The IR radiation theory also fits in with Holmlid's recent data using an infra-red YAG laser to stimulate muon release from ultradense deuterium (UDD) - so maybe we have similar UDD forming in M's reactor as a precursor to fusion which is then triggered by IR from the heater - so to refine this one could use some KFeO2 UDD catalyst too, and convert all the heat energy into the appropriate resonant THz frequencies rather than wasting any input power on a broad spectrum approach - maybe use a laser IR diode array instead of the heating element?
Mizuno reports increased excess heat
-
-
Mizuno is a Rossi-light.
Comparing Mizuno to Rossi is like comparing Warren Buffet to Bernie Madoff. Mizuno is teaching us how we might finally achieve replicable LENR, Rossi is teaching us how to attract fools and suckers into a cult of idiocy.
-
Quote
You wouldn't think of challenging THH when he tells you that drops become invisible and rise against gravity, or that a measurement is 20% wrong when anyone can see it is not.
I am still plowing through all the responses. I have limited time. I don't recall assigning any significance to what THH has said so far and I did not see the part about drops nor do I care.
QuoteI do not know which claims you have "debunked," but you have not debunked a single mainstream cold fusion claim.
I don't know if you consider Rossi a mainstream claim but he sure bamboozled you and McCubre and a significant portion of the self-styled geniuses on the Vortex email list. And I helped to debunk him and prevented a few specific individuals from losing money with him and contributed to a major company no longer partnering with him. Unfortunately, Darden didn't listen to any skeptic and he got what he got. I have never addressed a claim about CF from electrolysis. I am skeptical especially about Brillouin and BLP based on "smell" (intuition and observation) but they do not provide enough clean data or independent testing with which to debunk. I debunked many other scams unrelated to cold fusion but claiming to make energy on the cheap and yet other dangerous claims. It's inappropriate here but if you want, I can send you a list by email.
QuoteNo one has, ever, in the history of the field. Since cold fusion is the subject of this forum, your skills in debunkary apparently do not apply.
Blech. Nonsense.
QuoteYour claim of having debunked has no relevance to this discussion, unless you also debunked the laws of thermodynamics, Faraday's laws, and the other physical laws that cold fusion is based upon. THH apparently feels it is impossible to measure the heat from electrochemical reactions -- you will see that is what he is saying after you shovel off several feet of bullshit and rhetorical tap dancing -- so he must think Faraday's laws are wrong. Do you agree? Is that your level of debunkary?
You're being bombastic as usual. If anyone is going against nature here, it's the folks who make up their own laws. Axil comes to mind but there are others.
QuoteYou tell us you haven't even read about these experiments, so I do not see how you can debunk them.
That is such a dumb remark. First, I am in the process of trying to work through the Mizuno papers and the comments but I have limited time. Second, I have no desire to debunk Mizuno. I fervently hope his data bear out and he is correct. I'm sure you will find that hard to comprehend because you are so incredibly biased against any critique at all of cold fusion experiments you happen to believe in. I have no plans to comment on Mizuno's work until I have spent much more time with the papers with the exception of obvious infelicities if any I find along the way and of course questions about parts I might not understand. I already made a few hopefully constructive remarks in general about calorimetry and about how heating a room is a sort of surprising and Rossi-ish claim. I also roundly defeated your lame attempt at moronic sarcasm intended to characterize skeptics as loonies and idiots --so far, that's all. Get off the high horse. There is always a danger of falling off.
-
Quote
Comparing Mizuno to Rossi is like comparing Warren Buffet to Bernie Madoff. Mizuno is teaching us how we might finally achieve replicable LENR, Rossi is teaching us how to attract fools and suckers into a cult of idiocy
I think it's simpler than that. We don't yet know for sure what if anything Mizuno is teaching. What we know is that he gives every impression of being honest and well intentioned while Rossi is an obvious and flaming crooked conman.
-
Excellent your answer but know that the fool it's you !
I very well studied Rossi's patents unlike you the common follower ..
