Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Sorry if I missed it in the papers, but what is the maximum temperature measured for air exiting the calorimeter? What is the maximum outlet temperature at 250 W output for the Dummy and the active runs?

50W => deltaT = 2.8C (from eyeballing figure 5 R20 paper)

Jed points out that figure 2 indirectly allows other air temperatures to be calculated - this is versus reactor temperature not input power, so you'd need to know reactor temperature on calibration with versus power in to relate this to air temperature out, and note that other factors affect this like airflow.

I still don't have an answer to this - but maybe Jed does.

If you assume linear, then 250W = 14C deltaT.

Quote from THHuxleynew

you are asking me to guess here. I was just pointing out that the inner foil must go up to 80C or so.

Remember radiation from the reactor makes the inner insulation foil go up to +80 or something

Must go to 80+???? show calculation please THH...this is a must

Also show what temperature the blower must go up to

given that the convective flow of air through the blower

is much faster than the calorimeter as a whole.

Also show how this blower at this high temperature radiates heat to the outlet RTD

and what temperature the RTD goes up by...0.1 C, 1C, 2C?.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

Without calculations, its just THH waving hands.

Replicators... please check if of the blower body ever goes above 60C...because for long term operation you don' t want it that high

Then you can baffle..... a la THH baffling advice. to protect the RTD from the mysterious geometric radiative heat

My calculations based on a passive convective HTC average of 3 for the acrylic insulated walls and RT =25C

indicate that the exterior wail temperature of the acrylic calorimeter walls

is somewhere btw 30 and 50C depending on the reactor output.

never as high as 80C!!!.

https://www.electronics-coolin…fficient-on-a-flat-plate/

Quote from JedRothwell

It is possible I am confused about this. I intend to ask Mizuno when I get a chance. But as I said, I searched for a function that converts watts into air speed, and I cannot find one. There are small, random differences between them.

y=mx+b linear regression, i.e. LINEST if you are using Excel.

There are only 50 data points on the graph so if you can copy and past them here, we can try this ourselves. But -- I think we will find the r² of nearly 1 will tell you that one is derived from the other.

I am curious as to why the blower power fluctuates at all, i.e. are we not using a voltage regulator that should keep the fan voltage constant, and does not the gas pressure impedance of the calorimeter over a 4 minute period stay constant (because the parts are fixed in place on the inside and the temperature barely changes). The power changes by 0.01/3.71 watts =~ 0.27% over a 5 second sample. If this was derived from input power, this is almost certainly volt meter measurement noise or amp meter measurement noise (both random), i.e. I would think that we cannot measure the blower input power to this level of precision.

Therefore, I believe that the "blower power" was derived from the air flow speed using the hot wire anemometer. It is likely subject to more noise, i.e. air burbles around the probe. Here is a typical "professional unit": https://www.instrumart.com/ass…x-6035-6036-datasheet.pdf

+/- 3% of reading or 0.15 m/s whichever is greater.

Here the airflow speed is varies 0.01/4.17 =~ 0.24%.

What is clear is that the fluctuations in velocity are almost certainly smaller than the accuracy of the anemometer, and that the anemometer is less accurate than the volt or amp meter, and thus the signal more likely to come from the common source of the anemometer. We are looking at measurement noise here and for the noise to have a r² of almost 1 means that one signal is derived from the other.

If we want to confirm anything here, we need to actually create a signal. To do this, step the blower power in 5% increments from say 4 watts to 7 watts, and then measure the air speed so that we can actually say the air speed is proportional to the blower power, and not the noise. Using tiny 0.25% fluctuations at the extreme limit of the volt and amp meters and beyond the accuracy of the anemometer wouldn't help.

From engineering rules of thumb blower power is proportional to air mass flow. We can calibrate it and move on. If Mizuno will not, a replicator can using cheap instruments. This is a diversion here from the problem at hand -- measuring heat on R20. If the calorimeter+reactor is identical and if the internal heater in an identical R20 tube without reactants is used to calibrate up to 300 watts, all this talk about radiation to the RTDs is a theoretical modeling exercise waste of time.

