# Mizuno reports increased excess heat

• See above.

I guess the indirect blower effect has gone to heaven.

• Quote

This hypothesis cannot explain why the outside of the reactor box is measurably warmer when there is excess heat.

? Do you have data for this

Do you need data for this? There is a hot object inside the box. However good the insulation is, it is not perfect, so the box has to radiate some heat. It is not possible for the heat to go directly from the reactor, straight through one segment of the insulation, and into the fan only, without reaching the rest of the insulated walls. Figure 2 shows that at high power calibrations, when the reactor temperature reaches 360 deg C, 22% of heat escapes from the walls. Where else could it be escaping from, if not the walls?

• Are you saying that the blower is a huge degrees temperature different from the adjacent calorimeter acrylic wall?.

Yes. the adjacent wall is insulated. The blower (entrance) is not (although if Jed says this is baffled by similar insulation, this anomaly can't happen, I agree). Remember radiation from the reactor makes the inner insulation foil go up to +80 or something. Expect something similar for the blower: its emissivity is lower (which means it will gain more heat from radiation) however it is obviously less well insulated on the outside.

I guess the indirect blower effect has gone to heaven.

The answer was above, but perhaps I needed to restate it, as I've done here, to make it clearer.

• Do you need data for this? There is a hot object inside the box. However good the insulation is, it is not perfect, so the box has to radiate some heat. It is not possible for the heat to go directly from the reactor, straight through one segment of the insulation, and into the fan only, without reaching the rest of the insulated walls. Figure 2 shows that at high power calibrations, when the reactor temperature reaches 360 deg C, 22% of heat escapes from the walls. Where else could it be escaping from, if not the walls?

Jed, I'm not disputing that. I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying. We all agree that the reactor, and the box, heats up. The issue is whether the RTD on the blower output accurately determines the power out. I don't think you can accurately determine power out from observing that the box heats up!

The indirect blower effect - the blower heating up hotter than the calorimeter box air stream via radiation from the reactor casing - just like the inner foil - and for the same reason - could make the RTD read high. Because the control and active reactors are positioned differently this effect would not be seen from the control reactor - but would be seen from the active reactor positioned directly beneath the blower. So the higher temperature measurements on output air might be due to this effect rather than higher active reactor power.

• As stated in the paper and shown in the photos, they are equidistant from the walls and the blower, which is in the center. But again, how can a 50-W calibration add 40 to 250 W to a blower? That violates the conservation of energy.

Furthermore, if you have any experience with insulation, you will know that all 50 W of heat cannot penetrate straight through the insulation and go into the fan only. It will go everywhere in the box. Even if there were no insulation, and the calibration reactor was placed directly under the fan, the heat from the calibration reactor would go in all directions. Only a tiny fraction of it would heat the fan. It could not magically transfer 50 W to the fan directly, which then heats the air by 10 deg C extra, indicating 250 W. The air is definitely heated. This is confirmed by two RTDs and handheld thermometers and thermocouples.

You make two points here. I agree - and have restated many times here - if the R20 sample result (v large) is real then that is larger than any reasonable calorimetry errors (unless the calorimeter has been significantly changed for R20).

My point about the insulation relates to whether the insulation covers the blower inlet. If it does, then you are correct - and I asked this, pointing out that a baffle (or preferably a double baffle) of insulation over the blower inlet opening would prevent this error. Can you confirm that there was insulation over the blower inlet? In which case this is all a storm in a teacup.

Finally, if the two reactors are symmetrical in all respects, and situated symmetrically wrt the blower, and the blower inner surface is symmetrical, and the insulation cutout on either side when in place is symmetrical, then I agree the effect would be the same for control and active reactors and therefore show on calibration. However from figures 5 and 6 this is not clear. Figure 5 looks as though one reactor is central, the other not. Figure 6 looks as though one reactor is different in color and size from the other.

These measurements were made over significant time: can you be sure that the exact conditions in this matter remain as you say here for these measurements? It is really not clear from the papers. Indeed the section I referenced specifically states the opposite, and the later paper refers to the earlier one for the calorimetry. I'd suggest the definitive paper is rewritten much more carefully stating what is known, and for which measurements this applies, in the case that you are sure of this.

• Jed: it is difficult for me to find these details of the calorimeter design. The only photo I can find of the box, Figure 5, appears to show non-equidistant reactors.

Another picture, Figure 6, shows reactors of different size and shape.

Where does it say the reactors are equidistant from the blower?

• Yes. the adjacent wall is insulated. The blower (entrance) is not (although if Jed says this is baffled by similar insulation

I misunderstood. It cannot be baffled because the blower is over the hole, as you say. The insulation is between the RTDs and the reactor, and between handheld thermometers and the reactor. However, you are overlooking many things that make your hypothesis impossible:

The outlet air is definitely 10 deg C hotter than it is in the 50 W calibration. This is confirmed with thermometers. So something is adding 250 W to the air. Even if the heat comes from the reactor and magically goes into the blower, it is still anomalous, and far more than input.

