I'd be more satisfied by seeing more of the raw data
120w excess heat 2017.
https://docs.google.com/spread…EMipY/edit#gid=1856684673
there is a calibration one also on the previous Mizuno thread somewhere.
Mizuno reports increased excess heat
-
-
JedRothwell : is there any information about the seal material Mizuno-san used?
-
Display More
Nope. The difference is far less than 20%. It does not even show up with the anemometer. See Fig. 4. Perhaps if you could measure within a millimeter of the wall you would see that, but there is no measurable difference even 1 cm away.
As I said, the calibrations and independent estimate of heat losses from the wall prove that. A fact that you cannot and will not deal with.
More to the point, even if the air flow rates were drastically wrong, the excess heat would still be a sure thing, based on temperature differences alone. As I wrote in the report:
"A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat."
If the calibrations and measurements of heat loss from the wall is correct, that 10°C indicates 250 W of excess. If you are right, then the 10°C difference indicates somewhat less. Maybe 200 W? 150 W? I do not think you can demonstrate that your hypothesis cancels out the entire 250 W.
Generally speaking when the instruments show one thing, and you or someone else has a theory that no instrument reading supports, I assume the instruments are right. When the anemometer shows the same flow rate everywhere on the outlet, and no sign of a 20% difference, your assertion that the 20% "seems pretty definite" seems pretty crazy to me. "Definite" in what sense? How can something that does not show up on any instrument be definite? How can it be definite if it would radically change the outcome of a calibration, and give a wildly incorrect answer?
Jed, that is interesting.
I agree that "even 1cm away" from edge there is no noticeable difference. However "even" is an inappropriate word and shows you do not understand this issue. 1cm away from the edge leaves untested 64% of the total area (the outer 1cm of a 5cm diameter pipe). If, for example, the flow decreased linearly to 0 in the outer 0.5cm that would not be noticeable to such tests but would mean an average velocity of 16/25 Umax (the inner part at 100%) + K*9/26*UMax where K is the integral of (2.5-r)*2*r from 2 to 2.5 / integral of r from 2 to 2.5 = 0.67/1.125= 0.59. Total 0.8524.
So that is 85% from 100% flow from over the area you tested + an extra 0.5cm closer to the edge, and then linear decrease up to the edge.
I however am only going by what was in the report. Perhaps you know there are additional recorded values? (Or, of course, I might have misunderstood the quite complex theory of turbulent flow. Can happen easily. I'd be happy for you or others to check that, I've given my working earlier when I concluded 80% looked about right, and a reference). But regardless of the theory the published data does not answer this question.
Re the calibrations - that is a different argument. I'd want more data about when and how they were done, and whether the heat loss results took into account the extra heat from the fan, as I said earlier. Perhaps you could give precise calibration data that proves this for a given wind velocity and output temperature (the effect does worse with lower velocity and higher temperature. Although I think the change is small I'm not confident of it. I reached the end of my patience looking at and comparing the various approximations so could not double check that = it might easily be wrong). The 80% figure might also be wrong, but I spent a bit of time checking it and it seemed to pan out.
-
Display More
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.
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.
Agree Jack. Both the psychology and the inevitable need for raw data and careful cross-checking.
From what is published there are no obvious smoking guns - although a few things that don't quite seem right like the strangely stable R20, and the assumption about average wind speed, which I don't think breaks things in itself, though wrong. However there is an obvious lack of precise raw data - not relying on what you did some time ago (a recipe for errors). In particular I tend not to trust unusual experimental results that depend on work from previous papers, rather then done with self-contained checks of everything.
I wish more workers in this area understood what you do, and just as important realised that external observers experienced at evaluating such things will be aware of this. If they did, many people would be much more careful with both experimental work and write-ups and the field as a whole would have a better reputation.
-
The 'creative leap' or major advance in Mizuno's work seems to derive from a simple change in reactor design from an external heating system in R19 to an internal one in R20. With an internal heater the Pd/Ni mesh would be directly exposed to the infra-red EM radiation from the heater, whilst the external heater could only raise the Pd/Ni mesh temperature via conduction through the reactor casing plus some low level IR radiation from the reactor walls (sufficient to trigger a low level of excess heat). This interpretation fits in well with Dennis Lett's, Hagelstein's and Holmlid's analyses which all definitively demonstrate that it is the IR EM radiation which triggers cold fusion reactions, muon release etc - and why replication attempts often fail using heating systems situated inappropriately in eg powder/solid systems where the reactor core temperature is raised without any or little direct IR radiation exposure.
