Jed has said he will find out precisely hos the heater is bent to fit inside the reactor. Re your other queries, the ends of the reactor are precision-machined high-vacuum sealing flanges, Possibly with soft copper gaskets for this temperature range, As for the cable pass-throughs, I'm sure they are sealed, but have no other details.
Thanks, Alan. All this kind of detail will make it easier for would-be replicators.
As I said in the paper, the kilowatt-scale reactions exceed the capacity of his air-flow calorimeter. He & I are discussing what sort of calorimetry can be done.
Jed,
My suggestion is to get a large room in a building with "normal insulation" (i.e. not a metal shed) that will not be damaged by raising the temperature to 40C and that can be fully valved off from any heating or AC to the remainder of the building. Ideal would be during the winter. Measure the room volume and record the temperature say every minute inside the room, outside the building, and in adjacent rooms that have heating. Turn the unit on and note the temperatures. Terminate the test if the room temperature exceeds 40C. Leave the doors and windows closed during the experiment.
Conventional building engineering models will show what temperature the room will rise to with a given amount of heat power input, and also how fast. This is done all the time so that an engineer can decide how large of an electric heater to use to heat a room (for those buildings where cheaper power is unavailable), i.e. do we need 1000 watts, or 2000 watts to be able to keep the room at 20C during the winter. Clearly the test will be easier for Mizuno if done during winter when the heat transfer out will be higher at lower interior temperatures.
For a control, a conventional 1200 watt electric heater can be used, with the same experimental protocol. Even better would be to find two rooms of the same thermal properties, run the test, and then swap them. This eliminates the variability of the outside air temperature or the insolation. Proof of power input can be provided with a conventional AC current probe and for good measure an AC volt meter across the wall to see the amount of voltage drop from the current at the units.
Incontrovertible and sensible. Anyone who comes to visit, even the Prime Minister or equivalent politician, would "get it" right away as they need no other proof other than it is really hot in the active room as compared to the control room.
End of Cold Fusion debate.
JC, former LENR experimenter, vs MY, ultimate skeptic, flipping roles. Jack now the pessimist, and MY the optimist. Only in LENR land!
I'm trying to be realistic based on experience. How many times have we been down this road of exciting new results only to discover it's either a mistake or can't be replicated?
Will using palladium leaf work as a zero waste way to apply palladium to the mesh?
Definitely not. You want to scrape the Ni with the Pd. Scrape it hard, to physically push aside oxidation and contamination, and firmly press the Pd into the Ni. The steps taken before that should clear the surface and perhaps push aside much oxidization, but the final step of pushing the Pd on is apparently effective.
Electroless deposition does not work as well for the same reason. It is not as forceful.
Why are there 4 layers at each end of the cylinder of R20? I would assume 2 would be sufficient to close off the cylinder.
I don't think people are lying or cheating. I think they probably have made some kind of mistake.
First, let me make it 100% clear I am not upset by your speculation about lying or cheating. That is always a possibility. It should always be considered. But look at our situation. There is no motive for us to lie or cheat. We just gave this away with no strings attached. I published additional Q&A. What benefit would accrue to us if we were lying or cheating? No one would be able to replicate, and it would be forgotten in a few months. There is not a dollar to be made or any status to be gained by lying.
If I had posted a message saying, "send me $1000 for a copy of this reactor!" you might suspect we were in it for the money. Whereas in fact, Mizuno may not be able to respond for requests for materials at cost, because he is very busy for personal reasons. I am scrambling around trying to find a U.S. supplier of Nickel-200, 180 mesh. (I think I found one and will report back if I have.)
You say, "I think they probably have made some kind of mistake." I don't think so. I have seen many, many mistakes. I have made many myself! They do not look like this. I cannot imagine what error it might be. But that's the thing about errors: you cannot imagine them, so that's why you make them.
Seven_of_twenty has repeatedly emphasized the large power of this experiment. I countered by saying the signal to noise ratio of previous experiments was better, even though power was 0.3 W, 0.5 W, or 5 W (Miles and McKubre). Their instruments were so much better, they could measure this low power with more confidence than Mizuno measures 250 W. That's true from a strictly scientific or technical point of view. However, seven_of_twenty does make a valid point here. It is true that the higher the power, the less likely a mistake becomes. High power automatically increases the signal to noise ratio. (Up to a certain point it does, until you have to move to a different calorimeter, which may have a whole new set of problems.)