It is not possible for the reactor to pass heat to the blower only, in a narrow path through the moving air to the blower. The heat goes out from the reactor everywhere, spherically in all directions. Most of it is carried off in the moving air. If there is no anomalous heat, then only a fraction of 50 W will reach the blower. Not enough to measurably change the temperature of it, or to heat up the air by 10 deg C.

You have overlooked the reactor temperature. The thermocouple on it shows a temperature hundreds of degrees higher when there is anomalous heat compared to the calibration. Perhaps you think the thermocouple is malfunctioning. That is ruled out. It works correctly during calibration at low power and high power. When there is anomalous heat, it tracks the RTDs and thermometers, and agrees with them (based on the calibration). That cannot be a coincidence. It cannot be malfunctioning only when the other problems you postulate occur, exactly to the same extent.

Frankly, your hypothesis are more like Just So stories than physics.

• Where does it say the reactors are equidistant from the blower?

Right here. I just told you.

Plus, I think it is apparent from p. 7 here:

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

Another picture, Figure 6, shows reactors of different size and shape.

They are almost the same. The camera angle makes them look more different than they are. In any case, you could use a different shaped object, and you could put one directly under the fan, but it would still radiate in a sphere. The heat would not go exclusively directly up into the fan. You can estimate what fraction of it is carried off in the moving air. You have the dimensions of the box, the distance from the reactor to the hole, and the size of the hole. You can compute the steradian and estimate what fraction of 50 W reaches the hole. You will see it is insignificant. No matter what, it cannot add 250 W to the air when there is only 50 W coming into the reactor. It cannot make the reactor TC go haywire exactly in synch with the other temperature sensors. That TC does not go haywire during normal calibration.

I suggest you let go of this. Your hypothesis is physically impossible for a long list of reasons. It is not adding anything useful to the analysis here.

• You have overlooked the reactor temperature. The thermocouple on it shows a temperature hundreds of degrees higher when there is anomalous heat compared to the calibration. Perhaps you think the thermocouple is malfunctioning. That is ruled out. It works correctly during calibration at low power and high power. When there is anomalous heat, it tracks the RTDs and thermometers, and agrees with them (based on the calibration). That cannot be a coincidence. It cannot be malfunctioning only when the other problems you postulate occur, exactly to the same extent.

Jed it right. The reactor gets really hot with only 50 watts. Even if the air flow calorimetry is somewhat mis-calibrated from direct radiation to the output RTDs, it still gets significantly hotter. This would be the important takeaway from replication: that R20 with only 50 watts in + Ni/Pd rubbed mesh + D2 gets much hotter than R20 or an otherwise identical control reactor with no Ni/Pd mesh and no D2. That is anomalous and that is what validators will show.

Jed and THH -- I suggest that arguing over calorimetry details with each other is unnecessary here. THH's critique is noted and the validators can take this into account to produce a more accurate calibration.

None of this changes what is most important to validate, that the Mizuno active reactor design (like R20) gets much hotter than a control. That is really important and will get all of our attention when proven. This proof will encourage many more people to focus on LENR and will put an end to the blind "Nature" articles calling this "unproven". We need this as a field so we can move to the next level.

• It is not possible for the reactor to pass heat to the blower only, in a narrow path through the moving air to the blower. The heat goes out from the reactor everywhere, spherically in all directions. Most of it is carried off in the moving air. If there is no anomalous heat, then only a fraction of 50 W will reach the blower.

If the reactor temperature is high radiation becomes significant and proportionately more heat goes to it than to the shiny foil on the insulation. But in any case temperature is not heat. I'm saying the radiation could increase the temperature of the blower above the air, which would then result in output RTD temperature increase (above air) wrongly interpreted as more power. However I agree (and was forgetting before) that output air hotter via hot blower is no different from output air hotter via reactor!

The outlet air is definitely 10 deg C hotter than it is in the 50 W calibration. This is confirmed with thermometers. So something is adding 250 W to the air. Even if the heat comes from the reactor and magically goes into the blower, it is still anomalous, and far more than input.

I'm not here talking about the R20 results. I'm talking about R19, where the over-reading is much less. And it is then necessary to check that the RTD is not heated via conduction from a lead connected to a hot blower, etc.

You have overlooked the reactor temperature. The thermocouple on it shows a temperature hundreds of degrees higher when there is anomalous heat compared to the calibration.

So that is a separate set of data, not recorded in the paper. It would need to be documented and included for that to work.

