Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Quote

    The thing that bothers me about THH's attitude was his statement that he expects this is an error. "Expect" is the wrong word. I fear this is an error.

    Here, I have to share THH's view. Expect, fear, whatever, these results are hard to believe. I fervently hope they're right - that would be far more interesting than if they are wrong. But if they are wrong, I suppose the error that was made or whatever explanation there is, will be pretty interesting too, unlike the Rossi and associate fiascos.


    What I have would have done differently would have been to use the calorimetry method of GSVIT as well as the air method. In fact, if I could only do one experiment, it would have been with the liquid cooled cell. It just seems tighter. And two different methods would have been better plus you could run calorimetry on the more powerful reactor if you could fit a GSVIT type coolant jacket around it.


    GSVIT again: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/ (use Google translate)


    But it always comes back to this: calibration returns valid results within excellent tolerances. And far as I know, nobody found faults with it yet. If only it can be verified properly, it is exactly what much maligned skeptics like me have been asking for all along engendering hostility from the true believers for it. I am amused that it can be all summed up with:

    size-matters.jpg


    ETA: About Jed's computer errors, I was just watching the first moon landing again and I was reminded it almost didn't happen because of a "1202" overflow error in the guidance computer which kept repeating and returning all the way to the surface.


    http://blogs.discovermagazine.…m-explained/#.XSeu-etKiJA

  • What I have would have done differently would have been to use the calorimetry method of GSVIT as well as the air method. In fact, if I could only do one experiment, it would have been with the liquid cooled cell. It just seems tighter. And two different methods would have been better plus you could run calorimetry on the more powerful reactor if you could fit a GSVIT type coolant jacket around it.


    An odd comment, seeing how both are essentially the same thing. Air and water are fluids after all.


    Or perhaps you’d care to mention one single difference between the two?

  • Quote

    ETA: About Jed's computer errors, I was just watching the first moon landing again and I was reminded it almost didn't happen because of a "1202" overflow error in the guidance computer which kept repeating and returning all the way to the surface.


    OT but I watched the landing when I was 9 years old. My farther did some of the lighting and technical work for the BBC coverage. We would rush home from school, turn on our B&W TV and mark their position on a diagram of the flight path. Amazingly I didn't discover what the "30 seconds" call out meant until about 30 years later.

  • I did the whole data set that graph came from. 14,259 points. As I said =LINEST(O13:O14272,T13:T14272) = 1.7244.


    Hi Jed,


    Sorry for my delay in getting back to you. You are on the right track. As I said, from my data I got:


    The fit is BlowerPwr = 1.722298 * Airspeed - 3.484167


    Or Y = 1.722298 X - 3.484167


    The R-Squared is 0.9994


    The single variable linear regression finds m and b from Y = mX + b (slope intercept form) that is the best fit for the data.


    You need to use the ARRAY formula entry method on Excel LINEST to get the b and the R-squared. You only returned the m, and you can see that your m = 1.7244 is the same within the precision of what I extracted from your graph of mine at 1.7223.


    I am working now on a laptop so I cannot copy and paste the procedure for entering an array formula result in Excel. Essentially when you enter the =linest() function you have to highlight a rectangle of about 6x4 cells where it will place the result and hit (IIRC) control-shift-enter so that it places the linest() result in multiple cells instead of one cell. See https://www.vertex42.com/blog/…ray-formula-examples.html.


    You will almost certainly find that you have the same result.

  • It is kind of ridiculous, although I wondered if that was the case when I first made that graph. It does seem remarkably close. As I reported here above, I checked for that by the direct method: dividing blower power by (V*A). If this were a simple multiplication, it would give the same answer for each data point. Right? It's a spreadsheet. It doesn't give the same answer. Okay, so maybe Ascoli should say: ""The values of the Blower Power curve have been obtained by multiplying the values of the blower's Voltage and Current, multiplied by a very small random number." The question arises: why bother doing that? Does he think Mizuno is trying to fool people? To what end? What would be the point?


