Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Interesting situation regarding the airspeed data.

Jed tells us the values are recorded from an anemometer.

Ascoli & THH shows us the values correlate so well with the power measurements that it seem unlikely that they represent measurements of another physical variable.

I believe Jed is honest. But Ascoli & THH's argument is strong. I mean, in my experience it's often hard to make two measurements of the same physical variable give such closely correlated results. Real world data is messy.

In the end this is a "storm in a teacup" – it doesn't change the fact that the measured excess heat is very interesting. And I hope the examination and debate continues.

Quote from milton

Interesting situation regarding the airspeed data.

Jed tells us the values are recorded from an anemometer.

Ascoli & THH shows us the values correlate so well with the power measurements that it seem unlikely that they represent measurements of another physical variable.

I believe Jed is honest. But Ascoli & THH's argument is strong. I mean, in my experience it's often hard to make two measurements of the same physical variable give such closely correlated results. Real world data is messy.

In the end this is a "storm in a teacup" – it doesn't change the fact that the measured excess heat is very interesting. And I hope the examination and debate continues.

Display More

Right.

Jed has said he has received a spreadsheet from Mizuno in which the airspeed figures are in a column titled anenometer. That does not determine exactly how they are determined, and given all circumstantial evidence from Mizuno paper/patent, and the actual evidence from the data, it is clear this is to be interpreted as computed from blower power via previous calibration of the blower/calorimeter.

That interpretation says nothing as to the dishonesty of Jed and Mizuno, which should not be in question here - you don't jump to assuming people are dishonest - it is highly unlikely - Rossi being a clear and very atypical counterexample.

As far as this matter having direct relevance it is indeed a storm in a teacup. However it also has indirect relevance - it makes the results (slightly) less solid. That is because mistakes in the blower calibration, or changes between calibrated system and system now used that alter characteristics, would not be picked up by direct measurements. I don't see this as particularly likely, but because we have calculated rather than directly measured air speed it is one extra thing to check.

It has another indirect relevance. It shows that assumptions about exact methodology, made cross language from the columns of a spreadsheet, can be wrong. Thus further checking of all such assumptions here is worthwhile.

Quote from Curbina

THHuxleynew, I don’t think you Don’t contribute here, and I have said that I value your input as a required sanity check. In this particular airspeed case your sanity check was correct but unnecessary due to having been addressed by the main author himself and also because even if completely true all what it can account for is an slight increase of the error bar of the results, at most, which can also lead to underestimation of the excess heat, too.

I am an engineer, we are formed to use scientific knowledge to resolve practical problems in each particular discipline. We have to use tools and instruments for this so measuring things as accurately as posible is always a need, but we also deal with practical and budget limitations so we have to know how to measure things with practical enough accuracy. I deal with water mostly, not air, but the use of power consumption of a pump to estimate and also control flow rate is not the norm but often done, specially when the pump is going to be working in a steady regimen, the value can be perfectly accurate.

Of course you can do this kind of stuff when you know very well what you are doing.

I’m going to veer way off topic but I think is worth to give a recent real life example of how settled things can be completely wrong.

A few months ago in the country I live there was a huge public controversy, which has occurred in every other country when a similar roll out of so called smart grid meters begins. The classical argument is that smart meters over estimate power consumption. Government authorities and public electric utility companies quickly began a PR campaign to insure that the inaccuracy of smart meters was a myth and that the meters to be installed were fully compliant of international standards so there was nothing to fear in that regard.

But many of us consumers were already aware of a publication from a Dutch university team that found that smart meters were very capable of being more than significantly over or underestimating (depending on the type of sensor used in the meter, but the more common type consistently overestimates) power consumption of certain and very abundant types of light bulbs and other home appliances. This led to the establishment and funding of a 3 year multipartite international project to review and correct the current standards (started in 2018) by the European authority on these matters. So, our government officials are completely right that the meters comply with the international standards but is the standards that are wrong. This is an ongoing situation but our government already had to backpedal about the mandatory nature of the meter change (now you can refuse it) due to being completely unaware of this situation. If interested you can read about this European project here: https://www.euramet.org/resear…_project%5Baction%5D=show

Display More

Understood.