What this error mechanism does do is provide a way in which the "first principles" output power could over-read significantly, breaking that argument in the proof of excess heat. The previous average velocity issue looked like a much smaller over-reading, but the two combine together to allow over-reading.

Your argument in the 2017 paper - that high absolute efficiency shows that differences in this could not determine results, is not valid for R19, since with over-reading we do not know absolute efficiency.

You are quite right that the control versus active data remains to be explained. Suppose, as you say, that is recorded by RTDs on the control and active reactors, and there is a big temperature difference. (Do we have this data, collected for the exact controls in the tests?),

Then different reactor temperatures could still be due to differences in airflow over the reactors, or differences in reactor emissivity. In Figure 5, the shiny reactor might for example deliver a higher case temperature than the dull one because it has a lower emissivity. Alternatively, unless, inlet, outlet and reactor positions are all symmetrical, differences in airflow could provide different surface temperature for the same power. Finally differences could be due to variability in RTDs, since different RTDs are used for the two reactors.

The R19 results are vulnerable to this criticism. The R20 "sample" result probably not, but I'm not willing to consider this until it turns into "real" results.

THH

• Jed and THH -- I suggest that arguing over calorimetry details with each other is unnecessary here.

I've always accepted this. My critique has always been on the much better documented R19. That single sample R20 result is extraordinary, beyond any plausible calorimetry issues, and surprising because of the lack of instability/hysteresis - unless the heater stimulates the reaction in some way other than through temperature, contrary to what Mizuno thinks.

We could just ignore the R19 results, but most of the posted paper relates to them, and they do provide important evidence that the sample is not a one-off.

• My point about the insulation relates to whether the insulation covers the blower inlet. If it does, then you are correct - and I asked this,

I misunderstood, as I said. It doesn't cover the hole. Now I suggest you estimate how much heat will reach that point. Start with 50 W. Remember, there is no anomalous heat; the effect you postulate is being caused by the instruments measuring 50 W incorrectly. Take into account the fact that 95% of the heat is removed by the moving air, as you see in Fig. 2. That leaves 2.5 W. Now estimate the solid angle based on the distance from the reactor to the top, and the size of the hole, 5 cm. What fraction of those 2.5 W reaches through that hole? I suggest you calculate this, although you seem strangely allergic to doing a quantitative analysis of your own hypothesis. So let me take a crack at it . . .

The reactor is a 12 cm diameter cylinder, 50 cm long, sitting at the bottom of a 70 cm tall box. The hole is a circle 5 cm in diameter, ~8 cm^2 area. Assume the 50 W is distributed evenly over the entire surface of the cylinder, but none comes out the end. Assume it is directly under the hole. The heat radiates in all directions equally. 5 cm is one-tenth of 50 cm length, so 1/10 of the heat that is not removed by the air radiates from a 5-cm segment. That's 0.25 W.

I am going to treat this 5-cm segment of the cylinder as a sphere, because my geometry is rudimentary. The diameter puts the center of the cylinder it 6 cm above the floor, so you can think of it as a sphere 64 cm in radius by the time it reaches the top of the box. The solid angle is . . . ummm 0.002 sr. See:

https://rechneronline.de/winkel/solid-angle.php

An entire sphere is 4 pi = 12 steradian. The imaginary sphere is 64 cm in radius, 51,472 cm^2 in surface area, or 25,736 cm^2 per hemisphere. 0.002 sr is 0.0003 hemispheres, or 8 cm^2 out of 25,736 cm^2, or 0.03%. To put it simply, we have 8 cm^2 piece of the surface of a sphere with 51,472 cm^2 surface area, which is 0.03%.

In other words, 0.03% of the 2.5 W of heat reaches the hole. Right? That's 0.08 mW.

You want to check my arithmetic? Please do.

Now explain how 0.08 mW can raise the temperature of the air by 10 deg C. That 10 deg C cannot be an error in the two RTDs on the top, because it is confirmed with other temperature sensors.

• I'm not here talking about the R20 results. I'm talking about R19, where the over-reading is much less.

It is 100 W. That's not much less than 250 W. It can measured with as much confidence as 250 W. It produces a large temperature difference, which is easily confirmed with multiple handheld sensors.

And it is then necessary to check that the RTD is not heated via conduction from a lead connected to a hot blower, etc.

As I said, that has been done, with hand-held thermometer and thermocouples. They confirm the air temperature is measured correctly by the two RTDs, so the motor heat has to be heating the air, not the RTDs directly. That's two RTDs, not one, and they are separated from the blower by a paper cylinder which has no metal leads in it. The blower cannot be much hotter than it is normally, and it cannot possibly be 100 to 250 W hotter, because it would burn up, and because there is nowhere near that much power going into the system.

• So that is a separate set of data, not recorded in the paper. It would need to be documented and included for that to work.