    If the Mizuno (or I) felt that blower power power was a better measure of the air speed than the anemometer, we would use it. We would make this the primary measurement, and use the anemometer as verification, or as a method of calibrating the blower power. Why not?


    Ascoli could have it correct, i.e. that the air speeds are derived by the formula I have shown from blower power. Or it could be reverse -- that the blower power is derived from the air speeds. Either way it is a linear relationship of the form Y = mX + b, or the inverse, X = (1/m) Y + Bprime. This is almost certainly the case. It is a linear relationship by formula in this graph. So what. Doesn't matter.


    None of this changes any conclusions on the R19 or R20. We are arguing about insignificant airflow measurement estimates that are most certainly calibrate-able. In fact I believe that Mizuno DID calibrate the airfow to the blower power using the anemometer probe at different input powers (and deriving the linear relationship contained in the datapoibnts), and that is what is utilized in the analysis. While he _could_ have made a significant mistake in the calibration of the airflow mass and hence the temperature removal, he calibrates separately power in vs power out using this airflow estimate. All of this will be verified later by Mizuno, and MOST importantly, validated by the third party replicators.


    I am sorry we wasted two days on this. It doesn't matter. I showed you all how to obtain the linear relationship of airflow vs blower power used in the chart, and that is really the end of this part of the minutiae. Let's move on to something important.

  • Ascoli could have it correct, i.e. that the air speeds are derived by the formula I have shown from blower power.


    Okay, what is the conversion factor? Is there a random number inserted? He said power is multiplied by some factor. In that case, when I divide the air speed by power, why do I get hundreds of different random numbers? This is a spreadsheet. If one is column is multiplied by constant to generate another column, you can find the constant by division. I don't find it.


    Ascoli is wrong. This is grade-school arithmetic.

  • 34 deg C, when ambient (inlet) was 20 deg C. So the Delta T is 14 deg C. That is shown in Fig. 5 but it had not quite peaked where I cut it off at hour 2.




    By "dummy" I assume you mean the 50 W calibration. 27 deg C, when ambient was 24 deg C. Also in Fig. 5.

    Was there not also a calibration at 250 W input?


    Since the ‘dummy’ in this case had higher emissivity (the grey cylinder), the cylinder temperature would be lower, and would it take more power input to raise the cylinder temperature to the same temperature as the low emissivity, shiny stainless steel cylinder.


    I was curious as to the effect on the outlet temperature at the calibration and active 250 W output levels. To get the same output power, if the airflow rate was the same, the output temperature increases over air input temperature would have to be the same (aside from appropriate ambient temperature considerations), even if the cylinder temperatures (calibration and active) were not the same. Although it sounds strange, this should be the case.


    I am also curious about the specifics of the heat calculations for the output air. I know that this may same a bit basic, but I would like to understand the calorimeter operation better. (It would be helpful for calorimeter newbies to see where all the measurements in these experiments specifically end up going into the heat calculations).


    I’ll read through the papers again in the meantime. I have been out doing stuff so I haven’t put as much time into absorbing all the information in them as much as I would like to.

  • Revised fit with Jed's tabular data:


    BlowerPwr = 1.713784 * Airspeed - 3.44502 + ResidualError

    R-Squared = 0.9999


    or if you prefer


    Airspeed = 0.583436 * BlowerPwr + 2.010436 + ResidualError

    R-Squared=0.9999

    The standard deviation of the residual error for airspeed is 3e-5 or for those who don't use a computer 3x10^-5 = 0.00003


    This is within rounding error of Jed's airspeed numbers which are good to 0.0001/4.17 = 2.4e-5, and Jed's power numbers 0.0001/3.7 = 2.7e-5.


    (Note: the difference between my preliminary fit and the fit to the tabular numbers is because of the horizontal lines of the scale of the graph are not clearly defined, i.e. there are two 4.18's on the left scale and two 3.71's on the right scale. I assumed from reading the graph scales that the bottom line was 4.165 m/s and 3.690 watts, and the top line was 4.190 m/s and 3.735 watts. Those minimum and maximum numbers on the scale were imprecise.)


