Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from mjtrac

Sometimes, people who have spent time training themselves in the use of high-precision experimental devices may forget that such devices are not always the required tools. For the R20, perhaps, a fuse, a thermometer, a Rolodex and a phone might be appropriate tools to apply to the problem.

At the power levels and excess heat reported for the R20, I believe independent measurement would require little expertise. My point is, if these results are personally observed by two or four people, those people would be able to bring in others with more expertise; then, if those people could not explain what they saw, they would be able to bring in people with more reputation, and so on. As for THHuxleynew's mention of a magician, or, more generally, a professional debunker, I'd imagine that if the R20 passed through a couple of rounds of Rolodex, such a professional would be brought in prior to any announcements, because people with reputations don't like being fooled in public.

Agreed - if heat output is as per R20 you don't need much to measure it!

Quote from gerold.s

I would like to come up with a simplified mathematical model of the internal heater and the outer cylinder. I assume that since the pressure is that low 1-3 mbars heat transfer and convection can be neglected. Therefore we have only radiation between heater and outer wall. Please correct me if i am wrong. If you have reliable info i can then crosscheck what i have available. Thx

I'm a bit sorry to complicate this seemingly endless argument, but some assumptions made in this discussion need questioning:

The thermal conductivity of Deuterium is the highest of any conventional gas, and is nearly 6 times that of air. Further, the conductivity does not decline much with pressure (until below a critical point ~10 Pa) and increases significantly with temperature. At the ~100-300 Pa pressure recommended by Mizuno, it is 0.21 W/m-K at 20°C and 0.30 W/m-K at 300°C.

In contrast to this, the convective heat transfer in the cell is determined by the specific heat and thermal viscosity of the gas. These are rather low for Hydrogen and Deuterium due to the low mass of the gas molecules. It may be that both convection and conduction are of trivial magnitude compared to the radiant energy, but we won't know until/unless someone looks at the numbers. Having now raised the issue, my part in this is done....

Here are a couple of references with useful data:

http://www.ethermo.us/Show7Vatemp!573.15!1~press!6!2.htm Excellent on line modeller for gas thermodynamics and transport properties

https://www.engineersedge.com/…al-conductivity-gases.htm

Interesting video. Misleading title. At first, I thought from seeing the title, that it was by Mizuno. Should be retitled including the word "replication attempt" or some such making it clear that the video is not from Mizuno not approved by Mizuno. Looks cool, though. Best of luck!

ETA: Deneum may be a bit sketchy though:

http://www.internationalskepti…s/showthread.php?t=331601

They are heavily into money-- and made extravagant claims:

Quote

What are your further steps and when should we expect a prototype - and the actual installation model? What about the ICO pipeline?

The new experimental unit will come live mid-August 2018 followed by our first demonstration unit in Estonia this September. Deneum is committed to accomplishing the mass-market prototype by June 2019. The project aims to start selling energy produced by its Power Stations to the largest energy pools by the end of 2019. Deneum general purpose Power Station supplies to kick off in 2020.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/a…quora&utm_medium=referral

So how is it going with the prototype and the power station? Showing them working live at ICCS are you going to?

And you can search for more about them with this Google string (no quotes): "site:lenr-forum.com deneum"

I recall that in 2009, JN Naudin "replicated" Steorn http://jlnlabs.online.fr/steorn/indexen.htm with a nice looking, elegant bunch of apparatus. And of course, it was all bullsh*t. Could there be a similarity? Maybe we will find out.

Quote from magicsound

I'm a bit sorry to complicate this seemingly endless argument, but some assumptions made in this discussion need questioning:

The thermal conductivity of Deuterium is the highest of any conventional gas, and is nearly 6 times that of air. Further, the conductivity does not decline much with pressure (until below a critical point ~10 Pa) and increases significantly with temperature. At the ~100-300 Pa pressure recommended by Mizuno, it is 0.21 W/m-K at 20°C and 0.30 W/m-K at 300°C.

In contrast to this, the convective heat transfer in the cell is determined by the specific heat and thermal viscosity of the gas. These are rather low for Hydrogen and Deuterium due to the low mass of the gas molecules. It may be that both convection and conduction are of trivial magnitude compared to the radiant energy, but we won't know until/unless someone looks at the numbers. Having now raised the issue, my part in this is done....

Here are a couple of references with useful data:

http://www.ethermo.us/Show7Vatemp!573.15!1~press!6!2.htm Excellent on line modeller for gas thermodynamics and transport properties

https://www.engineersedge.com/…al-conductivity-gases.htm

Display More

Thanks magicsound. You are absolutely right that needs checking.

Great that you have the figures. I can do conductivity.

