Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • This heater is currently a resistive wire isolated by magnesium oxide and filled in SS316 tube .

    I wonder what temperature is reached in operation ?

    Could it make monoatomic H with regard to the very low pressure and high heater surface ?


    What would be experts opinion on my hypothesis ?




  • Could it make monoatomic H with regard to the very low pressure and high heater surface ?


    Unlikely, but If it was wrapped with tungsten wire on top of the SS jacket, then 'possibly'. However, the recombination time of monatomic H/D is very very short, so it would be unlikely to remain in the monatomic state for long even at very low pressures.

  • he reactor is a air cooled "radiator", in the sense of a car or airplane radiator. Radiators reject (transport out) heat by the 3 ways: conduction, convection, and radiation. If the radiator is polished silver, it rejects less heat by radiation than if it is painted black. Less heat by radiation means more heat by conduction and convection. Because most of the heat is being rejected by convection, but some of the heat is being rejected by other means (i.e. your 77% heat capture efficiency calibration at 360 degrees implies 23% is being rejected by conduction or radiation).

    I believe you are confused. It makes no difference how the heat leaves the reactor. Conduction, convection or radiation all end up heating the air inside the calorimeter chamber. We measure the temperature of the air as it emerges. The air flows through, cool going in, warmer coming out. The way in which the reactor heated that air cannot be detected, and it makes no difference. Every joule of heat coming out of the reactor must end up heating the air. It is not possible for any heat to leave the reactor and not heat the air, because the chamber is well insulated with reflective insulation (see the ICCF21 paper).


    Some of the heat from the air ends up escaping from the walls of the calorimeter chamber, rather than being captured by the emerging air. We know how much. See Fig. 2. That is the "heat capture efficiency" of this calorimeter. The heat capture efficiency from the reactor to the calorimeter chamber is 100% at all times, in all conditions, with any type of reactor, no matter how the heat emerges from the reactor into the air (conduction, convection or radiation).

  • Quote

    Because when scientists do that, even with an expensive IR thermometer people like you complain.

    You perhaps didn't really read or somehow you failed to understand what I was asking for. The hostility is also apparent and totally unwarranted. If the remark and hostility are a backhanded defense of Rossi, Levi, the Swedes and the inane hot cat misadventures they had, any defense of Rossi et. al. is, at this point, simply absurd.


    Attitudes do matter and they contribute to the reality that nobody knows after 30 years whether or not LENR and cold fusion are really phenomena of any potential practical value. This one will be decided without my help anyway but I was trying to speed it up a little. Probably not worth the effort. It may be more entertaining to watch folks continue to wallow in ineffective, incomplete, misdirected and/or inconclusive experiments.

  • [A.S.: Because when scientists do that, even with an expensive IR thermometer people like you complain.]


    You perhaps didn't really read or somehow you failed to understand what I was asking for. The hostility is also apparent and totally unwarranted.

    Perhaps you would not complain, but people like you always do complain. It happens a lot. Not to put words in Alan's mouth, I believe that is what he had in mind.


    Attitudes do matter and they contribute to the reality that nobody knows after 30 years whether or not LENR and cold fusion are really phenomena of any potential practical value or whether they are real at all.

    On the contrary, many experts know that cold fusion is a real phenomenon. For example, Prof. Heinz Gerischer was a leading electrochemist and the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry. He reviewed the evidence in 1991 and concluded “there [are] now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in metal alloys.” For a distinguished professor "undoubtedly overwhelming" is emphatic. He couldn't be more emphatic.


    With one or two exceptions, every expert I know of who has looked carefully has concluded that cold fusion is a real phenomenon. Many other scientists have said it is not. They are not experts. They know little or nothing about the subject. Their logic is faulty and the facts they quote are mistakes. You can read their papers and books and see for yourself. See Morrison, for example:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    There is no dispute here. Or, to the extent there is a dispute, it is between experts in the subject who have the facts and laws of physics to support their views, and thousands of replications, versus ignorant outsiders such as Morrison who write nonsense that violates elementary laws of physics. It is easy to tell who is right.

  • Look Alan Smith , it depends on what it's for. For a power out of 3kW from a small cylinder with a power ratio of 10, you don't need 0.0001% precision to know whether the 3kW estimate is in the ballpark or not even in the same city. I complained about the misuse of radiant heat estimates of power output from a thermal imaging device in a case in which emissivity was in dispute and the calibrations did not extend to the upper temp range of the experiment. Not to mention that the perpetrator experimenter was a known crook. That's not quite what you said I did/do. Doesn't matter. Forget it. The issue is whether or not Mizuno's reactor puts out 3kW for 300W in and btw, doesn't have problems with thermal runaway. I've burned quite a few transistors in my day from thermal runaway and we were talking about much less power than that. Here we have a device that outputs ten times thermal input from a heater and has a temperature sensitive reaction... seems risky. Yet there it is, a hermetically sealed thick walled stainless steel container, without protection (yes, I know it's normally evacuated), in Mizuno's living room. Well, like I said, we'll find out probably fairly soon.


