Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from Robert Horst

    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.

    I don’t want to derail the proper topic of this thread, but I will add that there were 4 wires connected to the HT, while the PCE was set in 3phase 3wire mode (bottom Left corner of screen). That means no neutral wire. However the neutral was connected to the HT.


    There were 6 wires coming from the HT, three on each end. Two on each end were connected together, implying a series connection of three coil sections. However there were 4 wires, which correspond (correct colour for Italy) to a 3 phase plus neutral supply, with blue control boxes intercepting at least two phases. Maybe all three, I forget. Each of the 4 wires was in turn connected to a lead on the HT, either to a lead pair connection or to a single lead, on both ends. I tried modelling the current flow and it is ugly.


    This is what I got from the photos. (Where the wires go inside inside of the HT is theoretical).

    .

    8217-ecat-wiring-001-jpg

    One or two inconsistencies with Mizuno's work compared to others - gas pressures seem very low 100 -300 Pa ideal then reduced XSH > 6000 Pa when compared with Takahashi's expts using 1-2 MPa H or D - explanation H or D permeability important not concentration. XSH not seen at such low loading levels in other work - although Holmlid quotes using H or D gas pressures as low as 10^-5 mBar = 0.001 Pa - weird. It would also be sensible to have measured the temperature of the Pd/Ni mesh directly - only 54g mass of mesh to raise the temperature of the Kg stainless steel reactor vessel by 100 deg C to yield 2-3 kW power output? Temperature of mesh >1000 deg C?

    3 questions and sorry if the answers are obvious to some:


    1. Was the 3kW output with the 300W input simply estimated by human sensation or was some other method used?


    2. Is the only difference between a blank/control reactor and an active one the presence or absence of deuterium?


    3, Dr Richard wrote:

    Quote

    It would also be sensible to have measured the temperature of the Pd/Ni mesh directly

    I am also curious about this. At 3kW output, the interior of the reactor and the mesh should be very hot.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. In this case, I would use what otherwise would be overkill: two independent cooling and measurement systems, the first cooling the reactor using air, the second cooling the air using water. Keeping sufficient pressure to prevent cavitation and maximum water temperatures below 60 C guarantee we are dealing with liquid water – not steam. If both systems show similar levels of excess heat, the proof is good. The air temperatures would be higher than in Mizunos experiments, but that should not be a problem.


    The air system would have a single reactor inside a cylindrical insulation, with a separation between reactor and insulation optimized to keep recommended heat transfer rates at the chosen air flow rates. In addition, I would use a gold surface IR reflector at the inside of the insulation.


    The experimental protocol would cycle dummy and active mode, perhaps 3 days each (when good active mesh has been made, giving at least 100% excess heat, based on Mizunos results and the preliminary tests that need to be made). The only difference would be that in dummy mode, the mesh is removed. This means that there will be a number of mesh handling, degassing, loading and deloading procedures between dummy and active modes.


    The choice of heater might be critical. I don't understand this one yet. If IR is responsible for triggering high thermal emissivity would be beneficial (highly oxidized casing).

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed: we need information on the total amount of D2 that could possibly enter the cell.

    It is right there in the paper! Figure it out. The cell is 600 mm long, 114 mm diameter. That's 6,124 cm^3. At 1000 Pa, 20 deg C, with the ideal gas law, that's 2.5e-3 moles. So that forms 0.0012 moles of water. (It takes 2 moles of H and one of O to make water, so divide 2.5e-3 by 2). The heat of formation of water is -285,820 J/mole. So that's 343 J.


    Compare that to the reaction. This spreadsheet shows it continued for 24 hours. Actually it went on longer, but 250 W for 24 hours is 86,400 s * 250 W = 21,600,000 J. So, the heat from D2 would be 62,974 times too small for one day, and the reaction continued for several days.

    It should be pretty obvious that Mizuno is not getting 3kW long term output by burning deuterium, not to mention that he isn't adding any.