It is in Fig. 2. The reactor temperature ranges from around 40 deg C to 360 deg C. Those are calibrations from 10 to 200 W, with 3 different reactors.

Plus I just documented it. I just told you, right here.

It is neither more nor less believable than it would be in a paper that I write and upload to LENR-CANR.org. If you don't believe what I write here, why would you believe what I wrote in a paper?

• As I said, that has been done, with hand-held thermometer and thermocouples. They confirm the air temperature is measured correctly by the two RTDs, so the motor heat has to be heating the air, not the RTDs directly. That's two RTDs, not one, and they are separated from the blower by a paper cylinder which has no metal leads in it. The blower cannot be much hotter than it is normally, and it cannot possibly be 100 to 250 W hotter, because it would burn up, and because there is nowhere near that much power going into the system.

Jed, my problem is, under what conditions was this done? Once you have a significant effect which can be variable in unexpected ways (like this radiation issue) you need to be much more careful to ensure that all the other checks on which you rely are done under the conditions for which the active results are taken.

Much safer, and better, to design such effects out from the start.

The reactor is a 12 cm diameter cylinder, 50 cm long, sitting at the bottom of a 70 cm tall box. The hole is a circle 5 cm in diameter, ~8 cm^2 area. Assume the 50 W is distributed evenly over the entire surface of the cylinder, but none comes out the end. Assume it is directly under the hole. The heat radiates in all directions equally. 5 cm is one-tenth of 50 cm length, so 1/10 of the heat that is not removed by the air radiates from a 5-cm segment. That's 0.25 W.

No, this is the wrong calculation. The heat from the cylinder is much lower where it is surrounded by insulated foil that reflect back a good proportion of the heat. You might perhaps get a 20X amplification factor (taking extreme values) due to emissivity difference and insulation if that was very high. But that is still ball park only 5W.

• It is neither more nor less believable than it would be in a paper that I write and upload to LENR-CANR.org. If you don't believe what I write here, why would you believe what I wrote in a paper?

Jed - I'm answering this because there is a principle here. In a paper things are definite, carefully considered, and precise. Or, if not precise, that can be put right. As part of an informal discussion as here it is much more difficult to extract stand alone definitive facts because all of the informal context enters into interpretation of answers, and anyway the answers are less detailed.

Anyway, where I now agree with you is that if the external RTD is used (as seems likely from one schematic, but is not explicitly said) rather than the internal before blower one, indirect heating is not likely to provide a large uplift. It would depend on conduction through RTD leads in thermal contact with the blower. Where I disagree is that you have ruled that possibility out.

• Jed and THH,

I hate to watch two of our best minds argue over something that is hopefully immaterial. This is like arguing over your high school algebra grade after you graduated from university. Does it really matter that you could have gotten an A instead of a B 10 years later? THH has made his point. Jed has made his rebuttal. To go back and forth here over the same thing is only frustrating.

If after the replication results come in in a few months this is material and has not been rectified in the revised experimental designs, we can revisit it then.

• Jed and THH -- I suggest that arguing over calorimetry details with each other is unnecessary here. THH's critique is noted and the validators can take this into account to produce a more accurate calibration.

That is incorrect. His critique is nonsense. It is physically impossible. If validators take it "into account" they will not produce a more accurate calibration. They will produce more physically impossible calculations. You might as well base the calorimetry on unicorn farts as THH's contrived, unscientific blather. I have given several indisputable reasons why he is wrong. He will not acknowledge them. He never acknowledges any mistake.

It is necessary to discuss this insofar as I do not wish to see Mizuno's results called into question for such nonsensical reasons. I do not wish to see it covered with a mountain of bullshit.

• I hate to watch two of our best minds argue over something that is hopefully immaterial. This is like arguing over your high school algebra grade after you graduated from university. Does it really matter that you could have gotten an A instead of a B 10 years later? THH has made his point. Jed has made his rebuttal.

It is indeed like arguing over high school algebra! You have hit the nail on the head. Geometry in this case, but that is exactly what we are arguing about. The thing is, THH is dead wrong and he is doing middle school and high school level geometry COMPLETELY WRONG. I hope you see that. It is important that readers understand that his geometry and physics would not pass a 7th grade test. It is all nonsense.

The conditions are described in the paper, in considerably more detail than most papers.

Once you have a significant effect which can be variable in unexpected ways (like this radiation issue) you need to be much more careful to ensure that all the other checks on which you rely are done under the conditions for which the active results are taken.

This is not significant. It is ~0.08 mW out of 300 W. It does not show up the calibrations, which produce a balance close to zero.

Much safer, and better, to design such effects out from the start.

"Such effects"??? This effect is imaginary. Or if it is real, it is 7 orders of magnitude below the excess heat level, and completely impossible to detect with this instrument. You might as well "design out" the effects of the gravity of Mars.