For concentric cylinders the thermal conductance (W/K) is given by L*2*pi*theta/(ln(R1/R2) (theta = 0.3W/m-K). That is ~0.1 W/K, so for say 600K difference in T we have 60W transferred for L=0.2, R1/R2 = 20. (someone should check this).

This would need exact values for R1, R2, L to make better, also decide what conductivity value to use since temperature varies.

Not sure about convection, but would expect this to be much smaller at lower pressures? Need further work to quantify.

http://www.iaeng.org/publicati…0/WCE2010_pp1444-1447.pdf

Quote from Rends

Unfortunately, you ride this horse to death, without a single positive representation, or an alternative calculation, just to point out a possible (but in this case, due to the dimensions, a rather unlikely) measurement error, and you accept no other opinion, you just keep going on.

Rends, I have no idea what this means. If it were me with those results, I would dearly want to bound errors. I've no preconceived idea about what these bounds are. I have accepted many alternative opinions, notably the useful info about turbulent flow not having time to develop, which reduces one part of the airflow bound from 20% to 10%.

Quote from THHuxleynew

For concentric cylinders the thermal conductance (W/K) is given by L*2*pi*theta/(ln(R1/R2) (theta = 0.3W/m-K). That is ~0.1 W/K, so for say 600K difference in T we have 60W transferred for L=0.2, R1/R2 = 20. (someone should check this).

Your ΔT at 600K seems a a bit high. If the outer tube's inner surface is at 200°C, that would put the heater at 800°C, probably above its safe operating temperature, though it might reach that at the high end of reported input power (300 watts?). I think ΔT=400K would be more realistic.

Your R1/R2 ratio needs some thought as well. Since the length of the heater sheath is 2 meters, it must be folded into 3 or 4 runs to fit into the cell. Its outer diameter is given as 2.8 mm; if 3 lengths as folded, R2eq for equivalent surface area would be 4.2 mm, and for 4 lengths of heater R2eq=5.6 mm. The cell tube inner radius R1 is given as 53.8 mm, so R1/R2 would be 12.8 for 3 heater lengths or 9.6 for 4. This ignores possible shadowing and similar effects within the bundle of heater sheath runs.

And if L refers to the length of the concentric cylinders in meters, that should be 0.6 or 600 mm as described.

Quote from Rends

Many users have pointed this out several times in this thread, but this post is best.

The point is that no matter how you calculate it, such results can not be explained by the measurement errors you mentioned. So it would be fair, if you take off your generally negative attitude and e.g. submit a calculation, including all your possible measurement errors, that gives a realistic range of a COP. Because your reasoning basically sounds like this is not working here and everything is fraud.

Rends - you are just not paying attention - or else reading RB, who has idee fixe.

I have said repeatedly from the start that the R20 results are way beyond calorimetry errors. You are therefore exhibiting extreme bias in imagining I've said the opposite.

My point about R20 is that M says it is a sample result, it could be wrong due to a one-off mistake - e.g. miscalculating input power for the different heater by reusing an old V - P equation.

Clearly if this is not a mistake more carefully observed results will confirm new science that disrupts the world. There are many people in a position to confirm working R20 - you do not even need calorimetry to do this.

I've said all that before - seems you have selective attention?

PS - I've never suggested anything here is fraud. Nor thought that. Mistakes, and bad ones, are often made, especially when somone desperately hopes for one outcome. No fraud.

Quote from magicsound

Your ΔT at 600K seems a a bit high. If the outer tube's inner surface is at 200°C, that would put the heater at 800°C, probably above its safe operating temperature, though it might reach that at the high end of reported input power (300 watts?). I think ΔT=400K would be more realistic.

Your R1/R2 ratio needs some thought as well. Since the length of the heater sheath is 2 meters, it must be folded into 3 or 4 runs to fit into the cell. Its outer diameter is given as 2.8 mm; if 3 lengths as folded, R2eq for equivalent surface area would be 4.2 mm, and for 4 lengths of heater R2eq=5.6 mm. The cell tube inner radius R1 is given as 53.8 mm, so R1/R2 would be 12.8 for 3 heater lengths or 9.6 for 4. This ignores possible shadowing and similar effects within the bundle of heater sheath runs.

And if L refers to the length of the concentric cylinders in meters, that should be 0.6 or 600 mm as described.

Yes, I was not thinking much about the values, but it can be adapted for what anyone thinks is correct. If the heater is bundled then it is probably best modelled as a larger diameter inner.

Quote from THHuxleynew

PS - I've never suggested anything here is fraud. Nor thought that. Mistakes, and bad ones, are often made, especially when somone desperately hopes for one outcome. No fraud.

I have no idea what Rends' background is, but people who do not do research often don't understand how common large mistakes are. That is exactly why one need to ride out all of the calculations and internal checks to the bitter end.