    Birger : It's doubtful, if I read JedRothwell correctly, that Mizuno will have the resources or stamina to construct a new calorimeter. But if one is used, I think the next logical step is a fluid cooled Seebeck effect "envelope" calorimeter. These are easy to calibrate, capture almost all heat leaving the experiment, and are essentially based on "first principles." The downside is making them but Storms published a comparatively easy method and they can also be made out of commercially available heat flux transducers though that could be more expensive. An approach with slightly less accuracy but more practicality and lower cost is to make the envelope out of any convenient material and apply heat flux sensors at strategic places but covering only a small part of the surface of the envelope.


    This paper is typical of an article about Storms' Seebeck calorimeters but there are better construction instructions somewhere, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…017fceea48d730660303f.pdf


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor


    I do not expect Mizuno to do anything like that unless an unexpected deficiency is found in his experiments.

    Quote from Birger

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. In this case, I would use whatotherwise would be overkill: two independent cooling and measurement systems, the first cooling the reactor using air, the second coolingthe air using water.

    I strongly disagree.


    First, "extraordinary" is in the mind of the beholder. You find this extraordinary. I find it ordinary because I have been looking at cold fusion data for decades.


    Second, if replications in 180 labs and correlation with helium is not "extraordinary," I do not know what would be. How much more proof do you need?


    Third, this whole concept is wrong. All claims, ordinary or extraordinary, require ordinary proof. As ordinary as you can make it. Use conventional instruments and textbook methods whenever possible. Do not invent new or unusual ways to do an experiment that people have done since the 1840s. Do not complicate things with "two independent cooling and measurement systems."


    Not only do all claims call for ordinary proof, all claims should be held to the same level of rigor. You should work just as hard in high school to prove that the heat of formation of water is -285,820 J/mol. as Mizuno has worked to prove the reaction really is producing 250 W. Always do your best. Always do it the best way you know how. This experiment is the best way we know how, given the constraints of time and money he works under. No doubt SRI or Los Alamos could do it with 2 or 3 extra digits of precision and a far larger s/n ratio.


    If you can think of a better way, and you think added complexity with "two independent cooling and measurement systems" would enhance the results, you should do that. I advise against it, but you should do it your way. However, do not expect us to follow your advice when we disagree.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    t's doubtful, if I read JedRothwell correctly, that Mizuno will have the resources or stamina to construct a new calorimeter.

    Probably right, although he can tweak this one, if someone suggests an improvement. I did suggest improvements, and he did tweak the surroundings, not the calorimeter itself, to dampen ambient temperature fluctuations. They are still large, as you see in Fig. 7. The fluctuations are 1 or 2 W. Those are not actually watts; that is the effect of ambient temperature changes, doors opening and closing, the heater going on and off, and so on. Ambient temperature is recorded and you can see the effects of it on the data, so I am sure that is what is causing it. In other words, that is 1 - 2 W of noise. You can get a much better reading by taking the average for the whole day, but that does not help when you are trying to see small trends in the data. With good temperature control in the laboratory, those fluctuations would be a fraction of a watt.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    But if one is used, I think the next logical step is a fluid cooled Seebeck effect "envelope" calorimeter.

    We thought about that. A Seebeck calorimeter large enough for these cells would be a nightmare to construct, and it would cost a fortune.


    I think the way forward is to have others replicate this. People with more money and a safer lab should use different kinds of calorimeters. I would love to see someone run an R20 reactor with 500 W input and kilowatt level output, in a calorimeter that can measure that much. Mizuno and I have been discussing how to do that. He may not be able to do it safely -- in which case he shouldn't. We have extrapolated from lower power and from open air tests to get a crude estimate, but a direct instrument reading would be the cat's pajamas.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    These are easy to calibrate,

    Not in my experience.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    capture almost all heat leaving the experiment,

    That they do.

    You assume that what I suggest is to convince myself. That is a mistake. It is all about convincing others. Those 180 replications did not pave the way for LENR, did they?