    ETA spelling error

    JedRothwell You're welcome to cite Prof. Gerischer's impression but that was appx 28 years ago. I wonder what his thinking is now if he's still above ground.

  • You're welcome to site Prof. Gerischer's impression but that was appx 28 years ago. I wonder what his thinking is now if he's still above ground.

    He died long ago. However, I remained in in touch with him while he lived, and with every other expert who made a serious evaluation of cold fusion. Not one of them changed their minds. On the contrary, in the 1990s better experiments were done, more definitive proof emerged, and all of the experts became more confident about their conclusions.


    Furthermore, the "skeptical" view that cold fusion is not real has withered. No skeptic ever published a paper showing errors in any major study. No one other than Morrison and Shanahan even tried to do that. The others said: "my theory says cold fusion can't happen so it is wrong." Or: "in the experiments people did X Y and Z," when in fact no one did anything like that. All of the skeptical papers were wrong, as I said. Not a little bit wrong. Not debatable. They were all preposterous nonsense. That's my judgement. You can read them and see for yourself.

  • With one or two exceptions, every expert I know of who has looked carefully has concluded that cold fusion is a real phenomenon. Many other scientists have said it is not. They are not experts. They know little or nothing about the subject. Their logic is faulty and the facts they quote are mistakes. You can read their papers and books and see for yourself. See Morrison, for example:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    There is no dispute here. Or, to the extent there is a dispute, it is between experts in the subject who have the facts and laws of physics to support their views, and thousands of replications, versus ignorant outsiders such as Morrison who write nonsense that violates elementary laws of physics. It is easy to tell who is right.


    Jed, this is an old argument and may I suggest it is not relevant to this thread.


    There are people who agree with you - some of whom read here and are interested in replicating these experiments. There are others interested in that who are more skeptical than you.


    There are also people who do not agree with you at all.


    There are people who neither agree nor disagree with you but, in that state, do not think it is proven that CF exists.


    None of that changes what is helpful in replicating this experiment. Replicators do however have a choice. They address the issues raised by those (like me) who are more skeptical and therefore end up with stronger results. Or, they can ignore those issues and have weaker results.


    Some will perhaps think that the extra difficulty making the results stronger is unnecessary because these results are strong enough anyway. All that is needed is similar level, replicated independently. That would have some value, but IMHO not much. And the extra difficulty is not that large, so why not strive to do it?

  • Jed, this is an old argument and may I suggest it is not relevant to this thread.


    More relevant than the calorific value of 3mg of deuterium.


    Have you figured that out yet THHnewnew?

    BTW SOT brought up the issue here .. not Jed

    Attitudes do matter and they contribute to the reality that nobody knows after 30 years whether or not LENR and cold fusion are really phenomena of any potential practical value.


    Of course most of SOT's effluvia is not relevant to this thread.

  • Jed, this is an old argument and may I suggest it is not relevant to this thread.

    Well, SOT brought it up. I see no harm in mentioning it again.


    There are people who agree with you - some of whom read here and are interested in replicating these experiments. There are others interested in that who are more skeptical than you.


    There are also people who do not agree with you at all.

    The people who do not agree don't count. They have no expertise and they have not published any papers supporting their views. They have not shown any errors in any major experiment. So, by the standards of science, they do not exist. We should only count people who have done a serious analysis and written a paper demonstrating they have mastered the science well enough to judge it.


    The fact that a professor somewhere thinks a result is invalid means nothing. The professor has to publish a rigorous paper showing why the result is invalid. No one has done that in history of cold fusion.


    They address the issues raised by those (like me) who are more skeptical and therefore end up with stronger results

    No one can address the issues you raised. They are imaginary. You claimed that a few milligrams of deuterium might burn without any oxygen, and it might burn for over 100 days at ~100 W. You are wrong by a factor of 9 million. You claimed that a fan might suddenly produce half as much wind with the same input power. That is impossible, and even if it did happen, there would still be massive excess heat.


    On this forum, you have not found any valid problems with this experiment, or any other.

  • No one can address the issues you raised. They are imaginary. You claimed that a few milligrams of deuterium might burn without any oxygen, and it might burn for over 100 days at ~100 W.


    Jed - perhaps you can find the place I claimed that? I believe you misunderstood me. I said that if the experiment was done under constant pressure conditions, and therefore connected to a D2 reservoir, catalysis of D2 with leaking O2 was possible. In that case the amount of D2 involved is unbounded. Given the conditions here it still did not seem likely - but I needed it contradicted. The lack of specifics in the report does not help me to rule these things out.

  • Jed - perhaps you can find the place I claimed that? I believe you misunderstood me. I said that if the experiment was done under constant pressure conditions, and therefore connected to a D2 reservoir, catalysis of D2 with leaking O2 was possible.

    Ah, I misunderstood. However, the paper clearly shows this did not happen. The pressure is shown in Table 1. It would be obvious if this were happening. There would be flames and smoke. The sheath heater would burn up and stop working. The pressure would rise to 101,000 Pa (1 atm). Mizuno would stop the experiment.


