SGVIT took a careful look at this work in 2017. They reviewed this paper: https://gsvit.files.wordpress.…o_lenr__experiments-1.pdf
here: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…etal-and-deuterium-gas-2/
All in English. I did not have a chance to read their review yet but I will try to find the time. Has any regular here considered this paper?
SGVIT took a careful look at this work in 2017. They reviewed this paper: https://gsvit.files.wordpress.…o_lenr__experiments-1.pdf
here: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…etal-and-deuterium-gas-2/
All in English. I did not have a chance to read their review yet but I will try to find the time. Has any regular here considered this paper?
Useful.
What strikes me is, when I look at Fig. 27 and Fig. 28, that the slope of the 248 W curve between 0 and 3000 sec. is less steep when the actual recorder is used, compared to the run with the calibration reactor. I would expect it to the other way around. Same counts for the other curves.
As if in the first 3000 seconds input energy is used for something else besides heating the (internal) device.
Since absorption is an exothermic process it is unlikely that this would be absorption of Deuterium.
It could be desorption of Deuterium from the mesh, assuming the mesh is already loaded with Deuterium before the start of each test run, which is likely.
Display MoreI forgot to address this issue raised by TTH:
(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.
This is incorrect. There is no sign of instability.
First, you can see this is anomalous heat. Look at the first 10 minutes of Fig. 6, and the stray points in Fig. 8. Resistance heating does not act that way.
Now look at the increase in Fig. 6 from minute 10 to hour 1:40. It is sedate.
Jed,
Agreed that the figure 5 and figure 6 reactors are stable at 50 watts. When we get data at 250 and 300 watts input, we will see again if the equivalent delta-T and power calculation is stable.
My recommendation is to run the R20 reactor in the open-air test stand in Mizuno's fireplace with 4 hours between step increases: 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, and record the temperature on the shell thermocouples/RTDs. The temperatures there should also be stable after 2 hours on each thereby disproving instability at those input powers.
Note:
No doubt the reactor will both radiation more (as T^4 on whatever emissivity it has -- that being close to stainless steel) and will convect more. The convection will not be increased linearly per delta-T because the rate of natural convection will increase with airflow, but if the unit was really dynamically unstable, it's heat production will increase faster than the radiation and convective heat losses combined. (The above assumes that there is little or no conduction thru the gas/vacuum inlet port and the power supply wires to the heater and to the frame -- they can probably be modeled together as one conductive element.)
Because both radiation and natural convection will increase non-linearly at a greater rate than delta-T, this can also put a lower bound on the heat production of the reactor assuming you have calibrations for it in the open air with an inert control gas before it has been loaded with D2 for the first time.
Is it correct, according to you, that there is another parameter than the reactor wall temperature that is important when water cooling hampers the reaction?
Not as far as I know.
Display MoreI forgot to address this issue raised by TTH:
(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.
This is incorrect. There is no sign of instability.
First, you can see this is anomalous heat. Look at the first 10 minutes of Fig. 6, and the stray points in Fig. 8. Resistance heating does not act that way.
Now look at the increase in Fig. 6 from minute 10 to hour 1:40. It is sedate. When resistance heating is turned up, the reactor heats about as quickly as a toaster oven. It takes a while for that increase to reach the flow calorimetry, but it does not take an hour and 30 minutes. This gradual increase is from anomalous heat. The anomalous heat increases exponentially in response to temperature, but "exponential" does not mean rapid, or out of control, or unstable. It just means the heat goes to a proportionally higher level in response to higher temperatures.
The reaction must be self-heating to some extent. 50 W of resistance heating alone would never begin to reach these temperatures. In Fig. 6, around 1:40 the heat leaving the reactor balances the heat being produced in the reactor, so the reaction stops going to higher levels. It stabilizes. Again, self-heating does not mean going out of control. Burning wood must self heat or the reaction stops, but that does not mean a wood fire goes out of control, or that it never reaches a terminal temperature and a stable, terminal heat production level.
Let me address THH's other points. I think these are all of them --
The fan might be running slower. This is impossible. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously. It does not change. THH claims the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20% or 50%. Both numbers are impossible. The input electric 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.
THH claims the actual air speed might be much slower than we think, both during calibration and during active runs. This is incorrect because the Reynolds number is 18,000, and any number above 2,300 will ensure the wind speed is constant across the face of the outlet, as shown in Fig. 4. It is also incorrect because the calibrations produce a reasonably close balance, and furthermore the heat losses from the calorimeter chamber that we estimated from input power minus output captured in the air flow (Fig. 2) are confirmed by other methods. You can confirm them yourself with the numbers in the ICCF21 paper, p. 8. However, for the sake of argument, even if the air flow rate is far lower than we think, as long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, there would still be excess heat. Not as much as we think, but there would still be some.
THH claims that the hydrogen in the cell might be burning, and this could produce the anomalous heat. This is incorrect because there is no oxygen in the cell, and because the fuel would only last a few seconds, whereas the reaction has continued for more than 100 days.
