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.


    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.

  • 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.

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


    Mizuno is the pilot on the plane. His problem is, he is also the ground crew, the food service provider, the guy who goes through picking up trash and distributing magazines, and the guy who pumps out the sewage from the onboard toilets.



  • At last!!! I was weary of mentioning the existence of this kind of devices, which, as the article linked by you states, has been mostly abandoned in favor of cheaper but much less accurate indirect respirometric techniques. My education in Agricutural Engineering exposed me to the concepts of Energy balance in animal nutrition and the cow in the room sized calorimeter, albeit reminiscent of the earlier days of this much neglected research (partly because is interdisciplinary between physics and biology) was in my mind. However, as the heat output of living things is limited (we all glow in the IR spectra), I think one of these big calorimeters should be greatly modified to be of use in a LENR experiment, and finding one suitable and within budget is a challenge on its own. But at least we can be sure it would be possible, if we tried.


    The other calorimeter I have seen in this agricultural field, also related to livestock feeding, is the one used to determine the combustion heat energy content of feedstuffs, but would not be of use for LENR, at least not in its current form.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Mizuno is the pilot on the plane. His problem is, he is also the ground crew, the food service provider, the guy who goes through picking up trash and distributing magazines, and the guy who pumps out the sewage from the onboard toilets.


    :( the troubles of being a one man band, and also a misunderstood practical genius.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • 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?

  • I think a new replicators only thread is a must now. This one was to inform of the results, so a new one for replicators only is really a need now. I think is easier to move the replication posts from here to a new thread for replication only, than removing all non replication posts from this one.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • For this experiment to succeed in igniting interest in cold fusion, I see a narrow path ahead. First, it will have to be replicated. The only people who are willing do to this are today's cold fusion researchers. Fortunately, some highly qualified people are doing this. If they succeed, perhaps they will persuade others outside the field to have a look, and to try a replication. If the results are good enough, this might start a chain of replications, which might increase exponentially. This is more likely to happen today than it might have decades ago, thanks to the internet.


    I say this is a narrow path because it must start among people in the field, and there are not many who have laboratories and are capable of doing this. Then it must cross over to the wider scientific world, where there is great resistance to the research. I expect only a few of the top researchers in this field can influence people outside it. Then again, it might only take one person. The path may be only one-person wide, but that might be wide enough. You might compare it to the first neutron that triggers a chain reaction in a fission bomb. It only takes one neutron.



    “Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases: (1) It's completely impossible. (2) It's possible, but it's not worth doing. (3) I said it was a good idea all along.” -- Arthur C Clarke

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.


  • Didn't someone make a number four: "I came up with the idea myself."

  • 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.