In the paper, I made a point similar to what seven_of_twenty says, where I wrote on p. 5:
"1. 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."
It is dead simple to confirm a 10°C temperature difference. Mizuno, or I, or anyone with experience would do that instantly, repeatedly, with the thermometers and the Omega handheld thermocouples lying around the lab. We would do it several times a day. The inlet (ambient) temperature is right there on the thermometers hanging on the wall. You can measure the outlet temperature any time by holding a thermometer in the wind coming out of the calorimeter. So I do not think there is any way that measurement is wrong. I do not think the blower could be running much slower than it does during calibration. That fact would stand out boldly on the screen. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously, in the data that scrolls down from the HP gadget. THH insists the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20%. Or was it 50%? Both numbers are impossible. It wouldn't slow down that much; the motor would burn, and the fan would stop dead. The input power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat, and that excess heat continues for weeks.
As long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, it wouldn't matter if the actual wind speed is much slower than we think. You can do a comparison without knowing the actual wind speed, as long as you are sure it has not changed. The temperature difference and the wind speed are all you need to confirm there is excess heat. In my opinion, there is no chance that either (or both together) are wrong by such a large factor 50 W looks like 300 W. That is out of the question.
The results reported at ICCF21 were much closer to the margin. The chance of an error was much higher. In that sense, seven_of_twenty is correct that higher power matters, as I should have acknowledged previously.
Search for conflat (not conflate) and find more...
skip
Quoteseven_of_twenty is correct that higher power matters, as I should have acknowledged previously.
Thanks. It's OK. I (and others) have only been saying and supporting that issue for about six years! Which is why Rossi got so much attention- high power claims and high power ratio. And I knew Rossi was almost certain to be a crook and supported that assertion starting about 8 months after his announcement in January 2011. And what did I get? A lot of abuse, doxxing and even stalking and threats of violence.
Well, that's past history. Anyway, there is nothing (not the faintest evidence) to suggest Mizuno and JedRothwell are crooks so either the world is about to change or these two made the mother of all mistakes. And kudos to them for doing it more or less open source (I am not familiar with the patent situation if any).
It will be really REALLY interesting to see if Mizuno's reactor can be made to work by others like it seems to work in Mizuno's latest papers and JedRothwell 's reports. I wish someone would get IH interested again. They probably have the money and at least some access to capability. And they may be able to mobilize some sort of effort quickly.
I would be interested in kirkshanahan 's opinion on this new work, if he's still reading the forum. He's also been much maligned for no valid reason BTW.
Thanks. It's OK. I (and others) have only been saying and supporting that issue for about six years! Which is why Rossi got so much attention- high power claims and high power ratio. And I knew Rossi was almost certain to be a crook and supported that assertion starting about 8 months after his announcement in January 2011. And what did I get? A lot of abuse, doxxing and even stalking and threats of violence.
Seven of Twenty
Can you please leave your opinion
on Rossi technology off this thread.
Good to see you and others with
knowledge are working with Jed.
your english is too english, i didn't well understood, if heater is really folded ? in this case, how long is it ?
No problem. It is 2 meters long and quite thin- like a pencil. They are made to be bent to fit into any space, and will support curves of quite small radius. So it could be a coil, or simply folded a couple of times to make a shorter rod.
Sorry , i don't read everything here because there's a mix about important finding and the rest..
Do we talk about Mizuno's heater from current report ?
Alan you talks now about something 2 meters lengh bent ?
if it's right drawing is completely wrong !! Reality didn't completely represented....
It 's important to know to try to built some theoretical models...
JedRothwell gave us a link in this thread to the type of flexible heater Mizuno uses. In the paper is says it is a 100V 500W heater. The given size for that model is 2 meters long., since the reactor is NOT 2 meters long, it must be bent somehow. I was curious as to the shape, but Jed hasn't AFAIK come up with an answer.
if it's right drawing is completely wrong !! Reality didn't completely represented....
It is a very crude schematic. Not to scale or anything.