The other major Japanese group (Takahashi et al) working with nanoparticle Cu/Ni alloys have also just reported high excess heat from their system in which they report a transient 3 kW excess heat again by directly irradiating with IR - which all seems very consistent - and exciting that at last we have a breakthrough that is for once consistent with most previous data/theory and can be quickly replicated (if IH is willing to sponsor some of us to do it maybe!)
-
Display More
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
Robert - I think you have read my initial post on this (which was wrong and had no details) but then skipped the later correction with plentiful references and equations? Sorry, but I can't spare the time to find it now.
Let us see if we are on the same page:
Reynolds number (RN) - varies depending on assumptions but I'll go with somone else's checkpoint of 6800 at 2m/s or my ballpark of 12,000 at 3.5m/s. Lower RN indicates a lower average wind relative to mid-pipe velocity and also less turbulent flow. These RN are both in turbulent region but not very far into it (crossover is 2300 if I remember right). I reserve right for a later better calculation to pull RN at low wind speed and high temperature down lower than 6800 but I'm not saying that would happen - I just am not sure. However under all circumstances this flow is turbulent.
At RN = 10,000, rough approximation (for turbulent flow) puts average wind velocity at 80% of middle of pipe wind velocity. The approximations here in the theory are variable - because all empirical and the work over different RN ranges. But two different approximations give 78% and 81% which gives me some confidence.
NB all these velocities are time averaged (it is turbulent). The average above is an average of the velocity over the pipe cross-section.
-
120w excess heat 2017.
https://docs.google.com/spread…EMipY/edit#gid=1856684673
there is a calibration one also on the previous Mizuno thread somewhere.
I just don't have more time at the moment. I remember looking a bit at this 2017 data. The trouble with it was:
There is no guarantee that cal and active runs have the same thermal characteristics - the reactor are different, they are located in different parts of the calorimeter. Efforts have been made to ensure they are similar - maybe - but we do not know.
The results here could be accounted for by such differences. The 62W excess from 120W in results is nevertheless quite high, and it is a shame there were not better checks. I think maybe I stopped being very interested in this when IH found M could not replicate for them? Anyone wanting to look at this could see also the cal data, and would also need a description of precisely how the calibration / active switch was made. I had a vague memory that the once device was in the middle of the calorimeter and the other at its edge? Maybe that is wrong.
Whereas the current results are larger and with adequate cross-checking would be much more convincing. M has a chance to do this now, perhaps?
-
Jed -- I ask a third time for a schematic of the D2 and vacuum plumbing.
Other posters -- I ask how do we _rule_ _out_ air being sucked in at higher temperatures and then chemically recombining with D2 to make D2O plus chemical heat from the enthalpy of reaction.
Any back of the envelope calculation will do based on pressure, as could mass spec output of the vacuum pump output gas showing no D2O.
Note: if the COP is truly 5 to 6 at 300 watts input, my gut feel says that 1500 watts to 1800 watts out would be really hard to mess up the calorimetry, even if we are completely wrong on things like Reynolds numbers. Simply running the unit with same pressure of helium as a control and having the same airflow past the cylinder, with the same 300 watts input -- it either gets a lot hotter or it doesn't. Measure it at the thermocouple on the cylinder or at the output of the airflow -- if it is a lot hotter than it works. Gut feel says the cylinder should be at least 50C hotter. How much gets transferred to the airflow I don't know, but it should be significant.
The exact COP is not important. Proof of the effect is important.
Other posters -- please help out and Jed, please help me with the diagram. The diagram from the JCMNS 2019 (earlier) paper shows "a valve to the vacuum system" and "valve to the QM system". I am guessing that QM means "Q-Mass" as described in step (2) on page 3 of that paper. Q-Mass is the mass spectrometer? It has to run at a partial vacuum to pull the gas thru the spectrometer.
Where is the D2 gas introduced? (Through which pipe.)
How is the pressure regulated?
Is the D2 gas supply metered?
Am I missing another paper that describes this in enough detail for me to figure this out?
-
Display More
Jed -- I ask a third time for a schematic of the D2 and vacuum plumbing.