Relicators: use the R20 tube to calibrate before you load it with reactant mesh. You have a heater in it already. Run the calibration with different powers (suggest varying by 25 watts from 0 to 300) at 1) vacuum < 10^-4 Torr, 2) helium at 2 Pa, 3) helium at 2000 Pa. The later two test conditions will prove that it doesn't matter what the conductivity is of the gas inside the reactor to the airflow calorimeter. All of this will prove that the RTD radiation effects, if any, have already been included in your calorimeter calibration. Thus, after the replicator has done this, he/she doesn't need to go thru the tedious thermodynamic modeling of the calorimetry.

Jed, I don't want to waste your time with this, but this is the chart with the data points and I counted one every 5 seconds for 4 minutes, or 49 data points.

The LINEST function when it is applied for the blower power column against the air speed for these 49 points give the R-squared that I said.

To get that, you need to paste the results into an array so you can get the regression statistics:

Google LINEST site:https://support.office.com

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. It is measured with the anemometer. It does seem impossibly close, so I zoomed in some more to the individual data points. You see varying separation. Then I subtracted watts from air speed for each 5 s interval. That is, of course, a meaningless number. But if one number was derived from the other, the difference would be the same in all cases, I think. The differences were as large as 1 part in 10, and randomly distributed. Then I looked at what percent watts were of air speed. It varied, randomly. Watts were not multiplied by any single number to equal air speed.

I do not know what other derivation there might be, or how you would detect it.

In the picture we see the strangely correlated noise of two measuring instruments.

The correlation is 100%. For noise this is not possible in the case of independent measurements. Therefore, these measurements are dependent.

Ascoli65 is absolutely right. Figure is not a result of measurement.

Mizuno’s tests - Analysis of correlation between Blower Power and Air Speed signals

The following jpeg contains an analysis of the diagram published in (1).

The above jpeg explains how both the blue and the yellow curves have been obtained.

The values of the Blower Power curve have been obtained by multiplying the values of the blower's Voltage and Current. However, it was done by multiplying their respective values rounded off to the second decimal digit and not those directly measured by the field instruments. These rounded off values comes necessarily from a spreadsheet like the one published here on L-F (2), which contains the data of the 120 W control test held on May 20, 2016.

This fact demonstrates that the values of the Air Speed were calculated starting from the above Blower Power values! Otherwise, it would have been absolutely impossible for a measured quantity to follow exactly the same trend of the Blower Power curve, whose main and small jumps derive from the rounding off of Voltage and Current data.

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. It is measured with the anemometer. It does seem impossibly close, so I zoomed in some more to the individual data points. You see varying separation. Then I subtracted watts from air speed for each 5 s interval. That is, of course, a meaningless number. But if one number was derived from the other, the difference would be the same in all cases, I think. The differences were as large as 1 part in 10, and randomly distributed. Then I looked at what percent watts were of air speed. It varied, randomly. Watts were not multiplied by any single number to equal air speed.

I do not know what other derivation there might be, or how you would detect it.

The differences between the curves are easily explained by observing that they refers to two different y-axes which are not proportional each other, ie they don't share the same x-axis level.

Quote from JedRothwell

It is possible I am confused about this. I intend to ask Mizuno when I get a chance. But as I said, I searched for a function that converts watts into air speed, and I cannot find one. There are small, random differences between them.

You can find such a formula to convert the Blower Power (in W) into Air Speed (in m/s) on the "AP" column of the spreadsheet of the 120 W active test run on May 19, 2016 (3). A similar formula, or maybe the same, was used to calculate the Air Speed in the 100 W control test diagram published in (1).

Quote from JedRothwell

Eventually I plan to convert all the fields back into computed values and upload some sample spreadsheets.

Yes, at this point, the best thing to do is to publish the integral spreadsheets, as was done for the May 2016 tests.

(1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(3) Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

Hi Jed,

I took the points and made a table of airspeed vs blower power by interpolating the pixels vs the scale provided.