    There is NO RANDOM number added to the Mizuno numbers. (If this was Ascoli's hypothesis this is wrong.) It is the straight formula that I show:


    Airspeed = 0.583436 * BlowerPwr + 2.010436


    I believe that Mizuno developed the above formula using calibration data from an anemometer and input power from the fan.


    Also, the voltages and currents produce powers in Ascoli's table which don't match the tabular powers that Jed just provided us. They are from an old 2016 experiment. The new table shows powers at 14 levels between 3.7010 and 3.7237 watts for the 49 data points, with a mean of 3.71205. Ascoli shows powers in the 4.5 to 4.7 watt range. Assuming that this hypothesis is true, it needs to be modified for the new data. I tried to make this fit using a constant current of 420 mA and it looks not unreasonable (but still unproven) assuming voltage is measured to the 1 mV level. I don't think it matters as long as we know that Mizuno collected the blower power from the voltage and current going into the blower. If the current is measured to only 10 mA accuracy, the blower power is probably +/- 1 to 2 percent. This is not significant for the R20 and most of the R19 data. Perhaps the current is more stable than that. I did not look into the the blower motor specs so I don't know why the current should be stable.

  • It is kind of ridiculous, although I wondered if that was the case when I first made that graph. It does seem remarkably close. As I reported here above, I checked for that by the direct method: dividing blower power by (V*A). If this were a simple multiplication, it would give the same answer for each data point. Right? It's a spreadsheet. It doesn't give the same answer. Okay, so maybe Ascoli should say: ""The values of the Blower Power curve have been obtained by multiplying the values of the blower's Voltage and Current, multiplied by a very small random number." The question arises: why bother doing that? Does he think Mizuno is trying to fool people? To what end? What would be the point?


    If the Mizuno (or I) felt that blower power power was a better measure of the air speed than the anemometer, we would use it. We would make this the primary measurement, and use the anemometer as verification, or as a method of calibrating the blower power. Why not?


    I find evidence gathered from looking at the effects of rounding on processed results fascinating: how we can gain so much information just by looking at the lower digits of otherwise unexceptional numbers. However it is a subtle art.


    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...


    You need to examine carefully what ascoli is saying. The evidence from correlation in quantisation is much much stronger than a correlation in two linear graphs. The quantisation represents a noise source added to the signal. The correlation shows that the airflow noise is somehow exactly the same shape as the V*I quantisation noise. That correlation is immensely powerful, and tells us that the quantised V and I signals - not the actual (unquantised) V and I - are somehow present in the noise element of the airspeed data.


    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.


    The regression fit test shows that the two data have a linear relationship, but not which was calculated from which. I agree with your argument that this could not be physical (because of the time constants). But in fact the quantisation argument from Astolfi is much more powerful even than this. It shows (1) the correlation could not be physical and (2) the airspeed is calculated from V*I as measured at the blower, rather than blower power being calculated from airspeed.


    Ascoli's jpg (Ascoli was this your work initially?) is very helpful. He shows, assuming the diagrams correctly follow the data, that the quantisation of the airspeed data follows the quantisation of the voltage and current measurements. Whatever the errors here the fact that the same steps exist - correlated in time - is all that is needed for this.


    The point here is that whatever the exact values - there is no possible way that the voltage and current quantisation, a measurement artifact, can have any physical correlation with blower power or airspeed measurement. Therefore those V and I values must be used (and from the shape of the graph must be multiplied, and then scaled) to determine the airflow result.


    Jed makes the point that there are still errors. Thus setting airflow = V * I * C and solving for each of the measurements you get slightly different values of C for each sample. The difference here is +/- 0.25%. How is that possible if, as seems certain from Ascoli's figure, somehow the airspeed is calculated from the measure (and quantised on measurement) V and I results?


    It is quite easy. All we need is another quantisation that introduces rounding error into the calculation. This happens quite often. For example, the power could be calculated from V*I, then rounded, and the rounded figure scaled to determine airspeed. Or the rounding could be done as part of the scaling. When using spreadsheets and copying manually from a printed (rounded) column of figures this can happen, or in other ways.


