Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote

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

I think they are extremely unlikely. This report is essentially 10x larger than most if not all clear and even slightly credible reports. And absent error or fraud, it is very credible. And fraud, as I said. is somewhat improbable or better.

Quote

Rossi demonstrates why high power claims and a high power ratio can be wrong. Or deceptive.

Rossi demonstrated how easy it is to fool desirous people with complete garbage. Anybody who had pushed Rossi to calibrate properly early on and to allow proper inspection of the gear would have defeated his fraud. Why nobody forced the issue is an ongoing mystery to me. Had Rossi refused, that would also have been strong negative evidence. We all know the usual suspects for what actually took place.

Quote

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.

I agree with you for the power and power ratios you are claiming here. It might be good to have Seebeck results but it's probably overkill and it isn't very easy. As I said though, you can make it easier with the use of premanufactured heat flux transducers and if the inside of the Seebeck is very thermally conductive (thick copper for example) you don't need to do more than sample the walls with the heat meters at some reasonable intervals (which can be calculated). This has been done with Seebeck calorimeters intended for biological research with living animals, Portland cement work and other chemistry experiments. Some of these were quite large. The largest would accommodate a cow! But you're right. Such refinement isn't required at the levels of heat claimed.

Ok, no worries, you remain the pilot on the plane, we agree.

Quickly, I would like you confirm, please, the exact heater dimensions and how it's implanted in your reactor, whether it runs its full length or remains consistent with your design ?

thank you in advance.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Just for giggles:

Quote

Room-sized human thermoelectric gradient layer calorimeters exist, including a large (3.05 × 2.74 × 2.44 m)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920988/

Efficient very thin commercial heat flow or flux sensor or transducer (there are others):

https://www.fluxteq.com/products

Just as a curiosity, In fact you can actually reverse a commercial thermoelectric (Peltier) cooler and make it into a clumsy heat flow transducer. BTW, commercial reject Peltier coolers were what Rossi foisted on DOD as efficient thermoelectric converters as per prior conversation.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Rossi demonstrated how easy it is to fool desirous people with complete garbage. Anybody who had pushed Rossi to calibrate properly early on and to allow proper inspection of the gear would have defeated his fraud. Why nobody forced the issue is an ongoing mystery to me. Had Rossi refused, that would also have been strong negative evidence. We all know the usual suspects for what actually took place.

Disagree with your main point. Rossi demonstrated why letting a "black box" of "secret stuff" (in Rossi's case the "fuel") run only for a select few validating scientists a single site is worse than useless -- it has NO information content that can be believed.

Mizuno/Rothwell have given us instructions for making the formerly secret stuff, now "open source stuff" so that anyone can replicate and we can have as many scientists as who would care to replicate.

Both experiments are/were claimed (past tense for Rossi's Lugano) to be at high power and high COP. Only Mizuno/Rothwell shows us how to do it. That is why Rossi's current and earlier demonstrations were garbage -- they hid all the interesting parts behind a curtain.

Curbina

Thanks for reminding me that large Seebeck calorimeters have not been made, that I know of, for high temperatures. It would be difficult. But a cooling system on the outside of a Seebeck can raise it's operating temp considerably. And one made with ceramic heat flow transducers would work while very hot as well. Again, though, not easy to do nor cheap. I think JedRothwell is quite correct-- at the powers and power ratios claimed, Mizuno's methods are more than sufficient.

I know heat flow through the steel tube isn't uniform but still, a single or a few high temp heat flow transducers on the surface would be useful to corroborate the air calorimetry for doubters but I don't think Mizuno or Rothwell care about that nor probably should they. Still, it would be a simple way to estimate the output of the larger reactor. I wonder if Mizuno has thought of it.

I have a request. It is to all posters in this thread. I will take the first step.

Of the 710 posts here few concern replication.

If all posters removed posts which are about anything other than the procedures and materials for R20 replication were removed, then this thread would be very much more useful, shorter, and quicker to search.

I apologize for the earlier video posting. It is pretty. It adds little to the replication effort. I will now remove it.

@admins Is there a way to remove all traces in the thread of a particular post? Can the poster do this without occupying an admin?

nickec

Why not just start a new thread for replication. Other matters discussed in this thread are of interest to others, if not to you.

Quote from JedRothwell

and the guy who pumps out the sewage from the onboard toilets.

I've been trying to help him with that.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Other matters discussed in this thread are of interest to others

noise.

Quote from anonymous

Disagree with your main point. Rossi demonstrated why letting a "black box" of "secret stuff" (in Rossi's case the "fuel") run only for a select few validating scientists a single site is worse than useless -- it has NO information content that can be believed.

