Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • I have not seen straight up personal attacks in a peer review


    Then maybe we are starting a new fad? :) Look, I really do not think much said here by you, the new Bob, or anyone has been "over the top"...yet. Peer review is personal by nature, as you have someone who presents their hard work for critique, and...well, there are criticisms. Add in the spectators who take sides, and it seems inevitable it becomes somewhat of a knock down, drag out affair. The way I see it, there is no changing that, as that is what is required to get to the truth, so may as well embrace it.


    That does not mean it should not be refferreed, and kept somewhat civil. Insinuations without proof, character assassination, slander, libel, etc. have to be kept out of it of course. That is where moderation comes in....here at least.

  • When someone such as THH provides reasonable critique, all of which he provides a logical and often mathematical basis to, he is often scorned with

    childish, personal insult.


    THH did obviously not read the Mizuno publication! His critic is free hand with no background! Good enough to fool you!


    See:(Day 20 - 2.89 watts with no input) page 8.

    5/20

    7.5

    0.0

    2.89

    23.07

    0.0534

    0.016463


  • Some more patents (applications) they (IH) now have in their portfolio:

    https://patents.google.com/?as…p+Holdings+Limited&num=50


    Obviousley JED/Dewey are asking LENR forum to speed upo their money generation process by doing the needed replications of Mizuons work.


    Thus I ask all people to slightly vary the experiment and to immediatley publish the varied details. This prevents further patenting and making your work going into the IH pocket!


    And one more good news. For private use, as a home heater, you can always construct such reactor without having a confligct with the patent.

  • I have a few problems with the report:


    1). It's not clear what he did for calibration. Yes, he hand-waves that away by pointing towards the first paper. This is not sufficient for such monumental results. Did he build a second reactor and have it in the calorimeter like he did the first one? Did he re-calibrate and switch reactors like he did in the first paper? He should detail what he did and present more raw data rather than calculated data (e.g., excess heat vs. input temperature and output temperature).


    2). When I chart input power by reactor temperature, it looks like a normal heating curve. What's worse is that when you plot input power by purported excess heat, you get a linear equation. This is often seen with a simple systematic error.

  • Look, JedRothwell, I will make it really simple. McKubre, Miles and Storm's results confuse me more than enlighten me.

    In all seriousness -- without a hint of sarcasm -- let me say that I cannot imagine how McKubre's results confuse you but our paper does not. McKubre in particular is a superb writer and he spells out everything more clearly than I am capable of. Granted, there is more technical detail in his papers, but you can skip over it in the first reading and get to the gist of it. And here's the thing: McKubre's flow calorimeter method is very similar to Mizuno's. Except it is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more accurate and precise, and much more rigorous. So, if you can understand Mizuno, you should have no trouble understanding McKubre.


    Much of McKubre's paper describes all the ways he double-checked and triple checked the results. Mizuno could not do that much checking. His instruments are not sophisticated enough. McKubre's temperature measurement instruments alone cost $20,000 each (as I recall -- some ungodly number like that). So he has much more to say, and more ways to prove his experiment is working.


    When I say "more clearly than I am capable of" I mean that I wrote most of this paper, using Mizuno's data and observations. The presentation is mine, which is why it reads like a technical manual or a dishwasher manual, rather than a scientific paper. Perhaps you mean that you find it easier to read technical manuals. I get that! But I do not find scientific papers confusing. Hard work, but not confusing.


    Mizuno's recent claims have way more power and a way larger power ratio than is needed to rule out noise or subtle experimental errors.

    A larger power ratio is not how you rule out noise, or subtle experimental errors. Several people have reported what appeared to be large power ratios that turned out to be errors. It is actually a little dangerous to think: "this is high power, so the results must be right." It leads to sloppiness.


    The way to rule out noise is to increase the signal to noise ratio. McKubre's s/n ratio is much higher than anything Mizuno could achieve. Be careful not to think that electrochemical power input is "noise." It isn't. It can be measured with incredible precision, and therefore it can be subtracted out. I expect McKubre's power measuring equipment can measure electrochemical power with 2 or 3 orders of magnitude better precision than Mizuno's instruments can measure the resistance heater input in Fig. 7. Look at Fig. 7. It is very noisy! That's regrettable. It is noisy because his instruments are much cheaper than McKubre's, and because his lab has no air conditioning or climate control. It is heated with an open gas heater, like most old buildings in Japan. The temperature swings by several degrees, several times a day. When someone opens the door a blast of cold air and snow comes in. The building is unheated, poorly insulated, drafty and falling to pieces. It is in Sapporo, where they have several feet of snow in winter. At SRI, their climate control is something like 0.1 deg C, as I recall. The whole building would make a much better calorimeter than Mizuno's actual calorimeter chamber. That is despite many steps Mizuno took to isolate the chamber and dampen the effect of temperature swings.


    The point is, McKubre can measure 5 W (as he sometimes did) with more mathematical confidence than Mizuno can measure 250 W. From the scientific point of view, McKubre's results are more believable. Plus, obviously, they were repeated by him many times, and replicated in hundreds of other labs, many of them with far better instruments than Mizuno can afford.


