Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Quote from Cydonia

    do you know the world energy portion used only to heat homes and others


    In tropical counties virtually zero.


    In temperate countries much more.
    eg in NZ


    "“In 2013, electricity was used for heating in 79.2 percent of occupied private dwellings, up from 74.8 percent in 2006, and 72.0 percent in 2001.”"


    There is not much gas heating In NZ due to less reserves of natural gas and less reticulation.


    "An estimated 27% of NSW households used reverse cycle air conditioning as the main type of heating, 25% used other types of electric heating and 23% used gas heating. Wood heating was used by 11% of NSW households as the main type of heating, with the greater proportion of those being outside Sydney in the Balance of NSW"


    so a significant amount of heating is by electricity much of it at a COP of 1.


    Mizuno was born in one the coldest city in Hokkaido... Asahigawa

    Asahikawa (旭川), Hokkaido is the coldest place in Japan. Here the temperature often gets into －30℃ on a regular basis.

    But on Feb. 17, 1987 they recorded Japan's lowest temperature ever at －41.2℃


    Mizuno has identified home heating as good potential market in Hokkaido.


    Regardless of SOT's fragile emotions the concept of running LENR reactor on a battery charged by solar during the day

    is a worthwhile objective. Currently my sister in cool temperate NZ has solar panels 4KW and is offgrid

    due to the cost of grid reticulation

    ... but the night's are a problem especially now 9 degrees C... nothing compared to Hokkaido though.

    and Tesla batterie's are way too expensive.

    • Official Post

    Cydonia, according to iea.org “Heat is the largest energy end‑use. Providing heating for homes, industrial purposes and other applications accounts for around 50% of total energy consumption. Just over half of heat produced was consumed in industry – for example, for process heat, drying and industrial hot water uses. Another 46% was used for space and water heating and cooking in the buildings sector. The remainder was used in agriculture. In 2017, only 10% of heat was produced from renewables.”


    https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/heat/

    Quote from Bob#2

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

    God Bless you B2... I was referring to your lovely and commendable habit

    of defending THHnew's calculating ability which you have done in several outbursts so far.

    I think one post is in clearance,


    I wish THHnew luck

    especially with regard to calculating theoretical velocity profiles which as yet seems

    to be beyond their/his/its capability


    Re: SOT's "Its a bomb claim"

    which B2 used as an excuse to launch an Off topic personal attack


    without addressing this classic sottish comment

    "

    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?"


    The MP of 316 stainless steel of which the reactor is composed is about 1400C.

    If SOT asserts that the 5 Litre reactor will explode at this temperature...

    calculation shows that the pressure of the 3 mg of deuterium at this temperature will be 1405 Pascals.


    The pressure at this temperature due to nickel mesh vaporising is zero...

    because the BP of Nickel is 2730 C.


    If the reactor fails because of overheating.. it will not be by a bang or a whimper

    but by a squeak... as the atmosphere at 101,325 Pascals rushes in to fill a virtual vacuum.


    SOT's recommendation for a pressure relief valve or burst disc is founded on zero calculation.


    I doubt whether those who can do high school chemistry do not know this already.

    Quote from Curbina

    In 2017, only 10% of heat was produced from renewables.”

    In New Zealand today

    81% electricity is from renewables according to the recent dashboard ...

    https://www.transpower.co.nz/power-system-live-data

    This figure ignores the energy use for transport which is almost entirely fossil fuels


    The average consumer paying 36cNZ per kWh doesn't care about renewable/ non-renewable


    they want something cheaper. geothermal/ wind are only economic compared to coal/gas burning


    The LENR reactor of Mizuno would definitely be a gamechanger if made commercial



    Here we go


    The airflow is the integral of the velocity over the area. If the velocity drops linearly from its normal (maximum) value of 4 m/s to 0m/s in the outer 3mm

    Over that 3mm the circumference changes by only 10% - 33/30) therefore the average velocity over this outer part of the pipe area is ~ 2 m/s


    The outer part of the area is a fraction of the total area (using pi r^2) as:


    (33^2 - 30^2)/ 33^2 = 0.173


    Thus the average velocity / peak velocity is: (2 m/s * 0.173 + 4 m/s * 0.827) / 4 m/s = 0.9135 (an 9% reduction)


    My figure of 10%, as a bound for this reduction, is actually quite generous, because I have not included any tolerance on the 3mm (which clearly is not an exact measurement, given the size of the probe).