Ecat Bt and Ht uses IR stimulation too ( and first !!), finally that 's friend from jed , Dr Mizuno remains a Rossi's technical follower
There are lots of relevant technical clues in Rossi's patents in connection with that.
Unfortunately Jed followed Dewey's good words, because he's not an engineer, I think he was fooled by him, quite simply.
On the other hand, it was easy because Rossi is someone with disturbing behavior and communication.......
Comparing Mizuno to Rossi is like comparing Warren Buffet to Bernie Madoff. Mizuno is teaching us how we might finally achieve replicable LENR, Rossi is teaching us how to attract fools and suckers into a cult of idiocy.
-
[No one has, ever, in the history of the field. Since cold fusion is the subject of this forum, your skills in debunkary apparently do not apply.]
Blech. Nonsense.
Oh. Okay. Tell us who has debunked a mainstream cold fusion experiment. Be specific. Who did this, and where was it published?
Or are you just going to say "nonsense" with no proof of your claim?
I said "mainstream." Rossi was never mainstream. He never published in any journal or proceedings. Others who worked with him such a Levi did put out some papers, although they did not publish them as far as I know. Anyway, have you found any errors in their work?
-
We don't yet know for sure what if anything Mizuno is teaching.
For once I completely agree. We don't know whether this is real, or an experimental error. He doesn't know. I have been looking for months, and I sure don't know. The only way to find out is to have someone replicate. If no one can replicate, it may be they made a mistake, or it may be he did. It can be very hard to judge.
Mizuno and I think this is real. We wouldn't have published otherwise. But we can always be wrong. In this kind of experimental science, you can never be sure without a replication. There are other fields of science and technology in which results stand on their own without replication, such as exploring Mars by robot.
By that I mean you can be 100% sure your robot did land on Mars. You can tell the experiment worked.
No doubt there are open questions and ambiguity in the data sent back by the robots.
-
maybe you can. There's a spec-plate visible in one of the photographs.
Maybe I can
Sunday morning
If only I was paid for this
The 2nd commandment-love thy neighbour.. without 2 much burnishing.
This mass flow meter is $1000
Designed for ultraclean environment eg pharmaceutical
Immersible.. I guess you can calibrate it for air, water, blood...
Requires calibration
""and a calibration correction factor. The Smart Interface™ also allows for field validation of flow meter performance and calibration.""
Maybe UBC has one or a dozen
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…Vaw3uaK1d9vO-JMZYmG5LTUNg -
About temperature characteristics.
the 2017 paper stated
" The reaction activation energy Ea was calculated on the basis of the linear region between 100 and 523◦C
in Fig. 40 to be 0.165 eV/K/atom
Has Mizuno found a similar relationship for the new exptal setup?
It is interesting because the "AE"" increases with temperature
which is not expected in the Arrhenius model of collision chemical collisions.
-
@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...
W - or anyone else - where is this data that R20 works without input? I did not see much data for R20, but what there was clearly showed output varying with input, and no statement anywhere of output without input. that would I'm sure have been noted.
-
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.
This is a complex one. While heat radiation can be prop T^4 that is T Kelvin, so in any case it does not look so much like that when using deltaT from 297K. When you compare radiation out with radiation back in you get a graph which is linear but does deviate as T1^4 - T2^4 where T1 and T2 are (suppose) the reactor surface and the insulator lining (foil) surface.
Now that might still give a decent nonlinear response for reactor casing at 500C + if there were no forced air cooling. But, I am going on the calorimeter tests (which have data). That, for R20, has forced air cooling that keeps output air temp below input + 10C or so and from R19 data in the same calorimeter we know that losses are < 25%. The forced air convection component of heat loss is linear in temperature. The relatively high calorimeter efficiency tells you that forced air cooling is the dominant heat loss mode. Therefore the deltaT vs power loss function is close to linear.
Conversely the fact that efficiency varies with power means there are nonlinear losses (or some weird error). Just they are dominated by the forced air linearity.
See my previous comments about stability.