    The way to rule out "subtle errors" is with brute force rigor, which SRI does better than just about anyone, except maybe Los Alamos, China Lake with Miles, and the Aerospace Corporation with Beiting. They all bulldoze potential errors into oblivion, with more tests, cross check, and triple cross checks than I have even heard of. And with a large staff. When you pay $20,000 for a thermocouple controller, the manufacturer gives you many ways to make sure it is working. Mizuno uses an ordinary 1980s Hewlett Packard lab controller for all equipment (thermocouples, pressure gauges, etc.) The HP is good equipment, and he double checks and calibrates, but it doesn't hold a candle to a $20,000 gadget. There is only so much double-checking Mizuno can do with it.


    Also, from the get go, oil-based flow calorimetry is better than air flow. Mizuno had to use air flow for several reasons, such as the large size of his reactors, but McKubre's fluid is much better for calorimetry.


    If you are saying that 250 W is more interesting than 1 to 5 W, and it is more exciting, I couldn't agree more! It seems more likely to lead to practical technology. It is more promising. Also, the method is so simple, Mizuno and I both wonder if we are seeing things. It seems too simple to be real. Whereas the bulk Pd-D materials that McKubre used are incredibly difficult to work with. A nightmare to work with. The success rate was very low. So, this paper is more fun to read. It is more encouraging. But, strictly from the point of view of scientific s/n ratios and statistical persuasiveness, McKubre and the other big lab results are way ahead of Mizuno. Not to mention the fact that Pd-D results were replicated hundreds of times by others using expensive equipment, whereas Mizuno has not been replicated by anyone, except for one guy in Japan, about whom I know little. Replication is the only real way to know if an experiment of this nature is actually right, or a mistake.

  • 1). It's not clear what he did for calibration. Yes, he hand-waves that away by pointing towards the first paper.

    That's not hand waving. That is citation. As we said, the calorimeter and methods are the same as they were in the last paper.


    This is not sufficient for such monumental results.

    This is not monumental. It is the same old cold fusion that has been reported hundreds of times by other labs. As Martin said, you just have to get used to it, like an old bicycle. Mizuno and I have been living with this for 30 years. We don't find it monumental.


    Or, if you say it is monumental, it is no more monumental than any paper by Miles, for example, or the Italian National Labs. They not only proved that cold fusion is real, they showed it is nuclear fusion, producing helium in the same ratio as D+D plasma fusion. That seems more monumental to me, from the scientific point of view. Mizuno's work only proves that cold fusion heat exceeds the limits of chemistry, which we already knew, and that it can be produced at levels over 100 W, which we already knew. Both of those facts were demonstrated beyond any doubt in the 1990s. They should not surprise anyone. This is more of the same, except it works better and it is easier to do.


    (Assuming, of course, it isn't a mistake.)


    Did he build a second reactor and have it in the calorimeter like he did the first one?

    Yes, that is what we said. Actually, 4 new reactors, R17, 18, 19 and 20.


    Did he re-calibrate and switch reactors like he did in the first paper?

    Yup. He always recalibrates.


    2). When I chart input power by reactor temperature, it looks like a normal heating curve. What's worse is that when you plot input power by purported excess heat, you get a linear equation.

    It is a normal heating curve. There are two sources of power, the resistance heater and cold fusion. The cold fusion power turns on pretty quickly and stays at about the same power level. The temperature shown in the graphs rises until it reaches the terminal temperature where losses equal input. That's the temperature Delta T of the air coming out of the chamber. It is not the temperature of the reactor, which reaches the terminal temperature sooner. That curve is delayed because it takes a while for the heat to pass from the reactor to the air, and the reactor has some thermal mass. 20 kg Fe.


    Raise the temperature and it climbs again. It is not as smooth as a temperature increase from resistance heating alone, so there is some fluctuation in the cold fusion power. Look at Fig. 6 about 10 minutes into the graph, where input resistance heating was raised from 40 to 50 W.


    This is often seen with a simple systematic error.

    It is also seen when input power is stable, which this is. Somewhat. As you see in Fig. 6. But okay, I'll bite. What simple systematic error? You have a fairly comprehensive description of the calorimeter, and things like the traverse test. So what simple systematic error do you think it might be? A claim that some error of some sort might have occurred is not falsifiable. Where should we look for this error you have in mind? Where would it show up in the data? If it is "simple" it should be simple to find.

  • Interesting comments, Mizuno was not on ICCF 20 or whatever ... But I found an interesting report that received over 1000 views on my YouTube page ...

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • Look into the mirror!

    Does bang 99 have a technical comment that is germane?


    What are your views on the results that Mizuno presented in 2017

    that suggest the reaction kinetics are not Arrhenius type.?

    "

    " The reaction activation energy Ea was calculated on the basis of the linear region

    between 100 and 523◦Cin Fig. 40 to be 0.165 eV/K/atom"


    or the fact that an assertion here that "Higher COP means more unstable.""

    is based on an assumption

    "Let us take a simple example of F(T) = CT (linear)"

    without any detailed knowledge of the reaction kinetics at the atomic level.