How is the air pressure in the air outlet pipe monitored?

Quote from THHuxleynew

or else reading RB, who has idee fixe

Quote from THHuxleynew

e.g. miscalculating input power for the different heater by reusing an old V - P equation.

Please elaborate .on the details of using a n old V-P equation

Is this yet another one of those flimsy ill thought out idees of THHnew which he hasn't bothered to follow through?

As I have said before the R19 and R20 calorimeter setup is the same

and the processing is minimal of the data

"Output power measured= m X Cp x delta T etc is the same

Why would Mizuno change .?

THHnew has failed to identify where a processing error happens. although he has handwaved"processing processing...

It is THHnew with the idee fixe... the DEBUG mentality ..or there MUST be a MIZUNO MISTAKE .... this is on file since 2017.

"THHuxleynew Member Likes Received3,590 #167

Aug 31st 2017

It is academic, because the IH replication failed. Still, I'd like to debug this. But not sure I have the motivation to spend long amts of time on it given the IH work.

Well THHNew ,, I do have an idee fixe.. please supply EVIDENCE rather than rhetoric and ad hominem

If THHnew postulates a mistake.. then THHnew needs to show EVIDENCE and in an intelligible fashion

not handwaving rhetoric vague thinking ... wrong formulas poolrycontextualised equations... etc

Quote from THHuxleynew

Mistakes, and bad ones, are often made, especially when somone desperately hopes for one outcome.

and especially when one does not check one's results with a textbook ... like here..THHnew . using the wrong formula for post after post on this thread

THHuxleynew wrote:

That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\

less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps.

Please elaborate .on the details of using an old V-P equation

Sure. We know that Mizuno has used calculated value, such as the airflow, based on previously known results.

Suppose, for some reason, he did not have V & I data for the heater element using his R20 heater. He might reasonably use just V data, and refer back to previous work to establish the relationship between V & P (that would be approximately V^2/R, but R might change a little with V, depending on how large his the resistivity temperature coefficient of the heater metal). In which case using the old value of R, instead of the new (R20 heater) value would introduce a shift in the input power to the active R20 reactor not otherwise detected of some arbitrary magnitude. There are many variants of this, like relying a new measured heater resistance to determine R but transcribing this wrong. All things that can happen as mistakes when you change something (in this case the heater). Subsequent checking finds this out, but sample results are not necessarily fully checked.

Well THHNew ,, I do have an idee fixe.. please supply EVIDENCE rather than rhetoric and ad hominem

You repetitively have interpreted my posts here trying to bound the Mizuno paper R19 errors out of my stated scope. thus: thinking they apply to R20, or thinking I'm trying to show bounds that have some specific value. Both have been contradicted multiple times by posts here: I've directly stated that the work does not apply to R20, and why, many times. I've also pointed out that establishing bounds is important, and why, and adjusted my bounds tighter whenever evidence for that has been posted here (e.g. the turbulent flow development issue). So these ideas of yours about my posts are idee fixe.

Why would Mizuno change .?

THHnew has failed to identify where a processing error happens. although he has handwaved"processing processing...

It is not possible to identify processing mistakes in aspects of calculation not explicitly laid out. And of course those are the ones likely to happen! Mizuno might change for many reasons, the most obvious of which is a different heater element. Certainly the input power is not likely to have been directly measured (was not previously), so there is processing in that R20 result not provided in the paper. But even without that, when experiments are done over an extended period of time, random factors, like the different availability of equipment, or laboratory accidents, can change what is done. A more appropriate question would be: "What leads you to know that processing is identical in these different cases".

(RB quoting THH 2017): It is academic, because the IH replication failed. Still, I'd like to debug this. But not sure I have the motivation to spend long amts of time on it given the IH work.

I have no idea how that comment relates to the current situation? Anyone here can see that I have spent a large amount of (mostly enjoyable - or it would not be done) time going over these new Mizuno results. Because of the context (the historic IH failure), I don't think it very likely that these results are what they seem, even though I'm not sure that the R19 results have been checked by IH, and there is always the possibility that something genuinely working stops working when tested by somone else. Anyway, the R19 results might contain mistakes, or calorimetry errors not obvious. Especially because the same type of calorimetry may be used by others it seems worthwhile to me to consider this. I think the misunderstanding is some idea that my expectations here are relevant to the actual work of determining calorimeter bounds. Perhaps this is an example of projection, and RB's expectations do determine entirely how he calculates error bounds? I fully admit that expectations can induce mistakes - which is one reason for posting all calculations here where I know full well many others have opposite expectations from me. But I don't think I am that much influenced, since I have no a priori idea which bit of the experiment here, if any, has errors that result in the R19 results. And I try, like everyone, to be fair and not let expectations influence me.

