Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • [Plus, we both measured and estimated heat losses from the calorimeter chamber walls, as described on p. 8 of the ICCF21 paper.]


    One of us isn't understanding the other. You did this on the 3kW output reactor?


    Mizuno did this with all reactors, in all tests. So did I, since it just involves noodling with the data at long distance.


    He did not "do this" during the open air tests in his house (Fig. 1). How could he? All of the tests I described above can only be done in a calorimeter.


    I suggest you downplay the open air test in your mind. It proves little. It was only done because the calorimeter cannot measure a heat above ~1000 W. Other data from the calorimeter point to the open air test as being right, but this is a crude method that tells you nothing about the reaction. A test showing 250 W excess in a calorimeter is far more believable than a open air test. It is far better.


    I find it a little odd that you were put off by Rossi's open air tests, yet you are so enthusiastic about Mizuno's. Rossi should have used a proper calorimeter. A large, air-flow type is probably the only kind he could have used with such large reactors. If he had done this, it probably would have revealed that his reactors did not produce any excess heat. That's the kind of confirmation you want. You can't get it with an open air test. Okay, you can, sort of, but it is much less definitive, and it may well be a mistake. It is doing things the hard way, for no reason.


    Some cells and some cold fusion devices are, themselves, calorimeters. All hot water heaters are. They happen to have the right specifications for good calorimetry, because those same specifications are what you need to heat water economically and keep it hot. For example, they do not lose much heat from the walls of the reactor, so nearly all of the heat is captured in the flow. That's what you want in hot water heater and in a calorimeter. The on-demand electrically heated type of water heater makes an excellent flow calorimeter.

  • but you can add insulation between the reactor surface and the water or air

    How much insulation. Thickness/mass.. Numbers please

    Position relative to reaction hotspots

    What kind.

    Please do by common sense.

    Since you know nothing about the reaction mechanism.

    or stages.

    Please calculate also the calorific value of 3mg of D2 in the

    presence of O2 and in the absence of O2

    if you can't I can show you how.

  • Quote

    I find it a little odd that you were put off by Rossi's open air tests, yet you are so enthusiastic about Mizuno's. Rossi should have used a proper calorimeter. A large, air-flow type is probably the only kind he could have used with such large reactors. If he had done this, it probably would have revealed that his reactors did not produce any excess heat. That's the kind of confirmation you want. You can't get it with an open air test. Okay, you can, sort of, but it is much less definitive, and it may well be a mistake. It is doing things the hard way, for no reason.


    You and Mizuno badly need consultation from physicists/engineers specializing in heat transfer measurements. Of course, that includes calorimetry.


    I have always advocated going for the largest and most spectacular demonstration you can if there is even the remotest issue of noise and experimental error. SGVIT has raised the specter of such possible error in the 2017 paper which I think extrapolates in part to the current report. If all you want to do is motivate the usual suspects and the usual enthusiasts to attempt a replication of the work, you don't need to do anything. They seem persuaded. If you want to get fresh talent from the general population of physicists and engineers not already enamored with cold fusion/LENR, then you need to have a powerful incentive. Using heat meters/heat flow tranducers (HFT's) applied/bonded to the reactor surface is, in effect, making a quick and dirty but very effective calorimeter. For initial estimates, you can probably get away with passive convection and radiation cooling. To get a +/- 30% result with a contraption like Mizuno's room heater whose shape lends itself reasonably well to the measurement, it isn't that difficult.


    So you can mainly lay a lot of criticism to rest simply by buying one or more high temperature heat flux transducers and applying them to the outside of the high power reactor and showing it really outputs in the range you say it does. If you can't buy an HFT, those transducers only consist of a stable "gradient layer" with a relative large number of temperature sensors on both sides connected to provide the difference in temperature across the gradient layer. You can make your own or rather Mizuno can, without large expenses or learning novel skills. If I still had my old lab, I'd send you some. They're easy enough to make unless you require much higher accuracy than this project needs to prove that the larger reactor outputs in the range you claim.