Although OT for this thread - it is useful for this forum, and something I find fascinating. I'll start a thread with my reply rather than say stuff here.

Quote from anonymous

Agreed Ascoli. I ran this non-linear regression and got slightly different answers:

A = 6.38827916

w= 5.78290823

B= 7.53828388

My results also agree to Jed's to the 6th digit to the right of the decimal point, having a residual standard error of 2.1e-7.

Well done. So there are at least 2 triplets which provide a perfect mathematical relationship between Blower Power and Air Speed, up to the precision of the data made available by JR.

Maybe, there are many other suitable triplets and the one really used by the experimenters could be different from ours. Our parameters are quite long: 8-9 significant figures. The values of the triplet reported in the 2017 article (A=-3.7, w=1.375 and B=4) are much shorter, but the values effectively used in the Air Speed formula (see column AP) in the spreadsheet of the 120 W active test (1) are not so short: A=-3.70072, w=1.37463, B=3.98859.

If the same procedure and the same recording apparatus have been used for the last tests, I also expect that the A, w and B parameters are reported in the spreadsheet of the R19 test we are talking about, so JR could easily find those values and let us know. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Their actual values have no influence on the presumed energy balance of these tests.

This airspeed story has just demonstrated once again that - to take in serious consideration any extraordinary claim about a hypothetical excess heat produced by a CF/LENR experiment - a minimum prerequisite is to have access to the original data recorded during the test. Only first hand numbers and visual documents (pictures and videos) count. All the rest is highly doubtful.

(1) https://docs.google.com/spread…EMipY/edit#gid=1856684673

Quote from milton

Jed tells us the values are recorded from an anemometer

The power of the blower, VxI ,is used as a measure of flowspeed to get air massflowrate.

Obviously one does not want to do anemometer traverses all day long every minute of the day

These daylong ....week long reactor monitorings are like watching the paint dry.

The VxI readings are correlated with the anemometer traverses

..and this correlation changes if there are slight modifications to the airbox//blower configuration.

There is no magic physics involved... just fluid mechanics 101.. and an x-y correlation.
The endless hooplah abut this matter reveals much about the peanut crowd ..

Lets see what howls from the gallery this will generate.

zero about

RB reports increased blowing from peanut herd.

Beware the aflatoxin.

Aflatoxins are a family of toxins produced by certain fungi

that are found on agricultural crops such as maize (corn), peanuts,

cottonseed, and tree nuts. The main fungi that produce aflatoxins

are Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, which are abundant

in warm and humid regions of the world.

Quote from AlainCo

Mizuno like many explains that calorimeter is part of the experiment, and it seems that the change in calorimetry helped the reaction. Of course the reactor itsef, the space, pressure, heat resistance, are important ...

Actually, testers are also part of the experiments.

Quote from AlainCo

Is there a simple way to describe with few parameters the dynamic properties of a calorimeter and the reactor ?

No,

The convective transfer btw the reactor and the moving airstream and the moving airstream and the calorimeter wall

is extremely difficult to model..

The airstream is laminar and turbulent at different positions

and this situation changes as the reactor heats up

Therefore the heat transfer coefficients are very difficult to predict.

the difference btw laminar and very turbulent HTCs can be a hundred fold.

the air velocities in the region btw the reactor

vary btw ... near zero.. at the corners and up to 2-3 m/s

https://www.engineeringtoolbox…-heat-transfer-d_430.html

Quote from RobertBryant

No,

The convective transfer btw the reactor and the moving airstream and the moving airstream and the calorimeter wall

is extremely difficult to model..

The airstream is laminar and turbulent at different positions

and this situation changes as the reactor heats up

Display More

Thank you Robert - we think as one on that (more or less).

Can you therefore also agree with me that using this calorimeter one critical check needed before control results can be used is to ensure that a control test has been conducted with a reactor of identical shape and in identical position in the box, with all box dimensions - including the exact position of movable insulation, identical, to that giving the active results? Which Mizuno has not done.

