# Mizuno reports increased excess heat

• They look to me to be substantially the same, except that the one if paper (2) has been cleaned up a bit so that you can see the lines better.

• 1cm away from the edge leaves untested 64% of the total area (the outer 1cm of a 5cm diameter pipe).

THHnew

I know that you are a mathematical whizz and know that Area=pi r2

for a duct area of 0.0044m2 = 7.48 cm.

The anemometers are 0.74 cm from the edge.

Check what areas you get.

The velocity in that area can be predicted from Reynolds number

It is not zero.

• Play fair, and don't drag your obsessions into this. Jed has his hands full defending Mizuno's work as it is, without you trying to side track him into defending FP's. If something in Mizuno's report is that obvious to you, go ahead and tell us about it instead of playing games.

• I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter.

• It seems to me that the differences

What differences... what differences what's new in the woodwork .

Is this quantitative? as in measuring % difference on a graph??

this vagueness I suspect is vexatious... not legitimate.

• They look to me to be substantially the same, except that the one if paper (2) has been cleaned up a bit so that you can see the lines better.

What differences... what differences what's new in the woodwork .

Is this quantitative? as in measuring % difference on a graph??

this vagueness I suspect is vexatious... not legitimate.

Paper (2) was issued on 2017 and, on Fig.27, the 2 output curves at 80 and 120W are about 10% higher that the input, while the output curve at 248W smoothly approaches the corresponding input value. On the contrary, in the left graph on Fig.4 presented the next year at ICCF21 (1), the 80W output curve remains below the input value, the 120W output curve oscillates around the input value and the 248W output curve seems to remain well below the input value, but it reach this value thanks to a couple of sudden jumps.

I wonder how it is possible to get these differences, by using the same set of recorded data

• A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat.

Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:

I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow calorimetry because it is not affected by such temperature variations. You do have to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.

Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It complicates matters.

If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing heat. An IR camera might reveal that.

• Quote

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter.

Alberto Wonderful idea. But not instead of the calorimeter. In addition. BTW, the current result is so large that any error which would account for it must be large as well, says Captain Obvious.

• I am curious about outside surface temps reached by the reactors.

See Table 1.

See also Fig. 2. That's from calibrations but it covered the range of power levels and temperatures from the active tests. The peak is around 360 deg C, the same as Table 1. I don't know how much hotter it is inside the vessel. I would like to know! After a while I suppose the surface is about as hot as the inside . . .

Someone asked about the heating curves. The surface gets hotter quickly when you raise the input power. Roughly as quickly as a toaster oven when you turn up the power. Given the slow response time of the air flow calorimetry, this is not going show up quickly, and if cold fusion excess power lags (which I assume it must do), it would be difficult to see that. I think. I leave that up to people who are much better at heat flow calculations than me. People with those amazing freeware heat simulation software packages should look into it.

• Play fair, and don't drag your obsessions into this. Jed has his hands full defending Mizuno's work as it is, without you trying to side track him into defending FP's. If something in Mizuno's report is that obvious to you, go ahead and tell us about it instead of playing games.

I didn't mentioned F&P. In this thread, JR has already cited them many times, defying skeptics to tell "who has debunked a mainstream cold fusion experiment" (1). I had a suggestion, but choose not to tell him, because I don't want to rise the F&P issue in this thread, even if, as stated in the 2017 paper (2), the author's aim was " to reproduce a long-standing curious phenomenon that occurs in metal–hydrogen systems [1–5]", where all the 5 references are F&P's articles, including the one reporting the "1992 boil-off experiment".

• Given Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 7, how likely are these culprits? As noted in the paper, the thermocouples are calibrated together, in water over a range of temperatures. (As the water cools.) They agree to within a fraction of a degree with a mercury thermometer. Even if they were inaccurate, as long as they agree with one another, that would work. In other words, they are used to measure a temperature difference, so precision is the only thing that matters. In fact, they remain both accurate and precise. They are regularly checked against the mercury thermometer and the Omega handheld thermocouples, throughout the experiment, and they always agree.

