If they use the heating element to calibrate the calorimetry then I note the heating element is in the middle and the mesh is in on the outside.
Mizuno reports increased excess heat
-
-
LOL - so after the colors - which part of my latest and best summaries to you find fault with (and why?)
Argument by color highlighted quote really does not help anyone. Good to be posting infrequently here - helps to cut down noise.
THH
what kind of exothermic reactions do you know?THH
Do you think it is a chemical exothermic reaction?
Almost all exothermic temperature dependent reactions (chemical or nuclear) have an activation energy which the rate can be determined from via the Arrhenius Law, as I'm sure you know. This is derived from thermodynamics and so has pretty universal application.
There are always exceptions, special cases. But here a special case would need something very special to acheive a linear power/ temperature graph going through zero at room temperature. What a coincidence! And how could the dependence be linear to 0 power and very non-zero 293K temperature? Exploring the exact shape of the graph, and where it changes shape, would easily guide this. But, based on what we have at the moment, it does not make much sense, because the higher temperature dependence is relatively insensitive to large temperature (Tar > 50C - somone could correct this, v rough), whereas the low temperature dependence would need to have much, much, lower Tar to successfully cut off completely.
None of this proves anything much, but it makes an open minded observer highly skeptical of LENR, or indeed any exothermic temperature dependent reaction as an explanation for these results.
-
How is that different to putting in 200w
I guess it depends on the complex reaction steps that are going on.
Deuterium mobilisation, helium removal, the distribution of hotspots over the limited surface area,
are magnetic forces involved or just thermal collisions... these are not chemical reactions..
these are nuclear reactions where there are no large exchanges of energy as photons
but the energy comes out as relatively low grade thermal heat
from >2.2Mev steps down to much less than 1 ev packages.
There is a whole lot more research about the kinetics of these reactions.
that needs be done.
They are anomalous in chemical terms.
-
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.
Depending on the heat loss properties of the experiment you can get a stable steady state and no run away. The system cools more as temperature goes up. Also the experiment
with the higher powers might push the system up so that radiation is important and due to the T^4 law another steady state is reached. Again I would expect no need for
a heater in the end due to the high gain.
But the heater is important it seams and therefore it stimulates the system in other ways. This is most evident that when putting the heater inside the core, it worked much better.
A guess is that putting it in the core creates a circulation of the little hydrogene that's inside the cyllinder and this flow enables the high gain. Another guess is that this is due
to magnetic effects from the heater.
-
This is derived from thermodynamics and so has pretty universal application.
Could you elaborate.. does the derivation involve collisions?
These reactions may be collisionless if strong long range magnetic fields are involved.
-
My own reactor SS 304 have the same diameter but only 20 cm lengh.
Without insulation it needs around 1000W to reach 700°, only with heaters.
That means Mizuno reactor's needs 3000 W to reach same temperature ( 3X20 cm to 60 cm).
Now, with COP 10, only 300 W from heating element should be enough.
I let you do more calculation if you want or ask the wart for that
Si vous mettez 100w dans et que cela génère 100w de plus (un flic de 2), un total de 200w est dissipé dans le réacteur. En quoi est-ce différent de mettre en 200w? Vous devez obtenir un emballement thermique, sauf si vous augmentez le refroidissement pour extraire les 100w supplémentaires. En bref, le refroidissement doit être contrôlé par thermostat, sinon vous risquez un emballement thermique ... Ou quelque chose d'autre ne va pas.
-
None of this proves anything much, but it makes an open minded observer highly sceptical
No none of this proves.. >>>>>>highly sceptical ... is a THH leap of faith.
Btw THHnew are you going to fix the egregious errors in
your laminar/turbulent pedagogy on this thread??
Sorry to bother you THHnew
but it is in our mutual interests of clarity/truth
-
You can't heat a room with 300W, which needs 2-3kW heater to yield comfortable levels. That is quite strong evidences and the winter
is long so it most probably a nuclear effect if one load is enough. Hard to see any alternative explanation here.
-
Btw THHnew are you going to fix the egregious errors in
your laminar/turbulent pedagogy on this thread??
Sorry to bother you THHnew
but it is in our mutual interests of clarity/truth
No because it is well covered after by me as well as others, and although I got lamina/turbulent the wrong way around that did not matter. In fact my real error (which I admit) was that at that time I expected Jed's assertions to be correct, that av speed ~ measured speed. Whereas in fact looking at it carefully in the end I got about a 20% difference between average and measured speed. Not expected by me. And one reason why I always think detailed checking trumps initial reactions and applaud it. Wish you did more yourself RB.
Correcting all these initial reactions would take a long time and be silly in the context of this forum.
-
Display More
Depending on the heat loss properties of the experiment you can get a stable steady state and no run away. The system cools more as temperature goes up. Also the experiment
with the higher powers might push the system up so that radiation is important and due to the T^4 law another steady state is reached. Again I would expect no need for
a heater in the end due to the high gain.
But the heater is important it seams and therefore it stimulates the system in other ways. This is most evident that when putting the heater inside the core, it worked much better.
