Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • This sort of thing makes me angry/upset because it is such crap


    go and have a drink for your "angry/upset"

    offgrid areas are a huge part of the world.... 1.7 plus billion people


    what's your estimate ... 5%?

    If LENR can work off a solar battery and the deuterium lasts for a year.. this would be a huge boon for such areas.

  • Bob#2 wrote:


    If Mizuno is able to run a reactor for months, heating his house, then he should be able to demo a reactor at will at his lab. I realize the attempt to do so at IH failed, but I would have thought they would have been open to visiting his facility. It seems reasonable that a group would rather spend a relative small amount of money, traveling to Japan and confirming an existing test setup, than the very expensive and time consuming task of starting from scratch.

    Exactly, precisely, without the slightest doubt. Anything else, as a starting point, may be fun for the backyard experimenter but makes no sense at all for a prospective investor. That this did not happen makes the entire set of claims questionable. If JedRothwell and Mizuno wanted to feed skepticism, they could not have gone about this any better way.

  • Quote

    If LENR can work off a solar battery and the deuterium lasts for a year.. this would be a huge boon for such areas

    Robert, you seem incapable at differentiating proof of concept from engineering issues. No investment will take place without the former. At this point, there is no reason to care in the least about the latter. It is startling that you don't realize this. It speaks poorly for your ability to perform reality testing at all. This sort of inability to understand the source of skepticism is a major reason LENR has never been widely accepted as real... if it is real.

  • Robert, you seem incapable at differentiating proof of concept from engineering issues

    This is SOT talking. the engineer who thinks that Mizuno's reactor

    at 500 Pascal's needs a pressure relief valve..??:)

    as I have shown you in calculation

    the 3 mg of deuterium requires a temperature of 90.000 C or so to reach atmospheric pressure?

    This sort of inability to understand the source of skepticism is a major reason LENR has never been widely accepted as real... if it is real.

    SOT's real scepticism comes from his inability to do these basic engineering calculations

  • Quote

    at 500 Pascal's needs a pressure relief valve..??

    Geez man, what's the matter with you? The reactor won't be at 500 Pascals if the reaction runs away and vaporizes the nickel mesh, will it? And given the power ratio and power level and questionable forced cooling which could fail, that circumstance is not exactly impossible. If the claims are true, of course.

  • Geez man, what's the matter with you? The reactor won't be at 500 Pascals if the reaction runs away and vaporizes the nickel mesh, will it

    Show engineering calculation please SOT...

    don't let your angry/upset runaway with you.

    "Thanks for the gauge information. I understand the device needs no pressure relief if it's operating normally under a partial vacuum. The question referenced what might happen in the very improbable event that something lets loose inside the reactor, for example an unexpected release of extremely large amounts of heat that converts some parts to a very hot vapor or gas. In that case, it occurred to me that the sealed strong stainless steel container would become a bomb. After all, the reaction and its properties are, as per what was written, entirely unknown. It would seem reasonable enough to add some sort of burst disc or other safety device. Just curious but it's OK. I recall LENR experimenters tend not to use safety barriers and like to live dangerously.

    Replicators you have been warned.. Its the BOMB!

  • RB - please stick to the matter at hand? Which was calculating a bound for the airflow measurement error (18%). As an interesting distraction, we could also discuss the absolute calorimeter efficiency bound (which must be lower that 22%, since that is the quoted heat loss from the paper assuming airflow calculations are exact - clearly they have some bound and cannot be exact because nothing is.

    Let us resolve the (~18%) airflow bound first, since the calorimeter efficiency bound depends on this.

    You said:

    THHnew's vague calculations of 18%, 34% are based on implausible assumptions.

    I estimate much less . The velocity profile in the annular region btw 3 and 3.3 cm is not zero.

    A stepwise change from ~ 4m/s to zero m/s is unrealistic.

    I provided my plausible assumptions in #1306. I noted that a stepwise change from 4 to 0 m/s in the outer 3mm would provide approximately 20% error, A linear change from 4 to 0 over this part allows (approximately) for a 10% error, which is why I use this, I don't understand why you think a stepwise chnage is needed? We could go over this more accurately if you like and reach an understanding on which bits are plausible and which not.

    However the starting point needs to be the assumptions on which you bound the airflow error. Please provide these, and state in what way mine are different? Then we can make progress.

    The two components of airflow error that I have noted are (1) average / peak air velocity (~10% bound) and (2) accuracy of the M-20 anenometer as posted by me some way above (~8.5% bound).