Jed, you are as lucid as ever. Look forward to getting results of replications.
Can someone say more about the replication "fund"? Who are the beneficiaries and where is the info on the PayPal account?
I agree that first replications ought closely follow Mizuno's design.
The best replication would use a mesh that Mizuno has not just produced, but has used before and shown to be active.
Jed, you are as lucid as ever. Look forward to getting results of replications.
I hope that we will have a replication or confirmation by July 31(abstract deadline) to be included in the ICCF 22 presentations.
The best replication would use a mesh that Mizuno has not just produced, but has used before and shown to be active.
I think the only proven meshes are inside R20 reactor, so I don't see that one being dismantled often. Perhaps JedRothwell can clarify this issue for us.
Can someone say more about the replication "fund"? Who are the beneficiaries and where is the info on the PayPal account?
AFAIK the only fund mentioned over here is Nickec's Gofundme page, that is for his replication initiative. MFMP is also asking how many people is seriously interested in commiting US$400 + shipping in exchange for Mizuno's ready to go meshes burnished with palladium by Mizuno himself. Thus far only 4 requests have been received from 5 teams in total. The idea is to have the mesh as close as possible to the one that worked.
Can someone say more about the replication "fund"? Who are the beneficiaries and where is the info on the PayPal account?
If you refer to the Mizuno R20 Replication fund, that underwrites my efforts to replicate.
My email is [email protected] and my phone number is +1 (586) 751-8758
I will answer any questions you have. I have worked in many realms involving engineering for oil companies, automobile manufacturers, bicycle manufacturers, commercial builders, and other concerns. I have suspended my GoFly Competition efforts to concentrate on this work.
Thanks. Right now, I would contribute to an MFPM effort only, no intent to insult anyone else. I am delighted people are doing this and the more the merrier.
I think the only proven meshes are inside R20 reactor, so I don't see that one being dismantled often. Perhaps JedRothwellcan clarify this issue for us.
I believe R19 and R20 are presently loaded. I do not know how many meshes sets he has used, but it is a lot more than 2. He has been doing this since R16, at least. He had lots of meshes lying around, and he sent me copies of invoices for 10. That's where I got the info about Nickel-200, 0.055 x 180 mesh . . .
Thanks. Right now, I would contribute to an MFPM effort only, no intent to insult anyone else. I am delighted people are doing this and the more the merrier.
You can always contribute to the MFMP, but I they have yet to ask for funding for a Mizuno replication.
Anyway, a dollar spent on Nickec's replication initiative would not go to waste, you can be sure.
In Fig. 6, around 1:40 the heat leaving the reactor balances the heat being produced in the reactor, so the reaction stops going to higher levels. It stabilizes. Again, self-heating does not mean going out of control. Burning wood must self heat or the reaction stops, but that does not mean a wood fire goes out of control, or that it never reaches a terminal temperature and a stable, terminal heat production level.
I do not mean that it cannot possibly go out of control. I mean that it will not go out of control with this particular stainless steel reactor with 1/8 inch walls. This reactor reaches a terminal temperature of 386°C with 300 W output. A better-insulated reactor would reach a higher temperature. Perhaps higher and higher until: Kaboom!
I suppose you could arrange a similar out-of-control reaction with burning wood in a reactor that keeps the heat from escaping. A bomb calorimeter with lotsa oxygen?
I meant only that that exponential + self-heating do not necessarily cause instability. They might, though. With a chemical or nuclear reaction.
I believe R19 and R20 are presently loaded. I do not know how many meshes sets he has used, but it is a lot more than 2. He has been doing this since R16, at least. He had lots of meshes lying around, and he sent me copies of invoices for 10. That's where I got the info about Nickel-200, 0.055 x 180 mesh . . .
And that brings me to a question I have thought many times these last days but always forgot to make: is the reactor still working as we speak? I got that impression from one of your comments above in this thread answering to either SOT or THH.
THH claims that the hydrogen in the cell might be burning, and this could produce the anomalous heat
THHnew still can't do simple calculation if this is so.
There are 3 mg of hydrogen in the reactor. This cannot produce megajoules by burning.
I showed him how to do the calculations in 2017.
Perhaps the 2017 one was different THHnew.. who can tell.
You can always contribute to the MFMP, but I they have yet to ask for funding for a Mizuno replication.
Well, BobG is certainly setting one up.
Use silver leaf to tryout the method before you spread lots of money.
Hold that silver thought Axil,you might be able to patent it.
Even if the thin palladium leaf proves too fragile to burnish with,
an additional light burnishing with silver would be interesting to investigate, later
As we know Ag exists as two nuclear isotopes which are metastable... Ag107/Ag109
with energy transitions in the lower keV range.
Biberian also reported Ag109/107? on the surface of the best F&P palladium cathodes
in the hotspots.