-
Jed has mentioned that Mizuno uses this kind of heater.
https://www.monotaro.com/g/03032749/
I notice that the 100v 500W one is a 2 meter long flexible type 2.8mm in diameter that can be bent. This suggests to me that we are back to a heater in the shape of a coil, which increases the magnetic field. So it is not a rod heater as (I think) THH suggested.
I was going by the diagram in the paper. Of course it could be bent. However my point remains. The field from this internal heater is < than the field from the external heater, or, worst case if it is bent in a spiral close to the gauze, about the same as the external. No doubt M would know.
-
Not expected by anyone, because that is flat out wrong. If there were a 20% difference the calibrations would not work, and measurement of heat losses from the chamber would not agree with input minus output measured in the flow. In other words, there is multifaceted, triple-checked verification of the measured speed, and your doubts have no basis in reality. You are making this stuff up. As always, you are grasping at straws, trying to find reasons to deny that cold fusion is real, and all you can come up with is physically impossible nonsense that violated textbooks laws and common sense.
Next you will tell us that an electric motor under a constant load will suddenly run 6 times slower with the same level of electric power, but as soon a new calibration begins, it will magically know to go back to the previous speed. Or did you already say that?
Jed, I'd need the details of those calibrations to check. I can't see why they would be sensitive to 20% on both active and control reactors, which is what this 20% difference means.
As to the "first principle" calculation. Does that ignore fan power? If so I think the 20% would about match, but we would need to look at data and do the calculation carefully.
In any case the figures for mean centre of tube versus mean averaged over area speed in turbulent flow seem pretty definite, and it is not surprising there is a 20% difference. Multiple people here have come up (ballpark) with the same Reynolds Number.
-
Well, if it is at room temperature, obviously there is no power out. I suppose you mean it does not produce power unless there is external heating. That's wrong. That's not what the first paper shows. After the external heating is turned of, anomalous heat continues for a while. The cooling curve is not the same as it is with a calibration.
A different cooling curve is different from it having noticeable continuous power out at 293K, which is what would be expected from the power out curve. Why suddenly go to 0 at that temp?
-
If you know how I could get paid for being " 'skeptical' in this hub " please let me know. I've been part of various successful debunkings over the past ten years and have yet to see a single payment. Where should I send my bills?
Hey that's not fair! I do it even more than you do! Where can I get payment?
-
So many new patents under the IH brolly (umbrella)! If JR, DW and M are also under the same brolly, maybe they might be able to persuade IH to sponsor/fund some replications by LF members? Would be to IH's advantage as this type of sponsorship could lead to further IH patents.
-
Comparing Mizuno to Rossi is like comparing Warren Buffet to Bernie Madoff. Mizuno is teaching us how we might finally achieve replicable LENR, Rossi is teaching us how to attract fools and suckers into a cult of idiocy.
Right. Mizuno is a straight up guy, a gentleman with suitable scientific credentials, no history as con artist, or bad behaviour towards partners etc. Rossi has all that stuff, faked credentials, and many other character defects out for all to see (court papers, or just read his blog and compare promises over a length of time longer than the average ECW reader attention span).
And, while guessing motivations is tough, M appears genuinely to be interested in the LENR dream for the world, Rossi in how to keep internet popularity and add to those Florida condos.
None of which however lets M off the hook over details, nor, even if all details pan out, removes possibility of genuine mistake.
Luckily there seem enough guys around interested that they can all replicate (I'm sure IH can find a way of doing this if they rate this stuff. If they do not rate it, they probably have their reasons).
I'm just hoping that replicators have a better attitude towards checking than is evidenced by some of the "don't raise questions - it makes you evil" crowd here. Checking is always good, you can never have too much when results are extraordinary. Which any replicator would be hoping for.
-
lets M off the hook over details
THH how about the details of your mathematical derivation
of instability which I have asked you for?
Shall I let you off the hook?
Higher COP means more unstable
-
In any case the figures for mean centre of tube versus mean averaged over area speed in turbulent flow seem pretty definite, and it is not surprising there is a 20% difference
Please clarify "not surprising""
This is a nonmathematical.. nebulous term.
what numbers do you use for the mean averaged speed?