    In that case the amount of D2 involved is unbounded

    Actually it is bounded by the amount of D2 in the tank, which would not last 100 days at these power levels. The tank was small when I was there.

  • I said that if the experiment was done under constant pressure conditions, and therefore connected to a D2 reservoir


    "experiment was done under constant pressure conditions"

    The THHnew in 2017 claimed that the pressure conditions were maintained by a Vacuum pump !!!

    I explained that the initial low vacuum conditions were not constant .. and the pressure rose as the

    temperature of the reactor increased

    the was no vacuum pump connection, and no connection with the D2 reservoir

    because it was shut off by a valve at the beginning of the reaction.

    This was also covered in detail with the THHnew in 2017.


    Perhaps THHnew has a short memory

    or perhaps the 2019 THHNEW is a THHnewnew?

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

  • [THH: I believe you misunderstood me.]


    Specialty of the house.

    Actually, I understood THH perfectly. So did Robert Bryant. THH repeatedly claimed the D2 in the cell might cause the heat. He wanted to know how much was absorbed in the reactant. Robert and I repeatedly told him there only enough for ~1 s, but he kept saying the same thing. If he had meant a leak from the D2 tank, he would have said that. He just now made that up, I suppose to save face. I pretended it was my misunderstanding, because that's the proper form in an academic discussion.


    Also, a leak from the D2 tank is only marginally less preposterous than 3 mg producing 9 million times more heat than is possible. No one with experience doing experiments would seriously propose such a thing. Such a leak would be obvious in many ways, some of which I listed above. It would immediately bring the experiment to a halt. Such arguments are only intended to confuse the issue and make people think there may be problems where no problems exist. This is trolling, not a serious scientific discussion.


    No one misunderstood anything here. It was perfectly clear, just as it was when THH proposed that drops of condensed water become invisible, move up against gravity, and that magically cancels out the energy needed to evaporate them. Okay, he didn't put it that way, but anyone can see that is what his hypothesis adds up to.

  • I believe you are confused. It makes no difference how the heat leaves the reactor. Conduction, convection or radiation all end up heating the air inside the calorimeter chamber. We measure the temperature of the air as it emerges. The air flows through, cool going in, warmer coming out. The way in which the reactor heated that air cannot be detected, and it makes no difference. Every joule of heat coming out of the reactor must end up heating the air. It is not possible for any heat to leave the reactor and not heat the air, because the chamber is well insulated with reflective insulation (see the ICCF21 paper).


    Some of the heat from the air ends up escaping from the walls of the calorimeter chamber, rather than being captured by the emerging air. We know how much. See Fig. 2. That is the "heat capture efficiency" of this calorimeter. The heat capture efficiency from the reactor to the calorimeter chamber is 100% at all times, in all conditions, with any type of reactor, no matter how the heat emerges from the reactor into the air (conduction, convection or radiation).

    Thank you for responding to my post. Respectfully Jed, I disagree.


    Situation 1: (Emissivity 85% calibration unit) -- If the heat is radiated out of the surface of the stainless steel cylinder (reactor or control) more of it makes its way _without being absorbed_ through the air in the convection chamber to the walls, thereby bypassing the air. The insulation on the inside of the calorimeter chamber is not a perfect reflector and is likely more absorbent than the optically transparent air at IR wavelengths.


    Situation 2: (Emissivity 7.5% test unit). Less heat is radiated out of the surface of the stainless steel cylinder so more heat is directly absorbed by conduction at the air/cylinder wall interface, thereby being transferred to the air in the air mass flow calorimetry (and raising its temperature). Less heat is absorbed thru the insulation to the calorimeter outer walls, so less heat escapes measurement by the mass flow method. The method the experiment used captures more heat when the cylinder has 7.5% emissivity then when it has 85% emissivity. This makes it more "efficient" than the provided calibration.

  • Actually, I understood THH perfectly. So did Robert Bryant. THH repeatedly claimed the D2 in the cell might cause the heat. He wanted to know how much was absorbed in the reactant. Robert and I repeatedly told him there only enough for ~1 s, but he kept saying the same thing. If he had meant a leak from the D2 tank, he would have said that. He just now made that up, I suppose to save face. I pretended it was my misunderstanding, because that's the proper form in an academic discussion.


    Also, a leak from the D2 tank is only marginally less preposterous than 3 mg producing 9 million times more heat than is possible. No one with experience doing experiments would seriously propose such a thing. Such a leak would be obvious in many ways, some of which I listed above. It would immediately bring the experiment to a halt. Such arguments are only intended to confuse the issue and make people think there may be problems where no problems exist. This is trolling, not a serious scientific discussion.


    No one misunderstood anything here. It was perfectly clear, just as it was when THH proposed that drops of condensed water become invisible, move up against gravity, and that magically cancels out the energy needed to evaporate them. Okay, he didn't put it that way, but anyone can see that is what his hypothesis adds up to.


    If Mizuno says he valved off the D2 as an ongoing source of chemical energy, I believe him. Can we move on. This will be proven by the replicators.


    (Please note that for the future publication I would suggest making this fact explicit in the published paper. It tripped me up early on before Jed corrected me.)