    Now, what we have is a very (in comparision) simple experiment that might be replicated, or might not. If it will be replicated by the same 'hundreds of labs' as before, do you expect the outcome different? If so, why? It is extraordinary in most physicists eyes. That is a fact. You have to make clever people shift their core beliefs. Try to look at it from their point. Adding an extra water circuit is not the major cost in the experiment, but it will add credibility to the results. I don't expect Mizuno do do this. Why should he (and you, if 'us' means you and him)? Please don't be so hostile towards suggestions deviating from your ideas. Being creative and curious is the basis for scientific development. Cooperation, not division, is the way.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    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?


    Alan - since this experiment uses an unusual catalyst, and runs at quite high temperatures, I don't see how we can assess how quickly D2 + O2 reacts. If there is enough D2 ingress for that to cause the excess heat (which I doubt) then surely the discovery of catalytic oxidation of D2 on a specific metal surface (not at all an unusual thing) is a simpler solution to these results than LENR?


    In any case, since it would surely be easily removed as a possibility, so best to do that? Even if you are convinced this is LENR, the purpose of write-ups is to put forward evidence objectively that can inform those not so convinced.


    THH

    Quote

    I think the way forward is to have others replicate this. People with more money and a safer lab should use different kinds of calorimeters. I would love to see someone run an R20 reactor with 500 W input and kilowatt level output, in a calorimeter that can measure that much. Mizuno and I have been discussing how to do that. He may not be able to do it safely -- in which case he shouldn't. We have extrapolated from lower power and from open air tests to get a crude estimate, but a direct instrument reading would be the cat's pajamas.

    I agree and I strongly suggest you contact Earth Tech. If they can't do it, they will know who can.


    With the results on hand, you should also be able to interest some of the usual suspects with money. You might even be able to get Gates if he really is the one doing LENR funding as suspected but not proven. But first, Earth Tech for sure unless they no longer have interest but that is doubtful.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    An approach with slightly less accuracy but more practicality and lower cost is to make the envelope out of any convenient material and apply heat flux sensors at strategic places but covering only a small part of the surface of the envelope.

    Mizuno used something like an IR camera to cover the whole thing. He did that at one point, anyway. Plus the Omega thermocouples I left there. You can estimate the losses with the data from the first paper, plus the R-rating of that type of insulation, which I found at the Home Depot website. Assume that the acrylic plastic does not insulate at all, to simplify things. That estimate is crude but it agrees more or less. That's how we know the losses from the envelope are approximately the same as input power minus output measured in the flow of air. The numbers shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are derived by input minus output measured in the flow of air, because that is the most accurate method, but they are confirmed by other methods.


    If output is measured wrong, because -- for example -- the wind speed is off by 20% as THH suspects, we could still come up with the graphs like Figs. 2 and 3 by subtracting output from input. It would be a fudge factor. It would be meaningless. If you graphed it in Fig. 2, I'll bet it would look physically impossible. So you have to confirm this by other methods. The fact that these other methods agree is proof that THH is wrong. Something he does not seem to understand.

    BTW, here is a relatively cheap and easy way to estimate the output of the 3kW device ( JedRothwell never answered how this was done ). Purchase one or more commercially available high temperature heat flux sensors and apply them to the reactor surface. That can't be all that expensive. Maybe there are Chinese ones? I think Omega sells them also. At least measure the temperature at the reactor surface. How hard can that be?


    ETA: I didn't see the above message while I was writing this one


    Quote

    The numbers shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are derived by input minus output measured in the flow of air, because that is the most accurate method, but they are confirmed by other methods


    I'm not done reading the papers so tell me, are those data available in papers or elsewhere? If not, you should consider adding them. I am curious about outside surface temps reached by the reactors.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It is right there in the paper! Figure it out. The cell is 600 mm long, 114 mm diameter. That's 6,124 cm^3. At 1000 Pa, 20 deg C, with the ideal gas law, that's 2.5e-3 moles. So that forms 0.0012 moles of water. (It takes 2 moles of H and one of O to make water, so divide 2.5e-3 by 2). The heat of formation of water is -285,820 J/mole. So that's 343 J.