    -----------------


    I'll briefly address how you misquoted me, as usual, in this case about Rossi. I never complained that Rossi did not do his early experiments in a calorimeter. But Rossi's dismal garbage pieces, as made by his aging plumber, were not especially large. The original ecat was about the size of a tennis ball except for unnecessary insulation and extra lengths of tubing. So first, the ecat could have operated in a Seebeck or similar "envelope" calorimeter, no problem, at least the "steam" ecats. The "hot" ecats used too high a temperature for convenient calorimetry with a Seebeck device but again, SGVIT to the rescue, they designed a perfect mass flow calorimeter cooled by water. You can see the cheerful orange glow of it's calibration heater-- It's all described in meticulous detail here in English from Google translate:

    https://translate.google.com/t…ia-a-flusso%2F&edit-text=


    or original: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/


    That's been out going on five years now and I've linked it many times. The Swedes and Levi not to mention Dewey Weaver and Darden should have used it's pretty glow to cook Rossi's goose way back then. Of course a similar cooling/calorimetry system could be made for Mizuno but I recognize the resource limitations. Maybe some of the replicators can read the article and incorporate the concept in their replication. It would change nothing about the active areas of the reactor. I did complain that Rossi's hot cats had no cooling systems. Apart from calorimetry, cooling systems would have been required had a nuclear power source in the ecats actually made a lot power and energy. Of course, calorimetry with them would have showed the opposite which is why Rossi did not use them.


    Anyway, my objections to Rossi's work were mainly the lack of blanks and calibrations and that these were consistently and flagrantly ignored by the supposedly learned people who believed Rossi and helped him, perhaps inadvertently, perpetrate his fraud on IH. And of course, don't forget, I never read anything.


    ETA: you can adjust coolant flow rate and other design parameters in the SGVIT calorimeter to maintain the wall temperature of the reactor within any reasonable desired temperature range.

  • You and Mizuno badly need consultation from physicists/engineers specializing


    What makes SOT think that Mizuno has not consulted with the faculty in the engineering department

    at Hokkaido National University.

    or in many other Japanese Universities.

    https://www.eng.hokudai.ac.jp/english/division/graduate.php



    Does SOT think that Japanese physicists/engineers no zero about calorimetry.?



    I think SOT knows more about 'screwed over by MN" than calorimetry or any physics..


    Perhaps your expertise is suitable to be a gommiyasan in Japan.. they wear a white cap and white gloves.. but perhaps not..they perform a vital function.. unlike SOT


    .

  • One of us isn't understanding the other. You did this on the 3kW output reactor/erstwhile room heater?

    Yes, when it was in a calorimeter. You cannot do the tests I described when the cell is in open air.


    Plus you cannot run it at 3 kW when it is in the calorimeter. It cannot handle that much heat. So we cannot do these tests at 3 kW yet. Perhaps we will with a new calorimeter.

  • You and Mizuno badly need consultation from physicists/engineers specializing in heat transfer measurements. Of course, that includes calorimetry.


    I do not think so. Frankly, based on your questions and comments here, I do not think you know much about about calorimetry. I do not think you have found any problems with this calorimetry.


    ETA: you can adjust coolant flow rate and other design parameters in the SGVIT calorimeter to maintain the wall temperature of the reactor within any reasonable desired temperature range.

    That would be a really bad idea, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion.

  • JedRothwell


    Just to be sure I get it: the reactor which is being run as a room heater at 3kW out with 300W in is the same exact device as the one run in the calorimeter at 250W out and 50W in? Same size, same fuel, same everything except where it is run and power in? If so, pls confirm that "COP" is 10 at 300W in but only 5 at 50W in? (numbers from memory). That correct?

  • Just to be sure I get it: the reactor which is being run as a room heater at 3kW out with 300W in is the same exact device as the one run in the calorimeter at 250W out and 50W in?

    Correct-o-mundo.


    Same size, same fuel, same everything except where it is run and power in?

    Yup.


    If so, pls confirm that "COP" is 10 at 300W in but only 5 at 50W in? (numbers from memory). That correct?

    Because, as we said, excess heat increases exponentially with the increase in temperature. See Fig. 8. Notice, however, the stray dots in Fig. 8, showing it does not always happen.


    Figure 8 is for one reactor and one reactant, left in place. If you changed out the reactant, or just opened the reactor, took out the reactant, and put it back, I'll bet those dots would be scattered more. You see this exponential trend when you leave everything else alone, you don't mess with the cell, and you raise and then lower the temperature, then raise it again. This exponential increase in the calorimeter with this sample is what makes me think the 3 kW rough estimate for R20 was probably in the ballpark. I wouldn't believe it without this.


    The same trend was seen with the R20 that produced so much heat. The higher the temperature, the more heat. At 40 W (the beginning of Fig. 6) it was ~200 to 230 W. At 50 W in it was pretty close to 250 W out. The hotter you make it, the higher the power goes, exponentially. I suppose just because it self heats to the limits of the heat loss. Or maybe because of IR stimulation? I do not think an exponential response to stimulus is surprising in chemistry or physics.

  • I suggest people should follow his instructions and use an air flow calorimeter, or something with performance similar to an air-flow calorimeter. The one you linked to looked like a high temperature small dimension Seebeck calorimeter. It seems well insulated. I hope it would not insulate too well. As I wrote here before, that might lead to a runaway reaction. The cell has to be free to radiate a lot of heat and reach a reasonable terminal temperature, as shown in Table 1.