AirSpeed BlowerPwr

1 4.1818 3.7182

2 4.1851 3.7238

3 4.1821 3.7186

4 4.1803 3.7157

5 4.1835 3.7210

6 4.1833 3.7208

7 4.1789 3.7132

8 4.1789 3.7132

9 4.1792 3.7136

10 4.1833 3.7207

11 4.1803 3.7157

12 4.1835 3.7215

13 4.1880 3.7287

14 4.1821 3.7187

15 4.1836 3.7210

16 4.1805 3.7159

17 4.1791 3.7136

18 4.1791 3.7136

19 4.1821 3.7186

20 4.1836 3.7211

21 4.1806 3.7160

22 4.1821 3.7187

23 4.1791 3.7135

24 4.1797 3.7147

25 4.1763 3.7085

26 4.1776 3.7108

27 4.1821 3.7188

28 4.1792 3.7136

29 4.1835 3.7211

30 4.1835 3.7211

31 4.1835 3.7211

32 4.1821 3.7187

33 4.1763 3.7086

34 4.1791 3.7136

35 4.1791 3.7136

36 4.1835 3.7211

37 4.1835 3.7211

38 4.1806 3.7160

39 4.1835 3.7211

40 4.1835 3.7211

41 4.1819 3.7182

42 4.1789 3.7132

43 4.1789 3.7132

44 4.1763 3.7085

45 4.1776 3.7108

46 4.1851 3.7236

47 4.1848 3.7231

48 4.1784 3.7122

49 4.1748 3.7060

The fit is BlowerPwr = 1.722298 * Airspeed - 3.484167

The R-Squared is 0.9994

Therefore, the hypothesis that the Blower Power in the chart provided is a linear function of Airspeed is proven. It is clear that for _this_ data sample in the chart that the Blower Power shown is not that measured using volts x amps going into the motor, but instead is a linear function as shown of the airspeed measured. There may be other evidence of the relationship between blower power and airspeed, but the chart provided with the 49 data points is not it.

I invite anyone else on this forum to verify with the above data and show the same R-squared and regression fit.

Note: if you plot the points BlowerPower Vs. AirSpeed, you will see the linearity of the fit as a straight line with no outliers.

THHuxleynewIn the machine that makes 250W out with 50W in, don't you think it would be very difficult for Mizuno to have made a large enough error to account for that power ratio at that level of power? Yet you postulate some errors due to various routes of heat transfer that may not have been fully accounted for? Not to mention the apparently accurate calibrations with simple Joule heating? Seems if the result is not real and valid, this is either some colossal mistake which somehow escaped notice (how does that happen?) or it's Mizuno's fabrication or delusion. That would seem more probable than that large an error but it's improbable as well. I wish someone capable would go to Mizuno's lab and step by step would verify the work and the results.

So THHuxleynew do you really think errors in accounting for the full thermal budget of the experiment could explain the result? And if so, how do you account for the calibration result being essentially dead on?

And if you don't think that about the results and don't think calibration is wildly invalid, then while it may be fun to perseverate about small mistakes in method and precision, would it really change anything if your concerns were valid? Like anonymous wrote, is this worth tying you up and JedRothwell as well?

Quote from Ascoli65

The values of the Blower Power curve have been obtained by multiplying the values of the blower's Voltage and Current. However, it was done by multiplying their respective values rounded off to the second decimal digit and not those directly measured by the field instruments. These rounded off values comes necessarily from a spreadsheet like the one published here on L-F (2), which contains the data of the 120 W control test held on May 20, 2016.

This fact demonstrates that the values of the Air Speed were calculated starting from the above Blower Power values! Otherwise, it would have been absolutely impossible for a measured quantity to follow exactly the same trend of the Blower Power curve, whose main and small jumps derive from the rounding off of Voltage and Current data.

...

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can you be sure of this? You just have an excel graph!? You can have a suspicion, but saying that your "analysis" demonstrates something lets you lose all credibility. Sorry...

I added a picture from my master thesis. Its voltage vs. time. Black my mathematical model and in red the measurements. I am sure you can demonstrate that I calculated the measurement values from the model and never measured anything. Ascoli65 is able to do this on the basis of a picture with 100% certainty.

Fun fact: these are measurements. The measurements have a standard deviation of 1mV. Pretty hard to see on a 0,3V scale. But I am sure you can proof me wrong.