Other posters -- I ask how do we _rule_ _out_ air being sucked in at higher temperatures and then chemically recombining with D2 to make D2O plus chemical heat from the enthalpy of reaction.
Any back of the envelope calculation will do based on pressure, as could mass spec output of the vacuum pump output gas showing no D2O.
Note: if the COP is truly 5 to 6 at 300 watts input, my gut feel says that 1500 watts to 1800 watts out would be really hard to mess up the calorimetry, even if we are completely wrong on things like Reynolds numbers. Simply running the unit with same pressure of helium as a control and having the same airflow past the cylinder, with the same 300 watts input -- it either gets a lot hotter or it doesn't. Measure it at the thermocouple on the cylinder or at the output of the airflow -- if it is a lot hotter than it works. Gut feel says the cylinder should be at least 50C hotter. How much gets transferred to the airflow I don't know, but it should be significant.
The exact COP is not important. Proof of the effect is important.
Other posters -- please help out and Jed, please help me with the diagram. The diagram from the JCMNS 2019 (earlier) paper shows "a valve to the vacuum system" and "valve to the QM system". I am guessing that QM means "Q-Mass" as described in step (2) on page 3 of that paper. Q-Mass is the mass spectrometer? It has to run at a partial vacuum to pull the gas thru the spectrometer.
Where is the D2 gas introduced? (Through which pipe.)
How is the pressure regulated?
Is the D2 gas supply metered?
Am I missing another paper that describes this in enough detail for me to figure this out?
Other posters -- I ask how do we _rule_ _out_ air being sucked in at higher temperatures and then chemically recombining with D2 to make D2O plus chemical heat from the enthalpy of reaction.
Good point: leaks can switch on/off with temperature.
I did ask this in my early comment. I think you need to show that the total amt of D2 in the system is too low to have much effect based on enthalpy (and made that assumption conditional on it being provable). If however the vacuum connection is somehow connected to a large D2 source and allows D2 into the reactor during the experiment that is indeed an issue - even at the low low pressure used here a continued flux of D2 in would be an issue. -
If however the vacuum connection is somehow connected to a large D2 source and allows D2 into the reactor during the experiment that is indeed an issue - even at the low low pressure used here a continued flux of D2 in would be an issue.
How many drinks did you have? Wired dreams to distort the reality ? D-D recombination with what? Two more drinks and one more leak would help...
May be you should explain which reaction can produce 2.7 kW excess with your single leak. You also need to explain how you can degase a reactor at 0.02Pa with your big leak...
-
Good point: leaks can switch on/off with temperature.
I discussed leaks in the paper. When there are no reactants in the cell, the pressure remains the same for weeks, within a few Pascals. When there are reactants, the pressure drops by 10 or 20 Pa sometimes, and then rises a little as the material de-gasses. If there were a leak the pressure would rise by thousands of Pascals. Even if it did rise by that amount, that would be air. Even if you opened the valve and let it fill with air to 1 atm (101,000 Pa), the amount of free D2 gas in the cell would be so small there is not the slightest chance you could detect recombination of D2 with oxygen. It would be picowatts.
Before you write comments like that, I suggest you compute the volume of the cylinder and estimate how much D2 gas there is at 600 Pa. Estimate how much heat that could produce if all of it burned.
Other posters -- I ask how do we _rule_ _out_ air being sucked in at higher temperatures and then chemically recombining with D2 to make D2O plus chemical heat from the enthalpy of reaction.
By the method I just described. You don't need me to tell you this. Frankly, I think anyone with elementary knowledge of chemistry could have figured out how to do this. Look up the heat of formation of water and a few other things and Bob's your uncle.
-
How many drinks did you have? Wired dreams to distort the reality ? D-D recombination with what? Two more drinks and one more leak would help...
May be you should explain which reaction can produce 2.7 kW excess with your single leak. You also need to explain how you can degase a reactor at 0.02Pa with your big leak...
Well - D2 burning in O2 leaking from outside (the vacuum pressure is lower than 1 atm). And leaks often switch on/off with temperature or other conditions, like changing mode of operation. Finally, degassing under vaccum pump conditions is of course compatible with a leak (the gasses from which would be evacuated).
I think you have this backward. I don't need to explain anything - because I'm making no claims.
I'm just noting that in order for the results to be safe, it has to be provable that the total amount of D2 entering the cell has << enthalpy (when burnt) then the claimed output.