    I don't know what the velocity profile is because I cannot use the turbulent flow profile when the pipe is so short (thanks to Daniel_G above). But equally I cannot assume that the airflow is constant when obviously the edges will have lower velocity (0 at the wall). Because I don't know the answer I'm making a reasonable bound that the velocity can't drop any fast than linear towards the edge.


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


    If the flow had fully developed as turbulent in a 66mm pipe (which would require 50cm or so travel along the pipe) then there would be almost no difference with that velocity change, since the velocity profile changes weakly with the Reynolds number and the error (peak - average) / average actually changes as the 1/8 power of the Reynolds number, which itself is proportional to the velocity.


    If the flow depends on the blower turbulence only, and is approximately flat, again you would not expect a large change. I'm not sure why you are interested in this question? Can you answer it? With bounds on the error of your answer?


    What method does THHnew assume that Mizuno used to calculate

    the mass flowrate fromseven point measurements

    and the circular/annular areas pertaining to these.


    I assume Mizuno followed the paper which assumes that velocity is flat across the pipe, and therefore the velocity as calculated from the blower power, measured be the anenometer, is used, multipled by pi*r*r to get the volumetric airflow.


    That gives an overall error bound of: 8.5% or 8% from a different data sheet (anenometer) and 10% (difference between average and peak velocity).


    So: up to 18% error in the average velocity measurement. This is one sided, because the average airflow would not be more than the peak airflow. So the total error is +8% to - 18%.


    This bound is still approximate. You could crunch the numbers again and come up with small variants of it. I've tended to err on the side of making the bound larger, for the obvious reason that that is correct, whereas making it smaller would be incorrect.


    General comment


    Asking "what is (this or that figure)" is actually the wrong question when estimating error bounds. The correct question is "How accurately can we know (this or that)". And a smaller error bound must be proven. You seem to think that if I do not know enough to work out what the bound should be, then it should (as Mizuno assumes) be 0, or at least insignificant. That is obviously absurd. It may be insignificant, but that needs to be proven by showing that it can be no larger than some small value.


    Engineers are very familiar with the importance of error bounds, as are scientists. Everyone sometimes ignores them, but you do so at your peril.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    assume Mizuno followed the paper which assumes that velocity is flat across the pipe, and therefore the velocity as calculated from the blower power, measured be the anenometer, is used, multipled by pi*r*r to get the volumetric airflow.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Here we go


    Wrong assumption. "which assumes that velocity is flat across the pipe,"


    Where does it state this in the a paper??


    Normally when one takes a velocity traverse the different circles/annuli relevant to the of the measured are taken into account.


    You are assuming horseshit.


    Do you assume Mizuno knows less fluid mechanics than you know?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You could crunch the numbers again and come up with small variants of it

    So what formula have you used?

    What velocity profile have you used.


    at r=0 cm r= 1cm, 2cm 3 cm?


    What is the accuracy of this profile 5%,10% 15% ...do you know?

    THHuxleynew wrote:

    One run: therefore errors on the run or how it is processed

    the basic calculation in processing is

    for the delta temperature's of 12C and 3C


    Output = m x Cp x 12

    Input= m x Cp x 3


    Does THHnew suggest that Mizuno suddenly changed his mass flowrate m by a factor of 10 or or so


    or that the the delta T's from the thermistor are in error by a factor of 4? suddenly??



    Of course such egregious errors are it is possible if Mizuno is like THHnew who never checks his

    5 second effusions on LF. .. But I doubt that Mizuno is so loose.


    9206-gggguntitled-png

    This post has previous versions that are saved.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Re #1,317. See #1,316 for answers


    There are no answers to these questions


    So what formula have you used?

    What velocity profile have you used.


    at r=0 cm r= 1cm, 2cm 3 cm?


    What is the accuracy of this profile 5%,10% 15% ...do you know?


    Wrong assumption. "which assumes that velocity is flat across the pipe,"


    Where does it state this in the paper??


    Normally when one takes a velocity traverse the different circles/annuli relevant to the of the measured are taken into account.


    You are assuming horseshit.


    Do you assume Mizuno knows less fluid mechanics than you know?\

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You are mistaken. 5 W is not a small effect. It is gigantic by the standards of 19th or 20th century science. Far larger than the first detection of radioactivity, or the first sustained fission reaction. There is not the slightest chance it is a mistake. Your categorizing it at "small" is a meaningless standard. It is as if I said that Tesla automobile at $45,000 is "cheap."


    Furthermore, McKubre's results were replicated in hundreds of other labs, at power levels sometimes higher than 5 W.


