Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Continuation of Post 1161:

The fit is MUCH better over the Figure 4 calibration data (from Mizuno ICCF22 preprint) using the V = A * exp(Wb/w) + B regression than using the V = Vmax(1 - exp(Wb/w) regression.

I took the data from Figure 4 and ran the regression. The model using my rough data input from figure 4 came out:

B = 7.7081

A = -6.5602

w = 6.0603

vs the regression from fitting the data in post 1111 provided by Jed:

B = 7.53828

A = -6.38828

w = 5.78291

Thus, I come to the conclusion that

1) Mizuno et al used the calibration data to generate the factors A, B, and w in the spreadsheet; and

2) the data provided in post 1111 is then using the above model from blower power to derive airspeed.

I believe that the calibration is reasonable and that the airspeed values are reasonable.

I do not have a fluid dynamics physics reason why the model (V = A * exp(Wb/w) + B) works empirically, but it does work (residual standard error 0.03). It works better than a linear model (RSE=0.10), or a two factor exponential model (V=Vmax(1-exp(-Wb/b), RSE=0.15).

(A possible hypothesis is that the zero blower power airspeed B - A, could be from natural convection if the reactor is heated. An even hotter reactor would have a tendency to increase this natural convection effect so that the estimate of airspeed from blower power would be underestimated at higher temperatures, and thus the calorimeter output mass airflow heat removed would be underestimated at higher temperatures. If true, this is conservative at higher temperatures than the calibration, i.e. the reactor is making even more heat. I would prefer again to calibrate under identical conditions with identical emissivity tubes, but the error would mean the experiment is creating more heat than measured.)

Note that if Jed supplies us with the 6 decimal points of data that Mizuno used to generate the calibration (the underlying data in Figure 4), we will likely get the same exact values.

Re R20 V & I measurements

Quote from Robert Horst

For the current shunt, you usually want to pick one rated just a little above the max current you need to measure in order to get a high enough voltage to minimize noise. Using a 100A 75 mv shunt to measure 1 amp gives you a reading of just .75 mv.

Here is a datasheet for a wide range of shunts with ratings from 1 to 20000 A

https://www.gmc-instruments.fr/src/download/dShunts_gb.pdf

They have one that is 6 A, 100 mv (60A per V) that would have the same divide by 60 as shown in the charts. With a 220V heater, that could measure heater power up to 1.32 KW.

But other values are easier to find, like this one that is 10A 100mv.

https://www.newark.com/empro/h…hunt-100mv-10a/dp/99B0936

Display More

Thanks Robert, That fits it for X60 on voltage -> current and solved one problem.

However, it does not fit the data. We have recorded values:

V = 1.1730

A = 0.5400

P = 38W

And also a stated heater element that is 100V 500W (=> 20 ohm). We also know that a 100V PSU was used for R20, which is consistent with the heater resistance of 20 ohms. Thus 38W would be 100*sqrt (38/500) V = 27.6V. The figure here is not exact because we expect some change in resistance of heater element with power, and possibly some tolerance in heater resistance.

We would get roughly the correct figures dividing voltage by 25, but then the current value must scale by 60/25 = 2.4, corresponding to a resistance of 0.416.

You can choose voltage division to get a nice round shunt resistance value - but the voltage divider is still arbitrary. To interpret this data properly we need more info on the apparatus used.

Jed,

Now that I think we all understand ascoli's point about the recorded airspeed values being calculated from blower power there are two questions:

Which of the data is this true for? (Some might be directly measured - although I'd expect all to be calculated).

Was the blower used the same throughout the experiments from 2017 - now? If it was changed was the correct (different) calibration used for the conversion?

Why do we expect two different blowers? Because the constants for the conversion equation given in the patent are different from those relevant to the blower described in the paper. The paper blower has a higher typical airspeed.

Ok, Jed, I can assure you that I have no intention of injecting lies, bullshit, etc. I'm happy to admit when wrong. And the things I am saying are not a big deal, in terms of the significance of the Mizuno results. They are certainly not "lies" in papers, and only "errors" of the sort that commonly happen, where some detail is misinterpreted.

For the reasons I've stated before, I care about all these minute details and I think getting them right is helpful.