Mizuno/Rothwell have given us instructions for making the formerly secret stuff, now "open source stuff" so that anyone can replicate and we can have as many scientists as who would care to replicate.

Both experiments are/were claimed (past tense for Rossi's Lugano) to be at high power and high COP. Only Mizuno/Rothwell shows us how to do it. That is why Rossi's current and earlier demonstrations were garbage -- they hid all the interesting parts behind a curtain.

No time this week to consider anything properly; but my reflections 9over seevral weeks0 on how i'd view this experiment and other things:

The lugano test 9by independent scientists) was taken seriously by many. The problem was:

(1) it was not independent

(2) it was a bad test

(3) It has scientific error (not just bad practice, or something not checked, but calculations wrong)

Any serious independent black box testing would not suffer these three things.

Which brings me to these Mizuno results.

I agree with anonymous, they are highly significant if real. Why?

Relatively simple, and replicable

High enough results that even with low accuracy setups they can be definitive

There is then how to judge my (and other) comments

(1) If you want to publish, all my caveats should be dealt with (they all can be dealt with, and would be by normal process of peer review + tighten up paper)

(2) If you think this might be for real and have resources to replicate - go for it. Problems with these results do not mean they are not real, just that they might not be real.

(3) A negative here for me is that IH did not find positives when M demonstrated for them. Perhaps IH might want also to check these larger result claims? But anyway that is a big negative.

(4) My judgement, as a skeptic, will not interest many here. But, here is why although I'm highly interested, and think they should be followed up, I think most likely they are not real:

(a) The R20 COP is too high for this system to be stable. sure, it could be stable, but not with claimed power out vs temperature. Chances of instability are very high and this would have been noted by M.

(b) The R19 and R20 claimed power out vs temperature graph makes no sense if temperature is the only thing switching the reaction on or off with the heater. Magnetic filed is (for me) very highly unlikely as a trigger. More info would be needed from m with on balance you agree with this point but thing magnetic field is what generates these heater dependent results. It would also be quite easy for M to rule this matter in or out with extra experiments.

(c) The R20 results are still "sample", so I suspend judgement anyway. The R19 results have a few issues (documented by me). None of them look obviously the cause of the much larger than likely error documented results. Jed will therefore find these convincing. But he found Rossi's "Samovar" heat-after-death test results convincing, when in fact it had an possible "hot core" error mechanism. The unknown unknowns are always with us, and the only way to reduce their likelihood is very careful cross-checking and exact description of methodology. These results still need some cross-checking - which could be done. They definitely also need more careful description of exact methjodology. I worry when papers refer to previous papers for details of calibration process etc. I need to know how the new reactor has been calibrated, with all of teh details. from what we hear in principle this system should give tight results from what Jed says informally has been done. But, I'd want that process laid out exactly as known from lab notebooks, rather than "we did this same as before" and I'd want a full picture of the two reactors with details (so we could cross-check for unexpected differences thermal calorimetric performance between the two) as well as explicit checks of all relevant readings in both cases. None of that is particularly difficult, and it is what good experimental practice would give you. The moment you have extraordinary results you repeat with better documentation, checks, etc.

(d) the good aspect of this is that I see no reason to doubt that a setup like this could give good enough results to be convincing. these results would convince me if all unknowns were eliminated, which as I say is possible and not too onerous.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

(3) A negative here for me is that IH did not find positives when M demonstrated for them.

Do you have a reference where this demonstration is mentioned?

Quote from Alan Smith

Hi Rob,

This came up some time ago. JedRothwell discussed it here. From my memory of the tale, Mizuno's visit to the IH lab in the USA was inconclusive, but it was apparently rushed (5 days max) and the support provided was perhaps not quite right, though I am hazy on details. IH have however continued to support the work as can be seen.

Thanks Alan.
I am looking into IH's test capabilities. Apparently they have some test facility.
The cooperation between IH and Mizuno seems firm, IH now took over the ownership of Mizuno's latest published patent application as I indicated earlier in this thread.

Quote from THHuxleynew

A negative here for me is that IH did not find positives when M demonstrated for them. Perhaps IH might want also to check these larger result claims? But anyway that is a big negative.

Why do you believe professional cheaters? They issued a patent for something they believe to be inconclusive..?

The only good thing is that the crucial new element that Mizuno used (introduced) for the high performance is not in the patent! And for those skilled in the art & physics this means that an important step for high performance LENR is public and free to use for everybody!

Thanks to Jed & Mizuno.