    Another possibility is that the conversion (from blower power to air speed) is done following the provided experimental curve given relating the two, and this curve is approximated by some analytic close fit, or some linear interpolation from experimental data points, in order to do the conversion analytically but more precisely than is possible with a single linear fit.


    THH

  • Regarding the THH hypothesis that the higher power runs get more heat and thus temperature directly to the output airflow RTD:


    If this was true, it should have been measured in the calibration. However, we found that the calibration got less heat to the RTD at higher temperatures. This makes sense to me because at higher temperatures the surface of the box (the calorimeter) is hotter so it transfers more heat directly to the outside than the the output airflow RTD.


    I do not believe that this would be effected by the difference in surface emissivity of the reactor tube compared to the control tube.


    Regardless, this effect can be eliminated with a future calibration run with a reactor of identical emissivity -- in my preferred design the experimenters would calibrate with the active reactor BEFORE it is loaded and is therefore identical in emissivity (to itself). Future replicators will doubtlessly do this if they get the same R20 results or even the better R19 results.


    In summary, from the provided experimental design and data as communicated by Jed, there is nothing so far that I can see to invalidate the excess heat conclusions. The excess heat may not be as large due to the emissivity factor, but it is excess heat none-the-less. While there are details that we would like to see to get conclusive proof, they are hopefully coming from either Jed/Mizuno or from replicators.


    THH or SevenOfTwenty or anyone else on the forum -- why is this wrong?


    Put another way -- if you purchased a scaled up duct heater for your forced air heated home and it raised the forced air temperature by that amount for that power (50 watts makes 300 watts), and if you could capture the additional radiation by putting this furnace in your basement, would it not save you money over the winter compared to a purely electric forced air heater? This unit gets hotter for less power. If the data has been presented accurately, how can we deny that?

  • THHuxleynew In 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?



    Anonymous: Also, the voltages and currents produce powers in Ascoli's table which don't match the tabular powers that Jed just provided us. They are from an old 2016 experiment. The new table shows powers at 14 levels between 3.7010 and 3.7237 watts for the 49 data points, with a mean of 3.71205. Ascoli shows powers in the 4.5 to 4.7 watt range. Assuming that this hypothesis is true, it needs to be modified for the new data. I tried to make this fit using a constant current of 420 mA and it looks not unreasonable (but still unproven) assuming voltage is measured to the 1 mV level. I don't think it matters as long as we know that Mizuno collected the blower power from the voltage and current going into the blower. If the current is measured to only 10 mA accuracy, the blower power is probably +/- 1 to 2 percent. This is not significant for the R20 and most of the R19 data. Perhaps the current is more stable than that. I did not look into the the blower motor specs so I don't know why the current should be stable.


    Both SOT and anonymous make valid points here about "why bother - it does not matter".


    I agree in part. Were I to be uninterested in the details, or just inclined to dismiss people by association, I would conclude Mizuno's results are likely wrong and go no further.


    The reasons for this would be a whole combination of past mistakes (leading to premature release of positive resulys that were in fact errors, such as the fan power miscounting) and the known fact that on IH retest of some Mizuno positive results they found nothing. Or just that LENR as a field has so many false positives it is not worth looking at - something many do. Or that while Pd/D results have some credibility Ni-H results are in many ways less credible - and the two do not fit together so it is sensible to dismiss Ni-H results.


    Few here would want to do that. Similarly I do not want to dismiss substantial R19 experimental results collected over a period of time and written up with some care just because there is one "sample" R20 result.


    Equally, I don't think it helpful to approximate as SOT does or make those assumptions. Mizuno has shown himself capable of errors, look also at the GSVIT reports for carelessness with equations. However that does not mean that well-checked results are wrong, it certainly does not mean - and I have absolutely no evidence for this - that Mizuno deliberately falsifies results.


    Carelessness in technique, and sloppiness in presentation such as confusing calculated airspeed (from measured blower power and previous calibration) with measured airspeed all matter. But they are not sins that make it impossible to evaluate the data, nor do they imply any type of dishonesty.