To reiterate the issues still in contention:

Airspeed: was calculated from blower power in the posted spreadsheet. You do not have any other credible explanation for the figures. Sorry. Also, it is quite plausible and sensible experimental methodology - so why do you resist this? It is not a big deal. Are you sure you understand what Mizuno says about this? After all, the conversion function is derived from anenometer measurements so you could say the airspeed is (indirectly) derived from anenometer measurements. Or maybe there is some translation issue.

Average airspeed versus measured airspeed. There is a factor of approximately 20% in difference which comes from the well known equations for fluid flow in a pipe with turbulence at Re ~ 12,000, and that is what you get at a speed of 3.5m/s in a 66mm pipe. This again is not a big deal, but it shows based on your figures that the low power calorimeter efficiency is 80% not 100%. So what?

You have not criticised the fluid flow theory (references all over the web) and others can check it. You have claimed experimental data that contradicts it - yet this depends on the size of the anenometer probe, so is imprecise, and also cannot be relied upon because inserting the probe into the turbulent airflow near and edge will certainly change the velocity distribution.

Your strong comments on another thread about what you see as my technical repeated errors are all thus factually wrong. However I admit to laziness. Overall I have spent some time and effort here which some (including me) have found useful, so I excuse myself that. You may have higher standards for work ethic.

Quote from JedRothwell

Can you come up with any conceivable reason why Mizuno would do this with such a weird, unphysical equation, representing nothing in the real world? No, of course you can't.

Again, from Mizuno’s 2017 article (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf):

Jed, maybe just take a break, and come back in a little while reading what has been said when you have calmed down. I am neither liar nor troll as I think you will agree on reflection.

The evidence for this computed air speed is:

• Mizuno says he does it, and gives the equation used, in the 2017 paper (milton referenced) and the patent (I referenced). Ascoli also mentioned this early on in his much misunderstood original posts.
• It is entirely understandable methodology - there might be problems keeping the hot wire anenometer in the setup permanently - it would certainly be inconvenient.
• The low order digits from the airspeed data show quantisation that exactly parallels that from V & I measurements and cannot otherwise be explained (ascoli's original clever but not easily understood point).
• The airspeed data correlates much too precisely with the power data via a function of the type Mizuno says he used for this to be an independent physical measurement with its own noise.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

If that is how he did it then, that's how he did it

After 2017 it appears that Mizuno has refined his calculation method..

there may also have been slight changes to the configuration.

Btw. .Jed

Did Mizuno continue calorimeter expts after the earthquake(s)

Wouldn't all this arguing about flow rates and blowers evaporate (sorry) if Mizuno had used an SGVIT style liquid cooled and jacketed calorimeter? Or a liquid cooled Seebeck type? Or better yet, SGVIT calculations from the coolant in and out of a Seebeck calorimeter? Just saying. Air flow calorimeters are very difficult for some of the reasons we are seeing and probably additional ones as well. Still, to question Mizuno's results, you have to account for the spot on calibrations with Joule heat. I have not seen that so far.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Air flow calorimeters are very difficult

For the replication ..use air flow calorimetry for x thousand $

Look for delta temperatures in in the airflow of 15 or 20 C for the active reactor.

Compare these with the calibration reactor.

I am sure GoogleX has nice water calorimeter they have spent x million $ to set up ..at UBC?

Perhaps they could adapt this to R20 for another x million $?

I agree that for the initial replication, everything should be kept as identical as possible, without exception, to the Mizuno recipe. BTW, I am doubtful that many backyard experimenters will do this but I hope I'm wrong.

Quote from JedRothwell

I still think that this along with his other "issues" -- such as the heat reaching the blower -- are bullshit, intended only to muddy up the discussion

Tondemonai.

THHnew has a sacred and unpaid duty to ferret out significant errors

Plaudits to THHnew.

Btw THHnew .. have you calculated the surface temperature of a cooktop element of area 0.028 m2 putting out 488W

by Stefan'sLaw using an emissivity of 0.8 or so

https://www.engineeringtoolbox…-heat-transfer-d_431.html

and do you still intimate that the velocity traverse method used in pipe ducts for the last eight decades or more

for process monitoring and regulatory requirements

can be in error by 20%?