  • Robert, do you know the world energy portion used only to heat homes and others ? it 's a question to my understanding :)

  • Please show how a systematic error of +10 % or _10%

    in the active and the calibration run

    in the airmassflowrate would reduce a COP of 300% , 30% to ZERO!

    It is instructive for all on this thread to note the above question from RB.

    It is putting the cart well before the horse, and implies a falsehood, that I think that. I am interested in looking carefully at all these bounds, and until that has been done it is premature to decide whether the R19 (+50%) results could be from error. RB and I agree the R20 (+500%) results cannot be the results of errors, but could be the result of mistakes - for example calculating the input power assuming the old heater power/voltage when the new heater has a different resistance. Such mistakes get resolved when observations are repeated and written up more carefully, but are sometimes present in initial sample results.

  • No, that is out of question. The reasons are given in the papers, and I addressed that question specifically in the presentation. Reasons:

    1. The bottom of the calorimeter is well insulated.
    2. A wide variety of reactors have been calibrated in the calorimeter, ranging from 50 kg down to 300 g. They all produced the same Delta T temperature in the air flow. You cannot tell them apart.

    Jed, this is very good science but you are including experience and issues that are not written in the paper. If it was my paper, I would make the argument about the calorimeter and DeltaT, etc. at various known input powers and run the statistics. My comment is not that the science that Mizuno is doing is not correct, its that the paper should be written to incorporate your experience and data so that the paper becomes more rock solid.

  • A linear change from 4 to 0 over this part allows (approximately) for a 10% error,

    10% error?

    Relative to what?

    Please show the calculation of what the error is relative to.

    Is this another one of those bloopers where Thhnew doesn't know what formula to use?

    What velocity profile does THHnew expect in the edge annulus(yellow)?

    Is it like A,B or C?

    How does the velocity profile vary from Velocity 2m/s to 5m/s at 30C?

    What method does THHnew assume that Mizuno used to calculate

    the mass flowrate from seven point measurements

    and the circular/annular areas pertaining to these.

    Does THHnew know how to calculate the expected velocity profile or not?

    What equation is THHnew using?

    What is the accuracy of this equation for flow in airpipes?

  • barring some good reason, I would immediately hand my setup over to independent observers and begin working on a second copy.

    Who do you have in mind? Which independent observers? No one at the DoE or any university would touch it. Any major institution that touches it will come under a barrage of attacks by Nature and the mass media. We have the best people we can find working on replications.

  • ...

    Not to criticize those attempting, but even if they are successful, it will be MUCH less convincing than an organized and managed team (such as the Google team, IH etc.) makes the replication.


    You are prejudging unknowns. An analogous experiment might be more convincing for a variety of reasons.

    Like no control sitting next to it. 10 watts in 1000 out. Powered by batteries. With a second reactor powered by the heat from the first. Finally, with the heat from the second charging the batteries of the first. Confusing? Convincing?

    Am I prejudging unknowns, Bob?

    • Official Post

    I do not see what your statement has to do with mine. I knew about this last year. I was trying to persuade Mizuno to publish it. He wanted to work on in more. That's what academic scientists often do. They work for years before publishing. No one has accused him of lying or being out of his mind (except Mitchell Swartz, who I suppose is jealous).

    I meant that: Without quantitative numbers on the amount of heat, some will dismiss the claim of 1-3kW. I do not dismiss his claims for lack of specifics. I know you do not either.

    Do you know when he sent out the 12 reactors? Maybe there will be some data to share at September?

    • Official Post

    This is kind of the same topic that falls in the broad issue that THH started in another thread ("When is settled really settled) and is really interesting for me. The bottom line is that Quantum Mechanics is the de facto measure of all things, and anything nor predicted nor expected by it is anathema. This is, as Jed correctly states, science politics. LENR is unconceivable within the QM paradigm, therefore must be wrong. It was considered wrong when Fleischmann and Pons announced it. It is considered wrong when McKubre measures it with the best calorimetry possible. Is not the result themselves, Is the challenge to what has come to be the measure of what is possible and impossible, the sacrosanct Quantum Mechanics

  • I believe someone should seek some council. The above is truly disturbing.

    I will therefore simply block RB and not prod him further and hope he seeks some help.


    • Official Post

    We have a small army of "non-pedigreed" replicators heading to their garages. Some are coming on line in the next few weeks. The bigger boys lining up, are not so nimble and will take much longer. The small timers IMO, will play a very important role in the discovery process, and set the stage for what follows. If initial reports are negative, the pace will slow down. If positive, it will go into overdrive.

    I agree with you though, that it will take the big boys replicating, before the mainstream pays attention. Never know though, as these things are hard to predict.