    Frankly, I do not understand why people are casting about trying to think of different ways to do this experiment before they even try it the way Mizuno instructed. Someone just wrote to me saying he intends to try it, but at a much higher temperature. I responded:


    "PLEASE do not make any changes until you have tested the same materials in the same conditions as the original!! Please follow the instructions as closely as you can, and stay at the recommended temperatures. If you successfully produce excess heat, then you can go to higher temperatures, or make any other changes you like. If it stops working you can return to the original design.


    Dr. Mizuno spent many years developing this experiment. He tried many different materials, techniques and variations. Most of them did not work. It is impossible for him, or me, or anyone to say what aspects of this experiment are essential, and what can be changed. But I think that temperatures and pressures are among the critical parameters. So, please do not change them in the first round of experiments."


    It seems perverse to me that anyone would begin a replication by deliberately changing what may be a critical parameter -- or any parameter.


    Agreed. In science a replication is just that - you replicate all the procedures as precisely as possible. If you don't, you can't rightly call it a replication. If you change things, you should probably say something like, "It's an experiment inspired by Mizuno. We replicated his fuel preparation, but departed from his procedures by using a different calorimeter."


    If you don't keep it the same, you can't make very many conclusions about the original study. Your results would also be weaker if you get a null result. You won't know if your alterations caused the problem, or if the original experiment made an error.


    After that's done, you can depart more in future experiments. Personally, I don't understand the obsession with flow calorimetry. Water is the worst. There are are more points of error and failure. A conduction calorimeter is about as simple as it can get.

  • Or maybe because of IR stimulation? I do not think an exponential response to stimulus is surprising in chemistry or physics.


    IR stimulation seems very likely theory for increase in XSH with increased temp-change in IR to shorter, more energetic Thz frequencies triggering increased muon release, so increased particle interactions or fusions maybe? Can test by pumping in a mix of nitrogen with deuterium which should block muon activity/use IR laser to trigger reaction instead of the heater/maybe Holmlid replicates?

  • You must have a precision pressure gauge. I do not see that in your list of instruments. I do not see how you can do this without a mass spectrometer, because you will not know whether contamination and water have been driven out of the reactor.


    http://www.instrutechinc.com/s…VM211_Data_Sheet_Torr.pdf


    Good down to 10^-4 Torr = .013 Pa.


    Good enough to prove you have baked out the water and volatiles and that it hasn't started to leak once sealed off. Good enough to determine the absolute rate of vacuum loss with a timed test (record the pressure rise with time after valving off and fit the data to an exponential curve).


    If the unit holds the 300 Pa of pressure recommended by Mizuno after bakeout and it is sealed, and if it generates excess heat, I don't see the need for the mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer is for more advanced debugging as to what the leak is. If it is not leaking, i.e. maintains 300 Pa, and it is sealed off as you said from the D2 tank after it has been loaded, we don't need to know the percentage of different molecules in the reactor. This assumes that D2 is in the tank, but as I said, I would buy that from Sigma Aldrich and they have a quality spec of 99.8% pure D2.


    Still working on finding a suitable pump that can achieve these levels -- best I see in the two stage pumps goes down to 1 micron = 0.13 Pa = 10^-3 Torr. These cost almost as much as a rebuilt turbopump, ($2K), so I think a turbo pump is the way to go. I think the vacuum pump section is going to cost $4K, but at least we can be certain that we dried out the water and volatiles.


  • My experience with Vacuum is from taking part on a process for producing fish oil enriched DHA/EPA capsules. We had two vacuum pumps (1 HP each) to empty a 7 cubic meters boiler. We had an ethanol / hydrolized fish oil fraction separated by ion exchange mixture and we recovered the ethanol from it boiling it at 15° C to keep the oil from spoiling. I recall we worked a very low pressures to be able to do that. All our valves were swagelok, they are kind of the industry standard, you close one and it keeps the reactors at the same internal pressure for weeks.

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

  • If you don't keep it the same, you can't make very many conclusions about the original study. Your results would also be weaker if you get a null result. You won't know if your alterations caused the problem, or if the original experiment made an error.

    Worse that that, you won't know if you made an error. You should establish a baseline before exploring variations. First make sure you can produce the effect. Then try whatever variations you like. If it stops working, go back to the baseline.


    If the researcher does not confirm it is working in the first place, the material may not be good. Perhaps it is too contaminated, or without enough Pd deposited, or something else is wrong. There is no point to exploring with material that does not work.


    Personally, I don't understand the obsession with flow calorimetry. Water is the worst. There are are more points of error and failure.