I personally hope the error here to be significantly smaller than the R19 results, and agree it must be smaller than the R20 results. But I'm not confident at all in that hope.

The R19 error (control vs active) can be no greater than the minimum control setup calorimeter efficiency (defined as output stream heat / other heat loss). That provides a way to check the results are completely safe ignoring this issue.

However I'd join with you in reckoning this to be non-trivial to calculate, because you would need the approx 20% difference between average and peak air velocity in the 66mm output pipe factored into this, which has not been done by Mizuno and anyway is difficult to quantify.

Best would be experimental calibration of the control, to determine calorimeter efficiency correctly. Unfortunately the calibration is complex depending on many other assumptions, the graph given is very likely wrong (since it shows near 100% efficiency at low powers, which would mean at most 5% lost due to the peak / average velocity issue, unlikely) and in any case there is no guarantee that the airflow between the system in which this calibration is done and the control measurements are the same wrt exact airflow: just disassembling and reassembling this system might make significant change due to the moveable insulation.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

. But I'm not confident at all in that hope.

But you cannot quantify your lack of hope...its one of those vague TTHnew feelings.

Your attempts to quantify and model the reactor transfer by T4 so far have been ridiculously amateur. Not analytic

but showing ignorance of the complexity of heat transfer. No wonder you found a missing 60W in the heat transfer.

You have entirely underestimated the importance of convective heat transfer,

"I have done an analytic calculation. Showing that the T^4 term, when used to determine radiation between two surfaces

makes radiation much larger at higher temps.

The goal is to replicate R20 according

to the dishwashing manual

Build as close to the the calorimeter

airbox dimensions as possible

build the reactor cylinder to the dimensions given.

use a similar airflowrate.

Try 50W calibration.

This should give an approx. 3C temp diff,

If not adjust the airflowrate until it does.

Then try the 50W active reactor.

This should give ~12 C temp diff

According to the graph

Why are you even bothering with R19.

Don't give us vague reasons.

Why are you even bothering with R19.

Don't give us vague reasons.

Because Mizuno devotes 90% of his upcoming paper to it?

Your attempts to quantify and model the reactor transfer by T4 so far have been ridiculously amateur. Not analytic

but showing ignorance of the complexity of heat transfer. No wonder you found a missing 60W in the heat transfer.

You have entirely underestimated the importance of convective heat transfer,

You have misunderstood the point of the radiation calcs. The issue is that they determine the temperature of the calorimeter insulation foil - which determines (the largest components IMHO) the calorimeter heat loss and hence the system efficiency. The reactor temperature - which depends on both forced convection and radiation - is also relevant to this.

Jed had originally thought that this foil could not be much hotter than 40C, which calculation show was not true.

RB: in evaluating complex systems it is important to continue asking questions, and not to have fixed views about what the answers mean. You want to close down questions (RB: why bother with the R19) and tend to have fixed views as to what answers mean (RB: interest in radiative heat transfer => underestimating importance of convective heat transfer).

IMHO both of these bad habits are made worse by an adversarial approach here where you see me as your enemy.

Quote from THHuxleynew

IMHO both of these bad habits are made worse by an adversarial approach here where you see me as your enemy.

Your opinion is your opinion.

THHnew is the one personalizing here

THHNew has a bad habit of doing this

Quote from THHuxleynew

which calculation show was not true.

Did the calculation measure the temperature to show it was not true?

Please use a different tense.

Your calculation is erroneous.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You have misunderstood the point of the radiation calcs

No I haven't. You cannot use T4 radiative ht dependency alone to model the heat transfer when 60- 90 %

of the heat transfer btw the reactor and the outside is caused by forced turbulent convection

radiation is a lesser heat transfer mode.

You have to take into account convective heat transfer otherwise your conclusions about

insulator wall temperature based on radiative heat transfer only will be erroneous.

If that is not obvious to you ....it shows how limited is your understanding of

heat transfer..

Quote from RobertBryant

If that is not obvious to you ....it shows how limited is your understanding of

heat transfer..

Your constant "hacking" on "THHuxleynew" is just showing how "MAD" you are!