There is not the slightest chance they are wrong by 10 deg C, given this error checking. If the excess heat produced only a fraction of a degree difference, that would be in the noise, given the unstable ambient room temperatures shown in Fig. 7. The difference is 10 deg C (Fig. 5), which is far above any error or noise. No lab grade thermometer or thermocouple intended for this range of temperatures (0 to 100 deg C) made in the last 150 years would produce an error that large. It would break altogether. The mercury would leak out; the thermocouple would register random numbers. An error of this size is out of the question. Since they are regularly checked against 3 other thermometers it is 3 times out of the question.

I'm not referring to the calibration of the thermocouples. I'm referring to the calibration of the calorimeter. A difference in heat conduction due to different amounts of contact between the reactor and the bottom or sides of the calorimeter is a likely culprit. An additional likely culprit is the output thermocouple having contact with material that is conducting heat better than the flowing air.

Seeing the raw data would help me to believe it (assuming it supports the other measurements). In particular, I am interested in the reactor temperature during calibration. Could you post the data or at least look at it for a comparison?

Do you think he would be willing to run a final calibration over the full range of input powers?

• In this thread, JR has already cited them many times, defying skeptics to tell "who has debunked a mainstream cold fusion experiment" (1).

I have a narrow definition of "debunking." I mean professional scientists writing papers. I realize that you sincerely think you debunked F&P. Many other people on the internet think they debunked them. But I only count scientific papers published in journals or proceedings. They must include a signature and attribution, not an internet name such as "Ascoli65." Also, I demand these papers give technical reasons pointing to problems in the experiment. They can't just say "my theory says this can't happen."

Morrison and Shanahan published papers, and they think they debunked cold fusion, but I disagree. You can read their papers at LENR-CANR.org and decide for yourself. If you were to publish, in my opinion your paper would fall in the same category as Morrison and Shanahan. It would be a legitimate, published, signed attempt to find errors, but it would be wrong.

The editors at Nature and Scientific American, and the people who wrote the three recent editorials in Nature think they debunked F&P, and cold fusion in general, but they do not give any technical reasons. They just say it is wrong. That does not count, as I said. They have to point to experimental errors.

• Seeing the raw data would help me to believe it (assuming it supports the other measurements). In particular, I am interested in the reactor temperature during calibration. Could you post the data or at least look at it for a comparison?

Yer looking at it, in Fig. 5. Extrapolate for the reactor. Trying to use the reactor temperature during excess heat production to do calorimetry will give the wrong answer by a wide margin, as I said. If you suppose it works like an isoperibolic calorimeter, it seems to be producing much more heat than the flow calorimetry shows. Because the surface is locally hot, as I said.

I may clean up and upload the spreadsheet sometime. It is kind of a mess, with polyglot comments by Mizuno & me and incomprehensible headings, etc.

• I'm not referring to the calibration of the thermocouples. I'm referring to the calibration of the calorimeter. A difference in heat conduction due to different amounts of contact between the reactor and the bottom or sides of the calorimeter is a likely culprit.

How could that change? Nothing is moved during the test, as stated in the first paper and ICCF21 presentation.

An additional likely culprit is the output thermocouple having contact with material that is conducting heat better than the flowing air.

Surely that would be apparent when you check with the Omega handheld TC or the mercury thermometer. If the inlet RTD were wrong, you would see it does not agree with the room temperature. There are maybe 4 thermometers around the room, hanging on the walls and the equipment cabinet, so you always know room temperature. There are two outlet RTDs, as stated in the paper. They agree closely. If one of them came in contact with something, it would disagree with the other one. You would see that.

Do you think he would be willing to run a final calibration over the full range of input powers?

He always does. Seriously, who doesn't?

maybe Jack could investigate those.first . they have the same air calorimetry setup.

maybe Jack could investigate those.first . they have the same air calorimetry setup.

Thanks. You are doing a better job of keeping track of my stuff than I do.

It is all in my office computer. This is my itty-bitty Chromebook computer.

• Thanks. You are doing a better job of keeping track of my stuff than I do.

No worries. Dealing with the stuff coming out of the woodwork

and chromebooks at the same time is time-consuming.