    They do however mean that data needs to be treated with caution. In my case that mean holding judgement on single "sample" results. They might just be a mistake. Ignoring (which I would do anyway) anecdotal subjective results about room heating. And being interested in the minutiae of presented results such as R19 to see what can be made of them.


    The airspeed issue does not in any significant way affect the integrity of the R19 or R20 results directly. It does show an inaccuracy in presentation that should be noted and considered with all else when evaluating the results.


    So I hope that answers SOT. I'm not making assumptions, I'm not (as what people here call a pseudoskeptic would do) evaluating Mizuno's credentials as an experimentalist and when I've decided they are imperfect dismissing his data. I am trying to determine how significant are the data given evidence, from this writeup alone, of the care with which the experiment was conducted and results taken. That process is helped by minute attention to detail - which in any case I enjoy.


    There is a phenomenon in modern politics, perhaps enhanced by televisual and social media, of movement towards the extremes. Simple unmixed messages are politically more powerful and easier to convey in sound bites or tweets.


    I deplore this. The real world is usually complex and while when communicating you often need to simplify things, policy should be informed by the messy complex reality, not by the spin needed to sound good.


    As here, "pseudoskeptics" and uncritical "believers" share the convenience of a simple easily shared message, and avoid engagement with the messy world where things are often neither black of white and working out what they mean requires a lot of patience and expertise.


    THH



  • I agree with this (and have said so). Even the smaller R19 results look on balance well above likely artifact level. But attention to artifacts and minutiae, for me, remains worthwhile to me for a number of more complex reasons.


    It is usually the unknown unknowns that end up getting you. Sometimes these can be opened up by attention to otherwise boring detail (that has not happened here). Sometimes otherwise boring detail can make you reckon that more careful attention to lots of details is needed if the results (R19) here are to be definitive.


    How might the (single sample) R20 result be wrong? Well, perhaps some major error in how the input power is calculated - like forgetting that two different reactors have very different heater resistances, and calculating current from previously measured resistance and measured voltage? Safe enough, but provides no protection against forgetting that you have a different heater element in one reactor. This is just a sample unknown unknown. It is probably wrong. But not impossible.


    If you want to replicate R20, and get R20 level results, then care over calorimetric details is mostly irrelevant. It would be helpful if you do not have a criminal record, nor a long history of making money out of the promise of vapourware to the US govt, investors, etc. That is quite a low bar.


  • First -- it is a linear function with no error or random numbers as I have shown. I have changed my mind and think it likely that airspeed has been derived from blower power, and not the other way around. Why? 1) the hot wire anemometer would be really noisy -- much more than the 0.07% shown in the tabular data; and 2) an airspeed instrument manufacturer would not provide 5 significant digits of readout on an instrument that is has an 0.015 m/s accuracy and a thus has a limited resolution to two digits to the right of the decimal point.


    Second "airflow = V * I * C " is wrong.


    airflow = V * I * C + K is correct.


    The equation is in slope/intercept form (i.e. y=mx+b) and the solution has an intercept constant of around 2 as I showed above. Forgetting the intercept constant will give us a huge inaccuracy. (Regression standard error with intercept .00005, without 0.0026, or about 50 times higher.) Why would we not include the intercept constant?


    With regard to the quantization error, sure all instruments have such rounding. Mizuno will show us in his final paper exactly what the measurement method was and will tell us how inaccuracy is due to this. Here is a high accuracy lab unit with a usb interface:


    • Air Velocity Resolution1 ft/min (0.01 m/s)
    • Air Velocity Accuracy±2% of reading or ±3 ft/min (±0.015 m/s), whichever is greater


    Note that this hotwire unit has a relative humidity compensator because the specific heat of the air is different with the water vapor in it. Highest accuracy airflow calorimetry would need a relative humidity channel. The effect is quite small because the air at 25C is only around 1% water at 50% relative humidity and when heated in the experiment no water is added to the air. Therefore, this is a secondary effect which would not change the R20 results or the high excess power R19 results.