A guess is that putting it in the core creates a circulation of the little hydrogene that's inside the cyllinder and this flow enables the high gain. Another guess is that this is due
to magnetic effects from the heater.
Stefan - this argument is logical and I agree. Where I disagree is I think some weird stimulation as you suggest is less likely than some calculation error that explains the results. Jed will say he has looked at this for a year and found none such. However, finding such an error post-facto is always difficult which is why I'd suggest more detailed documentation of the results and all of the raw data, with no assumptions and no "it is the same as I did before" omission of work.
-
Stefan - this argument is logical and I agree. Where I disagree is I think some weird stimulation as you suggest is less likely than some calculation error that explains the results. Jed will say he has looked at this for a year and found none such. However, finding such an error post-facto is always difficult which is why I'd suggest more detailed documentation of the results and all of the raw data, with no assumptions and no "it is the same as I did before" omission of work.
Well I would say that the fact that if this result is for real you must probably have a nuclear reaction going on e.g. cold fusion is the weird thing.
If so stimulation would be less strange. Where we differ is that I would like to see more results, and we will, from replicators and new experiments
by M himself before stating the negative. I find it weird that academics has to maintain that it is an artefact and clearly probably an error in
calculation and setup (to not loose their face). Why just discuss fact, ask for new information. Say that It's strange and I don't understand, and
wait and see. Else I agree with some of your approaches to test for sensitivity regarding magnetic stimulation. But I find that a flow of D2 gas
simulated by the heater inside is not weird, and I would probably try to stir it with some other means and heat it from the outside to test that
hypothesis. But these discussions are a bit premature now when we wait to see if we can acknowledge the effect.
-
although I got lamina/turbulent the wrong way around that did not matter
It did matter.. this is an egregious error..
I learned this stuff in Fluid Mechanics 101 over three decades ago
You didn't just get them mixed up...... you were being a pedagogue.
a misleading one.
Just to address those who may be naieve to believe everything that you assert.
there is much evidence on this forum to be sceptical about THHnew''s assertions.
Btw THHnew you may remember that Cheng has found and published in Nature evidence
of cooperative and long range magnetic forces in Niobium
These caused sudden anomalous , non photonic release of stored energy
in the Niobium 93m isomer. An exothermic reaction apparently
but with NO COLLISION... in the Arrhenius sense.
Did you read Cheng's paper by any chance?
-
-
go check out post 317
maybe I can. tomorrow oops it already is.. 12.15 am.
I'd go with the $20 fan option for routine measurements
ïn the Rutherford tradition for the same reason.
The problem with THHnew is that to get him to address any
request you have to ask him several times
there has been no mathematical substantiation of
his wordy assertions on this thread despite requests.
I know that he has a wonderful mathematical mind
its a pity he can't share more of it with us
perhaps ..anon
-
I've been terrorized by R. Mills opponents the way like this picking, and I would like that the side i identify
myself with does not use the same tactics. Else I like Roberts non picking posts here.
-
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.
@THH: We all understand that you are shocked by this un-deniable COP > 8 Mizuno result.
We also know that you are able to read papers. May I suggest that you reread the Mizuno paper or may be first time read it fully and then try to understand the nonsense you wrote in the citation above ?
Just for your info: The data is there and there is HAD (heat after death) at RT...
-
You can't heat a room with 300W, which needs 2-3kW heater to yield comfortable levels. That is quite strong evidences and the winter
is long so it most probably a nuclear effect if one load is enough. Hard to see any alternative explanation here.
The Japanese have a somewhat different view of what constitutes heating a room, compared to North Americans.
-
An explanation for the higher levels of excess heat could be due to the pumping effect of terahertz infra-red radiation released by the heater located in the centre of the reactor space containing the Pd coated Ni mesh. Forming high density of SPP's (Surface Plasma Polaritons) - all demonstrated by Dennis Letts and Hagelstein's work with discrete laser wavelengths. So increasing power input from 50W to 300W would induce probably a >10 fold increase in THz infra-red resulting in turn >100-fold increase in SPP's and account for up to 3 kW power output. Takahashi's group have also recently demonstrated a transient up to 3 kW excess heat release from Cu/Ni nanoparticles - the beauty of Mizuno's work is its simplicity and the D gas pressure was maintained without leading to runaway which I think Takahashi's group were afraid of - all brilliant work which we should all try and replicate/although I would try using a much larger mass of Pd/Ni or maybe Cu/Ni mesh.
-
Thanks for the replies to my question. I was forgetting that heat loss could be proportional to T^4. Where as the power gain as a function of temperature is lower.
-
So increasing power input from 50W to 300W would induce probably a >10 fold increase in THz infra-red resulting in turn >100-fold increase in SPP's and account for up to 3 kW power output.
May be you should also explain the physics behind your reasoning... If T increases the frequencies do shift to higher ones...
The reaction pretty much depends on the Ni-Pd-D degasing ratio that in facts increases with T.
So far nobody did see SPS at high T, but in cavities the BEC regime will still work at high T & low pressure. Pressure kills the reaction!
