Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Sorry if this has already been used but.... Could you use liquid Gallium as the coolant for calorimetry or does it react with metals you might use for pipework? Melting point about 30C, boiling point about 2400C. Would need a heated cabinet to pre-warm the system before turning on pumps or perhaps use the alloy Galinstan which is liquid at room temperature? Just thinking aloud.


    PS: I agree an exact replication should be done first.

  • 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!

    It is the opposite of shoe string. This is the expensive method. McKubre and Storms used it. It is more precise and it eliminates many potential sources of error. It is not particularly awkward for continuing measurements. You record the weight in the siphon at all times and ignore decreases in the weight. It is a piece of cake to program.


    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.

    That is a false lesson. The skeptics greatly exaggerate the pitfalls and errors. People have been doing calorimetry for 240 years. It is one of the oldest and best established experimental methods. People in the heating and cooling (HVAC) industry do it a million times a day. No one has ever suggested they have difficulty, or their results cannot be trusted. Factory machinery does calorimetry automatically in millions of machines. If it did not work reliably, the machinery would fail.

  • That is a false lesson. The skeptics greatly exaggerate the pitfalls and errors. People have been doing calorimetry for 240 years. It is one of the oldest and best established experimental methods. People in the heating and cooling (HVAC) industry do it a million times a day. No one has ever suggested they have difficulty, or their results cannot be trusted. Factory machinery does calorimetry automatically in millions of machines. If it did not work reliably, the machinery would fai

    Jed, I meant within the free energy community, not in the normal engineering and scientific world. I don't have doubts about the your calorimetry, but I think it's an aspect that replicators need to be particularly carefull to replicate.

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

  • I think the way to go without air calorimetry is to switch off the power in a hot reactor with a dummy load and take cooling curves- many many cooling curves from all kinds of temperatures. They should be classic Newtonian curves of course. Then do it in a properly fuelled reactor and look for a difference.


    And if the power is switched off, it eliminates many of the arguments about 'artifacts' .

  • Thinking about hot mesh. How could you view this in elemental form? In other words, in most simple form.


    One strand of Ni 200 vaping wire burnished with Pd touching a vessel wall equipped with a window.


    What might this look like? Would it glow?

  • Nope. It is around 380 deg C.


    Hi Jed,


    I've done some work and thus far all my calculations on your calorimetry tie out within a few percent. (Note your above 380 degree answer on the R20 reactor is close to what I expected for a 300 watt output.)


    I am checking my work and have a few questions.


    1) Can we assume that the R19 and the R20 reactors are the same length and outer diameter as whatever was used for calibration in the calorimeter.


    2) I am convinced that for the air convective cooling is more or less proportional to mass flow which is constant at whatever motor power you are running (assuming equal impedance to the cooling air flow which is reasonable if the R19 and R20 reactors are of the same dimensions as the calibration unit). Is the motor power constant at 6.5 watts. Is the air flow impedance the same (i.e. wires, heaters around the units).


    2a) Did you calibrate with an empty R19 or R20 unit before you loaded with D2? (This is not necessary if the calibration unit is thermodynamically identical to the test unit).


    3) It would be helpful to me and others if you would release on your table 1 the following additional data: Tinput (air), Toutput (air), and motor power. This would help corroborate my internal calculations and the reasonableness of the calibration.


    4) It would be helpful if you would release the following additional data as a table for the R20 test cited in the most recent paper: Tinput, Toutput, motor power, Treactor.


    5) It would be helpful if for the calibration unit you would release the following additional data as a table: Tinput, Touput, motor power, Treactor [EDIT: and reactor electrical input power for each data point]. [Edit: ideal would be stepping the reactor heater in 50 watt increments from 0 to 300 watts (and giving it time to settle).]


    I want to emphasize that this work looks good and that there is likely not a problem with the calibration. I am extremely hopeful that members of the community will be able to replicate.


    Thank you,


    Anonymous Helper

  • I think the way to go without air calorimetry is to switch off the power in a hot reactor with a dummy load and take cooling curves- many many cooling curves from all kinds of temperatures. They should be classic Newtonian curves of course. Then do it in a properly fuelled reactor and look for a difference.


    And if the power is switched off, it eliminates many of the arguments about 'artifacts' .

    Good idea, but it requires that the reaction continues long enough after turning off the heater. The heat capacity in the steel tube could also make the results less convincing if we haven't a self-sustaining reaction, as in this case. A more direct measuring of the mesh temperature by an IR-camera, through a quartz window, is a further option.

  • It would be good to have details of the in situ heater geometry. It is a key component in any replication experiments. The distance between the windings (or whatever it is) and the mesh and the length of the folded heater are of particular interest. I am surprised it is omitted in the paper.

  • Could you use liquid Gallium as the coolant for calorimetry or does it react with metals you might use for pipework? Melting point about 30C, boiling point about 2400C. Would need a heated cabinet to pre-warm the system before turning on pumps or perhaps use the alloy Galinstan which is liquid at room temperature? Just thinking aloud.