    Compare that to the reaction. This spreadsheet shows it continued for 24 hours. Actually it went on longer, but 250 W for 24 hours is 86,400 s * 250 W = 21,600,000 J. So, the heat from D2 would be 62,974 times too small for one day, and the reaction continued for several days.


    When anyone asks for the schematics you do not provide them? I would need you to confirm that during the experiments the reactors are sealed with no vacuum pump connection. Or that the vacuum pump setup does not have a D2 reservoir on the other side. Or that it is known D2 cannot leak through the pump. I'm not expecting these things, but anyone here to be sure of this matter needs to understand completely that D2 cannot be continually added to the cell (and also calculate that the amount in the cell is not enough - but that is easier, and the data exists).


    Thanks for your helpful calculations above. I think you have forgotten the D2 loaded onto the gauze - which can also oxidise. How would you bound the amount of loaded D2? I calculate that as around 80g so I'd guess much more than can be loaded.

    Quote

    Alan - since this experiment uses an unusual catalyst, and runs at quite high temperatures, I don't see how we can assess how quickly D2 + O2 reacts. If there is enough D2 ingress for that to cause the excess heat (which I doubt) then surely the discovery of catalytic oxidation of D2 on a specific metal surface (not at all an unusual thing) is a simpler solution to these results than LENR

    So is deuterium added in any appreciable amount to the experiment during a run? I didn't see anything that says so apart from that the pressure is maintained something below 600 Pa if memory serves. It's hard to imagine a leak so large that significant amounts of deuterium are flowing in. I didn't calculate it but 3kW, actually 2.5kW added, especially for an appreciable duration, would require a lot of burning deuterium.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    So is deuterium added in any appreciable amount to the experiment during a run? I didn't see anything that says so apart from that the pressure is maintained something below 600 Pa if memory serves. It's hard to imagine a leak so large that significant amounts of deuterium are flowing in. I didn't calculate it but 3kW, actually 2.5kW added, especially for an appreciable duration, would require a lot of burning deuterium.

    my understanding is the device was removed from the gas system and "capped" or valve turned off and removed.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Alan - since this experiment uses an unusual catalyst, and runs at quite high temperatures, I don't see how we can assess how quickly D2 + O2 reacts.

    We don't need to estimate the. The reaction rate is 250 W. The D2 can produce 343 J. So if it is causing the reaction, it will be used up in 1.4 s.


    I do not think it could react that quickly, but that's how quickly it must be, if you are correct. That's what the data shows. Now you have to explain how fuel that should last for 1.4 s continues to heat something for days. Good luck with that!


    Around 200 BC, when something similar supposedly happened, people immediately saw that it was a violation of natural laws, and therefore a miracle. It was called the miracle of the Maccabees. You apparently do not understand why fuel lasting 62,974 times longer than normal would be a miracle. You apparently have less common sense and less knowledge of physics than any person living in 200 BC did. The fact that you would even bring this up shows that the skeptical objections to cold fusion are bankrupt. They are preposterous. You seem incapable of the most basic quantitative analysis.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    So is deuterium added in any appreciable amount to the experiment during a run?

    No. Table 1 shows that nothing was added.


    Anyway, you could fill the whole thing to 10 atm, let in air, and it wouldn't burn at 250 W for a day. Do the numbers yourself. Cheat! There are on-line calculators for the ideal gas law. Nothing to it. The question is: why didn't THH do it? It is weird making claims like this without any quantitative analysis.


    Quote from oldguy

    my understanding is the device was removed from the gas system and "capped" or valve turned off and removed.

    Not removed. You just close the Swaglok valves. Those things are amazing. When there is no reactant in the vessel, the pressure stays the same for days.


    It also an excellent leakproof vessel.

    Quote from Dr Richard

    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.

    Yes, I think you are right! 8)


    Mizuno should try a far infrared heater and see If the % XSH change... i.e. It should improve If it is THz radiation that is the trigger, since far infrared heater has more THz radiation relative to a normal heater.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.