Quote

It is not a matter of refusing so much as not wishing to do an experiment that we think might be dangerous without proper equipment.

You asserted that the "whomper" reactor is running quietly, heating Mizuno's living room and it is pictured, supposedly running inside the fireplace. Was that a lie? If not, how is it dangerous to stick a thin film sensor on the outside? The reactor won't even know it is there or in more scientific terms, the sensor has good thermal conductivity and is very thin and it is also small compared to the casing of the reactor so it will have no significant effect on the thermal parameters - ie. cooling. How could that possibly be dangerous?

Quote

Also, we disagree with your view that this would be more convincing. The people who need to be convinced also disagree with you.

Forgive me but that is simply ignorant. If you understand what it is, apart from third party, first rate full blown calorimetry, nothing could be more convincing than a direct heat flux measurement from the reactor. Exactly why not?

Jed: However, your point is that this works, and Mizuno said he did this (back then, anyway). The comments by THH clearly implied Mizuno was up to something and he -- THH -- was here to ferret out the truth. I still think that this along with his other "issues" -- such as the heat reaching the blower -- are bullshit, intended only to muddy up the discussion and introduce doubt where none exists. I have blocked THH, and I will not respond to him again.

Curbina: This is the problem of starting from the outset with the belief that all this is impossible, that anyone doing this is a moron in urgent need of being educated, and that if a positive result is attained it must be wrong. I don’t think blocking is a good idea but is up to you to decide that. After all, this sparring, however tiresome might be, is good to see from where the next punch can come. I greatly value this, in that sense. But THH has clearly and unambiguously stated he believes (key word here) Mizuno is wrong. We are dealing with beliefs here, not facts.

I'll answer this: and we can all have closure. I think the Mizuno results thus far have been considered now as much as is possible.

I'm sorry this is seen as a "battle" except in the sense where we are all on the same side: to get the best possible understanding of these results. Framing these discussions in that way is unhelpful: as you can see looking back over these pages.

I have never said, thought, or implied that Mizuno is "up to something". Jed: that is a lie, and a hurtful one. I'm not one to beat a dead horse, and if the impression people get here is that I am impugning the integrity of scientists I will no longer post. That is a very clear promise.

Equally, some here seem to be under the impression that scientists can do no wrong, that mistakes cannot happen, etc. The airspeed issue shows that. In this case, with imperfect communication an a language barrier, mistakes are easily made. Extraordinary results require specially high levels of proof (something the FTL neutrino team understood, as do most).

It is quite simple: if I note experimental results that disobey my understanding of physics, my 1st, 2nd and 3rd thoughts are to check the setup: not think I have discovered new physics. On discovering no error I then will feel I have something extraordinary, but know (from long experience) that this is likely to be some overlooked mistake or issue. So I keep on at the data, checking some other way, or asking someone else to check. That process continues for a long time before I think it no longer worth while and proclaim new physics. But the anomaly bugs me till I understand it, one way or another.

That procedure, followed properly, means inevitably that I discover something new: but not necessarily new physics! Maybe some unexpected experimental issue that obeys conventional physics.

If I do that for my own work, why would I not do it with anyone else's? And why would anyone else not welcome such checking (as I would myself?).

Curbina uses the word belief. Scientists form beliefs about the way the universe works, call these hypotheses and then theories. But they stay beliefs. They are a matter of reasoned judgement. In the case of LENR claims, no-one who is sure (positive or negative) about LENR can be correct, because no scientific theory is 100% certain. The level of certainty that is effectively 100% (like that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow) comes from linked empirical data (it has happened) and understanding (the earth rotates with a very large angular momentum) that explains it and predicts the future. LENR does not have that level of certainty, and never could until it had a predictive theory. Given all that, belief that LENR explains given an experimental results is a matter of judgement and rational debate. The level of evidence that I need, personally, to push me into thinking results of the type that Mizuno presents are represent LENR is pretty high, and higher than most others here. But not higher than would be needed for them to be generally seen is that.

For me to not voice reservations out of some sense of politics or politeness would be absurd and very unhelpful.

I've enjoyed my time here: not everything here engages me but enough does that this is worthwhile.

THH