    I do not acknowledge that because it is not a bit true. It not obvious; it is wrong.


    Whether an observed 5W is a significant effect or not depends on the details of those observations.


    In the case of Mizuno's observations it is pretty clear that the absolute calculations are not accurate to anything like the 10% level needed to make 5W significant with 50W in.


    The control vs active observations (essentially calibrated ones) would only be so accurate if it could be proven that the differences between control and calibration setups due to reactor size, color, position, etc are << 5W.


    That is possible, but nowhere shown in Mizuno's paper, so we do not know.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    In the case of Mizuno's observations it is pretty clear that the absolute calculations are not accurate to anything like the 10% level needed to make 5W significant with 50W in.

    No its not..

    not clear at all.




    you have not substantiated that THHnew.... assumptions on assumptions



    In addition we are talking about 300%


    THHnew has failed to establish any error of 300% except by handwaving,,,, wrong processing


    but cannot identifiy where.... just processing processing processing assumption assumption assumption


    Well we have a +- 8% error just from the M-20 anenometer datasheets I posted...


    And, as I've pointed out at length above. It is for those claiming great accuracy to prove that their measurements are accurate. Not the other way round. In general, when things are uncertain, you cannot say exactly how accurate things are, so it is a matter of finding the tightest possible bound.


    Thus far the score is:


    RB: no bound

    Mizuno: no bound

    THH: some aspects bounded


    I'd welcome your assumptions and data for making tighter bounds on the airflow? I've laid out my working for you to criticise. I think you cannot get down to < 10% however you try, which is why I used the word clear. And there are other errors, not just airflow, in the absolute calorimetry calculations.


    THH

    Hello, would it be possible to provide a link of the scientific literature containing these formulas? Thanks

    One run: therefore errors on the run or how it is processed

    the basic calculation in processing is

    for the delta temperature's of 12C and 3C


    Output = m x Cp x 12

    Input= m x Cp x 3


    Does THHnew suggest that Mizuno suddenly changed his mass flowrate m by a factor of 10 or or so


    or that the the delta T's from the thermistor are in error by a factor of 4? suddenly??



    The above is certainly a useful calculation for the R20 cal versus active results. As you know, because I've repeated it many times, the work on airflow is specifically relevant to the R19 data, so you are off topic. Also, my work on R19 airflow related to the accuracy of the absolute calculations, not the calibration versus control accuracy. That (as you point out) does not depend on m, which cancels, but does depend on other unknowns like the difference in calorimeter efficiency between active and calibration runs.


    For the R20 - FWIW - I do not doubt the calorimetry. I mistrust a single sample result. The new reactor with much better results has been tested in only that one same test. We have no detailed information on its performance. For example, if the input power had been erroneously measured, using data from a previous reactor with a different heater element to determine the power in from the voltage, the result could be all wrong. Or some otehr such error. Since Mizuno flags this as preliminary and has not written up in detail how he gets the result it is wiesest to wait and see.


    For the airflow calculations, where I realise you believe (with evidence no doubt) your competence higher than mine, I'd welcome your critiquing my work, as laid out above. Thus far your comments disagreeing with my points seem unfounded to me.


    Can I also suggest that asking counterfactual rhetorical questions is not actually a very helpful way of communicating. It establishes in the minds of readers here that you think all that I post is rubbish - without actually giving any evidence for this, nor stating what you think (which readers would no doubt be interested in).

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The above is certainly a useful calculation for the R20 cal versus active results. As you know, because I've repeated it many times, the work on airflow is specifically relevant to the R19 data, so you are off topic.


    No I am not off topic.


    Where are the sudden changes in Mizuno processing that explain the R20 COP?


    you state there are errors in processing of the hundreds of data in the R20 spreadsheet.


    Output = m x Cp x 12



    Input= m x Cp x 3


    In m ... cp or delta T??


    This is just handwaving by THHnew ... processing processing processing.


    " Or some otehr such error" " Or some otehr such error Or some otehr such error

    The R20 discussion is clearly off topic for the last few pages - but I now understand your misconception. In R20 analysis you are not imagining that there could be an mistake in the input power calculation that was different for calibration and control runs? I've suggested such a possible mistake.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Engineers are very familiar with the importance of error bounds, as are scientists. Everyone sometimes ignores them, but you do so at your peril


    Could THHnew following his exhaustive analysis of this matter and his assertions of 24% -64% error in the anemometer readings

    show exactly what his assertions are based on by filling in the following datasheet.


Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.