    Well, this is a problem waiting to happen, it would be both very expensive and there are too many unknowns. In my experience it is better to do your pioneering on only one front at a time. Silicon oil would be ok up to around 200C- and don't forget that you need more expensive pumps and plumbing that can work at high temperatures.


    There is no reason why the working fluid in the calorimeter needs to be as high as the reactor core temperature btw -after all, the mildly pressurised coolant in your car operates at close to 100C while the temperature inside the cylinders can be well over 600C. The point and purpose of calorimetry is to create a heat exchanger that can accurately quantify the amount of heat generated within the system it is part of. This does not mean that any part of it must be at the same temperature as the core of the system- after all the steam coming from a boiler is far cooler than the fire beneath it.

  • Perhaps those inclined to believe the absolute statements made here about this calorimetry would do well to read again the old 2017 GSVIT report, with skepticism, but with interest:


    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…etal-and-deuterium-gas-2/


    This report is extremely detailed - trying to reverse engineer what errors could give rise to the reported results. It is certainly wrong: and one of the main errors noted was in fact properly explained by M in a correction (read the end of the report for that). That report does not apply directly to the new work, but aspects of it do apply indirectly.


    Personally, while I enjoy reading the detailed analysis which I find interesting, I do not expect it to be correct. There is too much guesswork here. However, where I think that report is helpful is in imagining a number of creative error modes for this calorimetry, each of which if present would add significant error.


    Against this, the combination of absolute "first principles" analysis and control analysis would knock all these possible errors on the head. The trouble is that the measurements on which both these two analyses are done are uncertain in exact time: in particular the control and active tests are separated by some period and could have various confounding factors. The "absolute" analysis does not have clear data.


    M has done an enormous amount of experimentation with this setup. Without methodical and contemporaneous documented records, stating all conditions and changes, from such a volume of work it is often easy to find results that will fit almost any conclusion.


    The factor that makes this possible is what Jed believes impossible: confounding factors that make this calorimetry unreliable. Since the calorimetry use here is essentially unchanged from that critiques by GSVIT the factors they mention remain relevant: different combinations of these could apply at any time:


    Direct vs indirect airflow inside case. Depending on position in calorimeter the efficiency of heat transfer, and the temperature of the reactor, for the same power out, will vary. M's own data shows that at higher case temperatures the efficiency is lower (as we'd expect) and therefore this error would increase. This is a confounding error that will systematically skew control and active results. It could be eliminated by manually changing the positions of the two reactors, keeping all other variables the same, and rerunning tests under the same conditions (but see below).


    Absolute "first principles" error. The "iceberg" issues with airflow not being accounted for remain an additional error in this not accounted. GSVIT suggests a number of other errors:

    Time constant errors

    Room temperature change errors (modulate the above)

    Temperature probe conduction errors (from lead, or from side of pipe)

    Unexpected output temperature noise (possibly sign of some other problem)


    These errors could change over time, and even at the same time between control and active, so they also represent calibration errors particularly because calibration and active runs are often done at very different times.



    How to reduce these errors, and show you have reduced them


    For replicators all of these errors can be detected, or designed out, and this documented in such a way that everyone can validate. Detection requires better experimental methodology, with additional checks, all recorded. Designing out:

    • Ensure conduction issues contaminating probe temperature measurements do not happen by correct positioning, photograph.
    • Ensure the control and active reactors are identical in size, shape and surface color (photographs)
    • Ensure the control and active reactors are situated exactly symmetrically inside the enclosure. It helps here for all geometries to be simple
    • Ensure insulation is the same on both control and active sides, bottoms, etc
    • Check symmetry by switching reactors
    • Run experiment in otherwise temperature controlled room. A good thermostatically controlled heater elsewhere (perhaps several) would be one way to do this. Record temperature in various places throughout runs. Specifically: calorimeter box perimeter outside insulation, air far from box, air close to box.
    • Make the output pipe long enough to measure temperature and airflow far away from each other. Measure temperature nearer to reactor. Make sure that both are measured at points where air is well mixed.


    Why bother with "first principles" measurements? Simply because they provide additional checks on the overall system, and help to detect (or validate non-existence of) other errors. They make this experiment a bit more complex.


    Why bother with all the "ambient condition" measurements and controls? Because for this type of calorimeter, as conducted by M, temperature changes in the room combined with the calorimeter time constant can make significant and complex errors.

  • Or do what I suggested, take multiple 'no power' cooling curves for the same reactor with prepared fuel in and with plain mesh. Any deviations from the Newtonian can be significant assuming the external conditions remain closely aligned. A lot simpler and less prone to criticism than most other methods.

  • He is free to communicate about any new insight (as filed on 1st of May 2019) after the date of filing, e.g. by means of a public paper. That would still protect his invention.


    This is true, unless someone else has already communicated the idea openly an made it public earlier.


    I have already made public an idea using an internal heat source to initiate a LENR reaction by using i.e. an high performance ceramic glow plug like used

    in modern diesel engines. AFAIK I am not the only one, who made such a proposal.

    please refer to this link: http://disq.us/p/1qy23of posted in March 2018 on ECW!