    I think using power into the blower is relatively robust and I am satisfied with that as long as Mizuno calibrated the unit with the same blower power method.

  • If this was true, it should have been measured in the calibration. However, we found that the calibration got less heat to the RTD at higher temperatures. This makes sense to me because at higher temperatures the surface of the box (the calorimeter) is hotter so it transfers more heat directly to the outside than the the output airflow RTD.


    I do not believe that this would be effected by the difference in surface emissivity of the reactor tube compared to the control tube.


    Regardless, this effect can be eliminated with a future calibration run with a reactor of identical emissivity -- in my preferred design the experimenters would calibrate with the active reactor BEFORE it is loaded and is therefore identical in emissivity (to itself). Future replicators will doubtlessly do this if they get the same R20 results or even the better R19 results.


    So - I'm not here arguing specifically about the R19 results (all done above) but about best methodology for replicators.


    Mizuno uses a setup with two different reactors mounted simultaneously in an enclosure. He can then calibrate, and do active runs, without opening things up.


    That is beneficial because it controls change in RTDs or blower, air temperature, etc, providing a run is done ABAB where A = cal and b = control, and data is kept to show the effect of reactor thermal inertia and room thermal inertia and possible external heat changes. If there is no excess heat the room temperature affect of the experiment itself should be stable over the entire run, which helps.


    It suffers from artifacts due to differences between reactors: either design (e.g. different resistance heaters) geometry, color, or position within enclosure. Just small changes in distance between reactor and adjacent wall can dramatically alter airflow and hence temperature of reactor for same power. That can then alter efficiency and other more subtle issues like radiative heating of RTD (if this is not designed out).


    Having removable insulation is an issue here - because it may not position exactly the same every time it is removed.


    So good practice for this two reactor setup is:


    Before experiment: photo two reactors, and position in enclosure showing symmetry. Measure heater characteristics (which should be nearly the same).


    Keep geometry symmetric (between the two reactors) and constant - with large airgaps everywhere so that small changes in position of components do not alter airflow.

    • keep reactor design identical
    • calibrate twice, swapping reactor positions so the calibration reactor is checked in both positions
    • do experiments with active reactor twice, in both positions. (if doing ABAB cal with active test then calibration and active tests are interleaved as one run, so separate calibration not needed. In that case do two test runs to show what happens when reactor positions are swapped).
    • document input power measurement, measurement and PSU equipment, carefully. Document power type (AC or DC, if AC what sort of AC, etc)


    A simpler one reactor setup is OK, but requires more care:

    • Record room temperature in different positions during experiment
    • Run with calibration (no Pd, or no Ni mesh at all)
    • Run with active system
    • Run with calibration again (by removing mesh)
    • Record times of runs, correlate to room temperature measurements
    • Note and if needed document the protocol to use that on assembly and disassembly calorimeter geometry stays identical - again ensuring air gaps are large is helpful.
    • Input power measurement as above.


    All this detail will help extraordinary results to be accepted as real, as will exact, timestamped, recording of all raw measurements.


    In general strong positive results against a control will be more convincing than absolute positive results, because less work is needed to establish that result is positive. But a lot of care is needed to ensure control and active tests have identical conditions.


    THH


  • Agreed more or less. Regardless, once multiple groups capture the "signal" of significant 6x COP 250 watt excess heat, the experiment will get done enough times with enough variation that it is generally accepted. Once two or three additional groups say they see the excess heat, the mainstream university and government labs will get involved and mainstream can then move to the next phases of LENR research -- the underlying physics and the engineering.

  • You'll see from my posting history that I usually make myself look foolish when trying to make a technical contribution, so I fully expect this to be shot down in flames... but here goes anyway!


    Has this possible error scenario been ruled out? Say for example the active reactor was in direct line of sight of the RTDs measuring air outlet temperature, and the control one was not, then thermal radiation from the active one (only) could impinge on the RTD. The effect would be small (as previously calculated, if I understood correctly) but the actual RTD sensor head would have a tiny thermal mass, so not much power from thermal radiation might result in a reading change.