Get a real life, RB!

Look yourself up into a mirror. What do you see?!

Homo sapiens? A god inserted lifeform? Similary to god?

You are bad example!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Because Mizuno devotes 90% of his upcoming paper to it?

This is a half truth.

Which upcoming paper?

there are two

1. Excess heat

2, Increased heat

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

the most recent being

Increased heat which is about R20.

Is there any reason to replicate R19 over R20?

R20 gave a 300% increase in measurable delta T for the

active reactor versus the calibration reactor

What did R19 give? 50%???

And THHnew says replicate R19??? because Mizuno wrote about it in a paper.

THHNew has a bad habit of writing half truths

Quote from bang99

Babble on.

That's all I have to say!

Another ad hominem.

Is there a technical comment from Bang 99?

God Bless

Did the calculation measure the temperature to show it was not true?

Please use a different tense.

Your calculation is erroneous.

Quote

THHuxleynew wrote: You have misunderstood the point of the radiation calcs

No I haven't. You cannot use T4 radiative ht dependency alone to model the heat transfer when 60- 90 %

of the heat transfer btw the reactor and the outside is caused by forced turbulent convection

radiation is a lesser heat transfer mode.

You have to take into account convective heat transfer otherwise your conclusions about

insulator wall temperature based on radiative heat transfer only will be erroneous.

If that is not obvious to you ....it shows how limited is your understanding of

heat transfer..

OK: so in more detail this is why you are not understanding my point, and also why your critique (above) seems wrong (unless I am misunderstanding it), and your analysis of the reactor is therefore (charitably) incomplete.

You should note that you are making assumptions about my views, vs that I am saying that radiation is directly significant in determining the forced convection air output temperature, or that radiation alone determines heat transfer from the reactor. That would be absurd. However, because radiation determines calorimeter efficiency as below, it is indirectly significant in the output, and highly significant in interpreting the results.

(1) forced convection could not heat up the outer foil more than the exhaust air (close to ambient)

(2) the figures for heat loss (efficiency) as measured in the paper, together with the insulation R value (corrected for the units error in the paper as Jed confirmed) show that the inside of the insulation must have a temperature >> the exit air temperature.

(3) this is of course not surprising, because of radiation between reactor and foil that heats up foil but not air. And how much this happens depends on the radiation calculation. Double the radiation => double the foil temperature uplift and therefore double the heat loss from the calorimeter enclosure to first approximation. (And this loss scales as T^4 for high temperatures).

(4) Hence the calorimeter efficiency varies with the emissivity of the reactor, since this changes the radiation level onto the foil.

(5) Of course (60-95% - if we believe the figures, however we know there is some inaccuracy here from the airflow average speed approximated as equal to peak speed, so it will be different) of the calorimeter heat goes into the exit air and is measured there. Just in case it is not clear that fraction is what I call the calorimeter efficiency. But the part that does not do that goes through the insulation and how much does this depends primarily on the radiation calculation. (As an aside, for low reactor powers I believe we expect the temperature deltas and heat losses all to be proportional to power - the whole system can be linearised. Therefore we expect efficiency to be constant and the efficiency vs power graph shown in the paper cannot be correct - it must meet the 0 power axis flat. Perhaps the heat loss is dominated by natural convection around the calorimeter enclosure which would give nonlinear results? I'm not sure).

(6) It is true that while radiation heats up the insulation inner surface foil, forced convection cools it. Therefore forced convection is also relevant to reactor efficiency.

(7) However the key matter in understanding how to evaluate these results is the calorimeter efficiency, and what can change it, so radiation is highly relevant.

This is a complex system and it is helpful to analyse bits of it (like the radiation). However, to interpret the effect of that you need to understand a lot of other things. Also, when not understanding what somone else has written it is polite to reflect and then ask questions, rather than assume it is wrong.

I'd also like to point out that multiple impolite and personalised posts, as you have made above, do not actually help readers of this thread to understand the different technical issues here. They do however make me feel I need to say just because you assert all these things, even though I do not reply directly to each one, and increase thread noise, it does not mean I agree with your statements.

Regards, THH