depends on input power could be explained in the classic LENR way, or by some not understood error in measurement. The fact that at room temperature you get no power out as always remains a bit strange and an argument to be suspicious: such an exothermic reaction would not normally switch off so completely. That is why I'd be happier with all the raw data included, calculations made explicit, etc. I also, given the way these experiments are conducted, need to be sure there is not some systematic way in which the input power is being mismeasured. Since the control and active reactors are different and a different heater leads to apparently much higher COP I just wonder if there is some error here in the electrical calculations. I'd like to know how voltage and current are measured, precisely. I'd like a cross-check of the heater resistance when cold, and material, so we know how that would likely change at temperature. All this cross-checking is no more work in terms of time doing experiments - but it requires a careful an systematic approach to taking results. Then, when writing up, it requires not that every single measurement is laid out but that the key raw, calculated values are made explicit, that all the measurement apparatus is specified, etc.

Boring, I know. But important when delivering results that are quite extraordinary and would if believed immediately set the scientific and technological world alight. And, frankly, if those doing these experiments had a skeptical mindset about validating their results, and a complete knowledge of all the underlying skills (in this case electrical, thermal analysis, some we would get much much more solid evidence. A skeptic would say that those LENR researchers with such a stance do not find these large results, because the large results are always errors of some kind.

There are likely to be such question marks in any stuff not rigorously peer reviewed. Since LENR papers do not seem to get much skeptical peer review in the normal way, maybe we here can help with that.

The difference between LENR work and mainstream work is that a non-LENR scientist, obtaining the R19 or R20 results, would immediately be very very surprised and cross check in detail every single little thing. Whereas an LENR researcher, convinced already that some effect exists, would just be happy they had managed to optimise it.

To convince others (including me) you need all the cross-checking. Or, just as good, you need a similar device to be replicated. I warn you however that the history of LENR is that replications fail, this is then blamed on not understood material difference or changes in experimental conditions (which BTW my proposed "stabilisation" system would not provide). Skeptics will take the simpler view, that the original dramatic results were in fact some error.

As always just one working (and carefully instrumented with all cross-checks) replication of this device showing similar dramatic results would provide validation. But that may not happen because replicators may find they get much less clear results.

So better for the cause of truth if the working device (in this case R19 or R20) is instrumented carefully with all the boring extra details that skeptics would like.

THH

When thinking about the results I find it hard to understand. I would expect some kind of equilibrium to appear and a self sustaining mode

if the process was only dependent on temperature. Therefore it looks like the heater is really important for the process, and stimulates the

reaction in some other way than just trough the heat. Still a mystery of exactly how. The experiment seams well executed and the next logical

step is to verify that the effect is real by validation.

One speculation is that the core heater is hotter than the surrounding gas and it cools at the cylinder wall and hence creates a circulation that

perhaps is absent if the heater is off e.g a gradient effect. An expert in simulating fluid flows and heat transfer and could try to simulate a few

examples with OpenFoam, which is the tool that hobbyist can afford. I might be able to help here as I used Open Foam 7 years ago.

Another speculation, that people here has mensioned is that the magnetic field produced by the DC somehow stimulates the reaction.

Thank you JR for sharing heating specification because, as you said, a good experiment replication will play with all the details.

Unfortunately, some important details that we didn't think about, could be crucial.

The fact that at room temperature you get no power out as always remains a bit strange and an argument to be suspicious: such an exothermic reaction would not normally switch off so completely. That is why I'd be happier with all the raw data included, calculations made explicit, etc.

Were I replicating this, and found the same results, I would immediately question the shape of the reactor casing temp - input temp versus power out graph. If close to 0 it looked linear it would be very difficult for me to square that with an LENR excess heat dependent on temperature mechanism. And, as I've said, I don't think the "needs magnetic stimulation" idea is at all likely but that could easily be controlled for. For example in R19 by adding a high flux low dissipation coil inside the calorimeter.

In these matters an experimenter unable to imagine LENR would be indeed a sorry case. One unable to be curious and skeptical about things like linear temperature delta/power out relationships that do not make sense in connection with a temperature variable reaction would also be a sorry case.

Quote from THHuxleynew

remains a bit strange and an argument to be suspicious: such an exothermic reaction would not normally switch off so completely.

what kind of exothermic reactions do you know?THH

Do you think it is a chemical exothermic reaction?

Btw THHnew?

Could you address this matter.

You may not be aware of it.. given

all the distractions on this thread

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

It is indeed a "sorry case"

If you put 100w in and it generates another 100w (cop of 2) there is a total of 200w being dissipated in the reactor. How is that different to putting in 200w? You _must_ get thermal runaway unless you increase cooling to extract the extra 100w. In short cooling must be thermostatically controlled or you will get thermal runaway... Or something else is wrong.