Personally, I don't think this is a very likely issue. It is however a check that must be made by anyone claiming these results show excess heat from something nuclear. Personally I never trust what I think is most likely: I'm quite often surprised. And no good experimenter would rely on likelihood.
-
Jed -- I ask a third time for a schematic of the D2 and vacuum plumbing.
Yeah. I am not inclined to read your messages or respond to them because you are anonymous. I prefer not to deal with people who do not give me their names.
I don't have the schematic. Frankly, I don't plan to ask Mizuno for it. If you do not know how to set up something like this, you are not a person skilled in the art (as I put it in the paper), and I don't think you should try to replicate. You notice I put many details in the paper about how to prepare the reactants. That is the unique aspect of this experiment that a person skilled in the art who is replicating cannot know. I did not put any details at all about how to use off the shelf instruments such as the pressure meter (ULVAC, GCMT GTran ISG-1). I did not even say he used a turbomolecular pump. I have that in my notes, with a photo of the pump and the faceplate listing the model. I didn't mention it because I figured that anyone who does not realize you need a turbomolecular pump or who does not know how to set one up should not be doing this experiment.
-
Frankly, I think anyone with elementary knowledge of chemistry could have figured out how to do this. Look up the heat of formation of water and a few other things and Bob's your uncle.
Jed: we need information on the total amount of D2 that could possibly enter the cell. As I said, if during operation this is known zero because the cell is not connector to a D2 reservoir that is just what you need to confirm.
The enthalpy of combustion as you say can easily be worked out and compared with total output excess energy. I'd sort of expect the paper to do this eliminating burning as a cause of the output enthalpy. As I say, I doubt this is an issue. I'd prefer to be sure it is not an issue, especially when this should be easy to establish.
-
Objectivity is often quite painful!
Indeed. And something the scientific community has largely lacked toward the CF space for 30 years. We do not forget. There will be a day of reckoning.
-
I wish more workers in this area understood what you do, and just as important realised that external observers experienced at evaluating such things will be aware of this. If they did, many people would be much more careful with both experimental work and write-ups and the field as a whole would have a better reputation.
I wish more gatekeepers in the scientific community did not stifle the CF space by destroying the reputations of those who dared construct such experiments, while simultaneously shutting down any possibility of significant funding. Kind of hard to do basic research without funding and among hostile colleagues.
-
D2 burning in O2 leaking
Lovely idea. At what concentration might Deuterium burn reliably under those conditions? I can tell you, it would need to be a concentration of +5% by volume.
Need we go on anymore?
-
This is how Levi and Fochi measured the HT with the PCE during phase 1 of “Indication of...”. Does this make sense to you?
Hint1: there is a negative power factor, meaning that the PCE thinks the HT is supplying electricity.
This looks like a 3-phase power measurement, but the meter must have been connected wrong. V31 is close to zero, indicating that phases 3 and 1 are effectively shorted together. It cannot be just a 2 phase measurement because then the currents do not make sense. My guess is that they connected the phase 3 voltage probe to the wrong place - to phase 1 instead of 3. That would produce the top measurements, but make the resulting power measurements nonsense.
-
Been unable to log on my PC (I forgot my password to this site and only my PC browser knows it) but have been reading the posts all week from my phone.
I am appaled by the high animosity this thread has evolved.
I think one can point possibly overlooked sources of contention and error on the results without the need to be derisive and smug. Curiosity should be the main driver of analysis and perusing of the results, and not prejudgment on the experimenter's capacity. As an example I can cite one ocassion in which a very controversial finding (SEMs of diatom frustules embedded within the material of a chondriaceous meteorite sample) drawed powerfully my attention and I managed to put me in contact with the researchers and worked with them asking them the obvious and not so obvious questions, even some they had not asked themselves. The matter is still controversial, as they were able to prove all their claims to their satisfaction and some critic's satisfaction, but not to other's more biased critic's satisfaction, but they at least were forced to make much more observations and provide much more data than initially, so their positions became much stronger, even if most researchers will refuse to accept that.
On the other hand, and as it happened in the example I mention, I also think any experimentalist needs to embrace criticism of their work as an opportunity to build better experiments or check areas they might have overlooked or not payed enough attention. The worse it can happen for paying attention to critics is to learn something, and the best, that the critics are proven wrong.
Leaving emotions out of the equation should be mandatory for practitioners of science, and I mean it for both sides of the field, critics and supporters.