Alan Smith thanks for reply,
however i would like that JedRothwell tell us why his drawing doesn't represent exactly the GOOD heater dimensions, JedRothwell who's so fussy about details 
So sorry therefore it reminds me Parkhomov's chart DIY...
It reminds me too Dewey Weaver when he talked about Rossi's devices as empty boxes.
We could say the same here.. this is why well share all informations is really important.
For example if IR are here in relation with XH, switch the relaity by a wrong picture remains a malpractice.
Fortunately I'm not paranoid or I might think we want to hide secrets 
[utilisateur = '452'] JedRothwell [/ utilisateur] nous a indiqué dans ce fil de discussion le type de chauffage flexible utilisé par Mizuno. Dans le document, il est dit qu'il s'agit d'un appareil de chauffage 100V 500W. La taille donnée pour ce modèle est de 2 mètres de long. Comme le réacteur n’A PAS 2 mètres de long, il doit être plié d’une manière ou d’une autre. J'étais curieux de savoir quelle était la forme, mais Jed n'a pas recueilli de réponse pour autant que je sache.
so either the world is about to change or these two made the mother of all mistakes.
You listed two possibilities. There are more:
Outcomes 3, 4 and 5 are what usually happens to cold fusion claims. This experiment is easier than most, and it apparently produces more power, more readily, so I hope these outcomes are less likely.
And kudos to them for doing it more or less open source (I am not familiar with the patent situation if any).
A patent is open source, by definition. If a person skilled in the art cannot replicate from it, it is invalid. So this would not be "less open source" if a patent has been applied for.
Patents are often difficult to understand. I think that is a deliberate tactic, to discourage replication. It violates the spirit of the patent laws, if not the letter of the laws. We wrote this paper making it as easy to understand and as complete as we could. If Mizuno answers more Q&A, or if people report replications and they publish the details, I will expand this paper. I see no reason why a document on the internet should be static.
I wish someone would get IH interested again. They probably have the money and at least some access to capability. And they may be able to mobilize some sort of effort quickly.
We want quality rather than quick. I think some credible efforts are underway.
however i would like that JedRothwelltell us why his drawing doesn't represent exactly the GOOD heater dimension
Feel free to make a better schematic. You have the dimensions and photographs of the components.
[seven_of_twenty is correct that higher power matters, as I should have acknowledged previously.]
Which is why Rossi got so much attention- high power claims and high power ratio.
Rossi demonstrates why high power claims and a high power ratio can be wrong. Or deceptive. He demonstrates why good calorimetry is more persuasive and more important than high power. If the calorimetry is good, then high power is persuasive. It the calorimetry is not good, what looks like high power does not improve results, and it may not even be real. Defkalion also demonstrated that.
Good calorimetry is necessary. High power is not necessary, but it can improve the s/n ratio with good calorimetry.
Very low power, below ~0.5 W with a conventional water based calorimeter, can make things difficult to measure with confidence. It is unfortunate that many cold fusion results are at such low power.
An air-flow calorimeter is inherently more difficult to use, less accurate, and less precise than a liquid flow calorimeter (water or oil). You could not possibly measure a fraction of a watt with Mizuno's calorimeter. The ICCF21 results, 12 W to 20 W, were at much lower confidence than they would have been with a liquid flow calorimeter. As I said in the powerpoint slides, the results were marginal and I was not sure they were real. Unfortunately, Mizuno could not use liquid flow because the cell would not fit into a typical liquid flow calorimeter, and most designs would cool the cell too much. Fortunately, 40 to 250 W of excess heat can be measured with confidence using this air flow calorimeter. In that sense, seven_of_twenty is quite right that high power can enhance results. It enhanced these results. In other words, all else being equal, with this same reasonably good calorimeter, high power does enhance results and improve the signal to noise ratio.
Some people have said they don't trust air flow calorimeters at all, and these results will not be believable until they are seen with something like a Seebeck calorimeter. That's silly. Those people are looking for an excuse to ignore the results.
OKay, i will do something in the same spirit as this old drawing.
It should be better like that to exchange about engineering things .
I cannot promise we will use a drawing if make one. That's up to Mizuno. I just said you should make one if you want to. I think the one in the paper is fine. I like simplicity. I don't like multiple colors and too much detail.
