Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from RobertBryant

Your understanding appears wrong.. otherwise the two 3cm anemometer readings are taken

outside the 5 cm pipe.

You need to check your understanding with Jed.

1cm away from the wall is too much for a small pipe

for a small pipe we used a mini pitot tube in the days to get closer.

Jed may approximated the 0.74 cm to 1 cm in communicating with you,

It may be that the traverse section is wider to make the measurements more accurate.

You have a claimed that this causes 50 % error in the flow measurements.

Can you show calculations/ profile etc that substantiate this claim?

Display More

RB - I'm going in the data in the paper, plus what I could get out of Jed here. I'm sure Jed can resolve the matter.

I have however not claimed 50% error - originally, befoe looking at the matter more fully, I said the error might be as much as 50%, and soon after that I tightened things up a bit. My best estimate of the error, having crunched the number inasfar as I can ATM, is 80% (20% error). And I have linked the calculations (and given the Re calculations, which other agree with) that indicate this. I did that in the post I made - not my first one, but when I was prompted to investigate much more fully and find numbers - a long time back. I gave my reasons and linked the source material from which I derived equations. I was hoping people like you would follow up on that.

You should also note the way this works. If something is not done in the paper to tie down an uncertainty - but COULD be inferred from the paper results with some additional assumptions and calculation, I will claim that the figure is uncertain. Not that it is wrong bit that it could be wrong, and give the bounds as understood. Further investigation might (usually does) tie this down further reducing uncertainty - especially because we have Jed here to clarify issues. I should point out that the paper should be doing this. In this case the paper mentions the problem, but gives anenometer results that do not show what the paper claims they show. Hence I tried to investigate further.

Not knowing right is different from knowing wrong. However, with these results that if real would transform physics most including me will treat not knowing right by default as equivalent to wrong, simply because transformations of physics don't happen that often.

I am always open to new information to make my assessment of this data change (in either direction - you will see that has happened - both ways - on this thread).

Quote from RobertBryant

THHuxleynew wrote:

I think you have this backward. I don't need to explain anything - because I'm making no claims

You actually do make claims

You claim that higher COPS mean the reactor IS unstable.

You have based that on an assumption of linear dependence.

I have read your post

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

"I don't need to explain anything"

You need to explain how you can come to the conclusion of instability

without any knowledge of the temperature dependence

of the reactions at the atomic level.

Mizuno's 2017 work indicated a reaction temperature dependence

which is not linear.

" 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"

In addition Mizuno appears to test run the higher COP's for hours, days

without signs of instability

Display More

I'm taking the power out from temp dependence from a graph M provides (it is supralinear - sort of quadratic). That makes stability worse than my conservative assumption.

I'm taking linear temp from power out dependence from what Jed says about the calorimeter losses being relatively small < 25%) he gives figures and the known fact that forced air cooling provides roughly linear dependence.

In any case this is a calculation, rather like a sensitivity analysis, that shows there is a large danger of instability in the COP = 6 - 10 R20, if all the claims from M are correct.

I agree the test appears to run for a long time without instability, nor does M mention this as a problem when testing under different conditions, which is why I highlight this as an anomaly.

My comments here are reasoned, and proportionate.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Much better that these papers be self-contained with all relevant details

no , you should have read the figure more closely

that is all

I read it and I understood it

the traverse width was greater than 5cm.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'm taking the power out from temp dependence from a graph M provides

THH

you make assumptions all over the place

and then you claim that

Higher COPs mean instability.

Would it be more wise to say

""based on my assumptions from control theory

which may or may not apply to a novel nuclear reactor

"Higher COPS may mean instability"""?

that would in my view be reasoned and proportionate.

Quote from RobertBryant

no , you should have read the figure more closely

that is all

I read it and I understood it

the traverse width was greater than 5cm.

This is actually quite annoying.

The numbers given are 0,1,2,3 cm. That is a total traverse of 3cm. Or possibly D/2, 1, 2, 3cm

My first thought on reading that was the same as yours, that the radius must be > 3cm because these were taken from the centre. I noted the inconsistency with the stated radius of 2.5cm. I asked Jed, who replied here at that time, that measurements were from the edge which of course makes it consistent if a bit strange.