    Presumably if it happened, this effect would make the RTD read higher than it would with airflow alone.


    I couldn't immediately see from either of the papers in the OP where exactly the outlet air RTDs were located with respect to the reactors, and hence whether they could be in line of sight of either reactor. As the paper reports two RTDs were used to measure output, and these were in close agreement, they would presumably both have to be in direct view of one reactor but not the other, for this to be at all a possible scenario.


    Come to think of it, maybe line of sight is not necessary if thermal radiation could be reflected off a shiny surface onto the RTD sensor heads? Guess in a 'worst case' there could even be a sort of focusing effect whereby the concave interior of a shiny pipe or whatever could concentrate reactor infrared emissions onto the RTDs (especially if placed near pipe centre)?


    Presumably this would be easily eliminated as a possible error by ensuring complete symmetry in the reactor placement vs outlet RTD placement, or by just using one reactor for both control and active runs, or by somehow shielding the RTDs from direct radiation.


    FWIW I did find a reference of sorts to RTDs being sensitive to thermal radiation:

    www.burnsengineering.com/local/uploads/content/files/Accuracy_II_Notes.pdf
    (the slides titled "Error sources" and "other sources")

  • anonymous:

    First -- it is a linear function with no error or random numbers as I have shown. I have changed my mind and think it likely that airspeed has been derived from blower power, and not the other way around. Why? 1) the hot wire anemometer would be really noisy -- much more than the 0.07% shown in the tabular data; and 2) an airspeed instrument manufacturer would not provide 5 significant digits of readout on an instrument that is has an 0.015 m/s accuracy and a thus has a limited resolution to two digits to the right of the decimal point.


    Second "airflow = V * I * C " is wrong.


    airflow = V * I * C + K is correct.


    We are not disagreeing on anything of substance. I accept the correction +K (I knew this, was careless, did not include it). I agree with your conclusion.


    I'd just say that ascoli's analysis using patterns derived from rounding "quantisation noise" as well worth understanding. It is compelling, clever, and makes the conclusion that in this data airspeed was calculated from V and I inescapable. The random numbers are not in the relationship, but in the presented power values, when analysed in detail. Such randomness is true of all quantised measurements.


    Such analyses are a source of wonder to me. The better known Benford's Law is a different, equally impressive, example of such analysis. (Which relies on the subtleties of Bayesian priors of zero-based (scaling symmetry) numbers - they have to be logarithmic, not uniform).


    THH

  • Jed,

    Perhaps I missed it in the write up, but a couple curious questions about Mizuno and this reactor design.


    Does Mizuno feel this is a "lab rat" reactor. I.E. that if protocol is followed, one will see excess heat in a high percentage of tests?

    F&P conducted many tests, but due to unknown reason (or several reasons), even they could not reproduce at will. What is Mizuno's

    (or your) feeling about this setup? I guess this question is actually how often has Mizuno been able to replicate himself? Specifically

    not length of test time, but number of "tear downs and setups" that produced excess heat? I have seen much reference to R19 and R20 and

    that these had some design differences. If he is asking for outside replication, I am assuming he has had multiple replications

    himself first, not just two test runs (R19,R20). By replication, I mean not just re-running the same setup, but multiple tear down / setup replications,

    which is more likely to indicate how robust a reactor and test protocol is.


    Second question is what is Mizuno doing now?

    Is he A) continuing replication testing, B) testing new designs, C) concentrating on working with outside replicators?

    You have mentioned he is extremely busy and I only ask this as it seems that often, LENR researchers (at least some followed on this list) have short attention spans! :)


    Several here are already discussing about changing the reactor design before they even have replicated the original. Too often, we have seen "on to the next and bigger design" or the researcher "drops out of sight" and nothing comes from the big announcement. This is NOT to say the Mizuno will or is doing this, but it would be interesting to know what his forward plans are. (Generally speaking) Thanks.


    (Yes, RB, I know this not a technical question so you do not have to reply. :rolleyes:)