  • Quote

    If you are saying that 250 W is more interesting than 1 to 5 W, and it is more exciting, I couldn't agree more! It seems more likely to lead to practical technology. It is more promising. Also, the method is so simple, Mizuno and I both wonder if we are seeing things.

    I agree with that (quick, hold the presses for those who recognize that antique expression).


    A quick question. The higher power level (3kW) was simply estimated by comparing the reactor's heat output to a standard electrical heater? By what means? Human senses? At least one could have used a thermometer at a measured distance. I suppose it doesn't matter much since the experiment done in the calorimeter has a result which is so high.

  • Hey robert bryant , what are you? The peanut gallery (another antique expression)? Is it OK with you if I study the papers while asking questions? Or would you prefer I write "axing questions" to keep it modern?


    Meanwhile I have the recurring question for JedRothwell about any system that makes lots of heat. Has Mizuno considered a system in which much of the heat is returned to the reactor through a control scheme so as to keep the reactor at the desired temperature? If he did that, the large heaters could be mostly or entirely shut off and the reactor would be essentially or at least almost "autonomous" or "self sustaining". If operation in a mode in which input power was extremely low could be maintained for long periods, there would be almost no other possible explanation other than some sort of nuclear process. Conversely, if you returned a lot of heat to the reactor (more than the heaters supply), removed power to the heaters and the reactor failed to continue running, you'd know something was very wrong about the original observations. And I am still fascinated by the room heater. I think that would be the first thing to replicate.


    Yes, I know it's more complicated to feed back heat, especially in a controlled manner. But for such an experiment, you would not need the calorimeter and you could use the larger reactor, compensating somewhat for the difficulties. Has this suggestion been considered?

  • what are you? The peanut gallery

    No God Bless you SOT.

    I am interested in your technical analysis.

    Of course , the press may not hold for it.

    Has Mizuno considered a system in which much of the heat is recycled


    Mizuno is probably working out how to sustain a COP of 10 or higher.

    If he finds the right conditions he may be able to sustain high output at very little heat input.

    as in COP20 or COP100.


    The question is.. does he need an electrical input...is it something to do with magnetism.

    or is just a matter of high quality heat from the heater?


    If the latter is true then 10% of the output could be recycled if it was at a higher enough temperature...whatever that might be

    as COP 10 and even less at COP 20


    This is the subject of future research.

    I think that the present objections to the latest two papers can be dealt with on this thread productively

    by continuing to concentrate on the technical aspects

  • Human senses? At least one could have used a thermometer at a measured distance


    Mizuno, being an engineer since the cradle, probably used

    at least one thermometer at a measured distance.

    He probably even has an array of thermocouples to choose from with digital recording

    Jed probably left out the details since this is a trivial exercise .

    He left out all the Reynolds stuff for conciseness even though that it is not a trivial exercise.

  • I don't know but 80% is ballpark


    The graphed velocity profiles are shown here

    The laminar profile is shown for two power values.

    It is probably not physically possible with air as a fluid.


    I don't know what you mean by 80% but you can probably model

    using the original graph figures under 'turbulent'

    That is how I modelled the 100 % laminar flow.

    The area of the duct is assumed to be 0.0044m2


    you can check that the Reynolds numbers are in the turbulent region

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox…eynolds-number-d_237.html

  • This is not monumental. It is the same old cold fusion that has been reported hundreds of times by other labs. As Martin said, you just have to get used to it, like an old bicycle. Mizuno and I have been living with this for 30 years. We don't find it monumental.

    It certainly is monumental because AFAIK these old studies have never been reproduced in any satisfying or convincing way. This Mizuno paper claims to have found the holy grail of CF--reproducibility.


    It is also seen when input power is stable, which this is. Somewhat. As you see in Fig. 6. But okay, I'll bite. What simple systematic error? You have a fairly comprehensive description of the calorimeter, and things like the traverse test. So what simple systematic error do you think it might be? A claim that some error of some sort might have occurred is not falsifiable. Where should we look for this error you have in mind? Where would it show up in the data? If it is "simple" it should be simple to find.


    Calibration error. I saw the same kind of thing in my own work. It was exciting initially, but you do a new calibration at the end to find that original calibration doesn't fit the current conditions. Maybe a thermocouple has shifted (giving a better or worse measurement). Or there is a different heat transfer effect taking place during the calibration than with the active run (e.g., heat conduction differences into the bottom of the calorimeter).


    I'd be more satisfied by seeing more of the raw data. For example, let's see the reactor temperature during a calibration run (as well as inlet and outlet temp). You really need to see that for the active runs to (inlet and outlet temp).


    One of the dangers of this kind of research is the cognitive dissonance caused by years of effort, energy, and money poured into something. It makes you really want to get a return for your investment, and can compromise a person's objectivity. Objectivity is often quite painful! I'm not saying that's happened here for certain, but it is an internal battle that scientists should be aware of. Real phenomena need not fear any legitimate question.