I concluded that these mean 2.5 (for centre) 1, 2, 3cm

All that was done here, and you were reading it at the time?

I agree that the paper is not clear, and I'd be happy for jed to clarify this matter.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

from a graph M provides (it is supralinear - sort of quadratic

One can explain the same graph with ten different theories

using assumptions.

you need to examine how many assumptions you have used in your theoretical derivation.

please write it out not in this forum text

but in algebraic notion like mathtext

It is really hard to follow otherwise.

It took me awhile to figure that this was assumption

Quote from RobertBryant

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

You might also give a thought to how Mizuno's finding in 2017

""

" 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""

is consistent with your control theory derivation

Quote from THHuxleynew

I agree that the paper is not clear,

It was clear to me.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I noted the inconsistency with the stated radius of 2.5cm. I asked Jed,

So you noted the 2.5 cm inconsistency and were so polite not to mention it to Jed.

That is so polite... THHnew. Jed did mention your politeness.

I didn't notice any inconsistency because I used the 0.0044m2 figure from 2017

since Jed said not much of the setup changed except near the reactor... somewhere.

Jed must be waking up soon.. sunup in Georgia.

probably best for us to clear up any misunderstandings with him.. later today.

JedRothwell : is there some raw data available from the R20 experiments (pref. spreadsheet data)?

I would suggest changing the x axis of figures 5, 6 and 7 from hours to minutes.

Quote from JedRothwell

I would like to put this in a new thread, but I can never remember how to start a new conversation. Anyway:

I made some revisions to the Mizuno paper:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

Biggest changes:

p. 1.

Note: Readers have made valuable suggestions, so we have made some changes and corrections, mainly on p. 12. We appreciate the suggestions. This is the June 24, 2019 version.

p. 12.

Three meshes are prepared for one test. . . .

Rubbing is done with a palladium rod, 100 mm long, diameter 5.0 mm, 99.95% purity. Before rubbing the mesh, weigh it with a precision scale. Then vigorously rub the entire surface, left and right and up and down. Turn the mesh over and rub the other side. Weigh the mesh again. Continue until the weight increases by 15 to 20 mg. The weight of the stack of three meshes should increase by about 50 mg.

Display More

Just one question:

Is the reaction stimulated/triggered by high voltage electric discharges ?

In Fig. 1 of

Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel

appears a "central discharge electrode"

Quote from Alberto

Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

We only need a "dummy" i.e. control gas in the reactor. Because of the design of the experiment, the heat has to come out somewhere from the core heater or the reaction itself. If the reactor is first loaded with say helium or nitrogen and then run, and the temperature at the reactor cylinder thermocouple(s) and the Delta-T between the input and the output airflow is measured and recorded; and then the reactor is loaded with the D2 gas to near optimal parameters and the core heater is turned on to the same power setting; if the temperature is significantly higher for both the output airflow and the cylinder thermocouples, that is proof positive for excess heat from the rig. Simple -- no extra swapping of components, just hook up the inert gas cylinder first, run the control run; and then pump it out, load it with the D2 gas for the active run, and take the data. This would end any doubt that LENR works.

(The above assumes as per Jed's discussion that the D2 valve is turned off when running the active experiment, and that the control gas valve is turned off when running the control experiment, and that there is no leakage of D2 gas from the pressure side of the valve during the active test that could by some weird coincidence oxidize the D2. I think that those items are easy to rule out for Mizuno or any replicator using for example pressure gage in the reactor and the pressure gage on the D2 or control gas rig. Simple alternative arrangements (i.e. two valves, one on the tank side and one on the rig side, with a pressure gage in between) can rule out any significant D2 being introduced.

In short, with those assumptions, it seems to this anonymous observer that we have proof positive coming after a successful replication. Congratulations to the experimenters and the entire community conditional on the successful replication. It's almost too good to believe is true. Cheers!