    I disagree. Water flow calorimeters work well and they are reliable. Things like the flowmeter can be a pain in the butt, but there are ways to measure the flow rate with high precision without a flowmeter, such as a siphon on a weight scale. That's what Storms and McKubre used, as I recall.

  • Quote

    there are ways to measure the flow rate with high precision without a flowmeter, such as a siphon on a weight scale. That's what Storms and McKubre used, as I recall.

    Maybe if your budget is "shoe string." But there is no lack of good liquid flow meters using various technologies (impeller, ultrasound, thermal sensor, etc. etc.). The siphon is perfect for calibration but pretty awkward for continuing measurements! Once more, a large heat excess and power ratio makes absolute accuracy and precision of a flow meter less important - minor inconsistencies wouldn't null out a robust result or make a null into significant excess heat.


    Let's again consider SGVIT's liquid flow calorimeter results. This was an experiment designed to the requirements for verifying the Rossi "hot cat" but the power and size ranges are not very different from the Mizuno reactor. At both 350W and 1700W, worst accuracy is better than 2% in the SGVIT tests. The calorimeter is simple to construct using the components in the article. I am going to guess that if you can duplicate Mizuno's reactor and the balance of his experiment, you can also assemble the SGVIT calorimeter. https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/ As before, Google translate does OK with the linked article. I mean contributors to this forum do read papers, right? It's just me who doesn't.

    SGVIT-calibration-data.jpg

  • Maybe if your budget is "shoe string." But there is no lack of good liquid flow meters using various technologies (impeller, ultrasound, thermal sensor, etc. etc.). The siphon is perfect for calibration but pretty awkward for continuing measurements! Once more, a large heat excess and power ration makes absolute accuracy and precision of a flow meter less important - minor inconsistencies wouldn't null out a robust result or make a null into significant excess heat.


    "And please always be sure the pipe is full in the section where the flowmeter is installed"


    After all these years of Free energy claims reviewing, I have learnt that calorimetry (and energy balance in general) is full of pitfalls and sources of potential error. One might always resort to the basic and old school methods as measuring the rise of water in a well calibrated transparent vessel as a way to check the accuracy of the flowmeter if there is doubt.


    Jed has been very clear and correct to state that the calorimetry is a part of the experiment and therefore affects it intrinsically. This has led me to think Mizuno's work needs to be replicated as exactly as possibly, as I think the sweet spot might have been hit by cheer chance, and I don't say this to minimize the importance of the experience and hard work of Dr. Mizuno, but to emphasize that changing anything substantially migh result in a replication failure, and even an exact replication might not work as spected, as we really don't know which was exactly the success factor this time.

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

  • My experience with Vacuum is from taking part on a process for producing fish oil enriched DHA/EPA capsules. We had two vacuum pumps (1 HP each) to empty a 7 cubic meters boiler. We had an ethanol / hydrolized fish oil fraction separated by ion exchange mixture and we recovered the ethanol from it boiling it at 15° C to keep the oil from spoiling. I recall we worked a very low pressures to be able to do that. All our valves were swagelok, they are kind of the industry standard, you close one and it keeps the reactors at the same internal pressure for weeks.


    Curbina -- this is medium to high vacuum and thus likely a lot higher vacuum than what you needed for your fish oil capsule manufacturing. The volumes are lower so a smaller pump will not take excessively long to reach the vacuum required. Yes, it will use Swagelok -- that's the standard and they work at these temperatures. The only question is how high of a vacuum is needed, how long to get it there, and how to measure it. I think this intermediate approach with a cheaper turbopump (backed by a rougher pump) is the best way to get to the 10^-4 Torr level which I believe is enough to prove that the rig doesn't leak and to vacuum out the volatile components. Overall, I think the rig will cost around $10K with the majority spent on the turbopump/backer pump. This assumes the experiment can be done reliably without RGA or Mass Spec, which I view as primarily needed for debugging rather than verification. The important measurements are vacuum (i.e. partial pressure) and temperature. I think if the unit is making 2 to 3 kW, we can go with rough natural convection + radiation calorimetry as that is a lot of power, but not so much that we cannot measure it with thermocouples. For those who would criticize Rossi's use of same, I remember than he needed a thermal camera to measure surface temperature. We don't need that. He also had a continuous H2 supply hooked up to his rig. We will have that valved off, and for good measure, we can disconnect the tube going to the tank to eliminate any chance of D2 resupply during the run. I think of the final unit like a vacuum tube that is sealed. If this is indeed what Mizuno is running, and that is what I think Jed had indicated, a functional sealed tube putting out 2 to 3 kW at 0.3 to 0.5 kW input will be all the proof we need. As anyone can then replicate same, it becomes proof positive.