More generally: I find it ironic that some here view me as antagonistic to Mizuno's work or even Mizuno himself because I try hard to establish what might be the errors in this write-up. What I am trying to do, is the most helpful stuff that anyone can do at an arm's length, whether Mizuno intends to publish results or not. Of course attempted replication will be supremely helpful if positive results are found, but if negative results are found not so helpful. And examining the calorimetry is helpful in all cases. The two efforts, analysing write-ups and establishing error bounds, and attempted experimental replication, are quite complementary. I realise also that some here don't see the point of checking minutely for experimental errors and mistakes. That, given the field, is ironic. No LENR positive results will be taken seriously unless both minutely checked and replicated (with the replication similarly checked).

RB quoting THH: That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\

less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps.

This is going back to a previous not relevant topic, where I did in fact forget the effect of the wall emissivity (embarrassing, I know) when initially thinking about the issue. However the above quote remains correct now as it was then. For the radiation from the 380 C surface, and the 80C supposed outer foil, with a small gap, we have:

• The two surface areas are roughly the same
• The two view factors are trivial (each surface element sees nearly all the other surface)
• The two emissivities might be supposed similar

In which case the T^4 factor in radiation power gives the 10% based on the only differing variable.

Now, it would be fair to criticise the application of that comment to the Mizuno calorimeter where the gaps are not small, and hence the surface areas very different etc. But not the statement itself as quoted here.

So what? I hear most readers think! Understanding why things are right or wrong is often more important than the less informative "is it right or wrong".

Quote from THHuxleynew

Certainly the input power is not likely to have been directly measured

Please say why this is certainly.. Is it 100% certainly or THH weaselword certainly?

And what does likely mean

Is it 60 % unlikely or 40% likely

another assumption and another weasel modal term

without any justification from debug THHnew???

The debug quote is entirely relevant to this thread

The 2017 thread shows obvious evidence of THHnews debug stance.

In the end he gave up

after trying many other ploys including asserting that 3 mg of deuterium of Combustion energy generated significant error in the results.

and yet THHnew raised this same dead duck ""combüstion" canard ön this thread.

So Mizuno has made a processing error but THHnew can't pinpoint

Its somewhere somewhere somewhere and all because Mizuno changed the position of the

heater in R20 without changing the calorimetry method.

This is farfetched waving hands in the air from THHnew in a last ditch attempt to discredit the huge excess heat in R20

Dear moderators,

Could we possibly have a new thread "RB criticism of THH 2017 comments" on which RB can traduce me to his heart's content, and I, being me, will probably reply politely to every single thing? I feel that doing it here makes this thread unreadable.

That is also true of a lot of the current stuff, where RB criticises something said 30 pages ago here, but there is maybe merit in repeating anything not understood, since it is complex and some people (e.g. Rends above) are still misunderstanding some of the things here.

I think #1396 would be a candidate. Or, you could just put this and that post into clearance. RB - if you want a new "THH 2017 comment discussion" thread I'll promise to engage with you on it.

Quote from magicsound

It may be that both convection and conduction

Hi Magic sound.

The convection contribution is probably minor from my brief consideration of Rayleigh number based on recent arxiv paper by Yang et al

https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw2ktL0NGlyP1HVTluOyafNs

Unfortunately the calculation of Rayleigh's number requires yet more deuterium known values

kinematic viscosity and thermal diffusivity.

I think the thermal expansion coefficient can be modelled as 1/T(K)

I get a Rayleigh number of well below 100.. which means that conduction dominates over convection

Conduction based on a simple annular model can be a major contributor to heat flow.

I get something like Power = 0.36 x (delta T) in watts assuming a rod radius of 2.7 mm and an inner reactor radius of 5.4 cm.

Assuming the rod is 550 and reactor is 300C.. delta T= 250--> power = 90 watts.

This compares with radiative transfer from a o.o1 m2 rod of 139W at emissivity 0.7

and only 40 W at emissivity 0.2..

The radiation contribution depends strongly on the emissivity of the rod.

Does the deuterium atmosphere disturb the stainless steel surface greatly?

I don't have expertise as colleagues such magicsound or RobertBryant, about their knowledge on heat transfer so I would like to ask them to confirm or not my ideas.

It seems that waves attenuate rather by amplitude than frequencies which it maintains more long.

Now, to go back to R20 heater, if it has to reach 300 ° to work, it would be necessary, I think an hotter heater as its size should be small, right ?

If we assume a small heater as we saw at first JRs release, it must emit IR rather at middle wavelength up to Ni mesh.

Now, according to the latest JRs release with long "snake" heater, this one would have a much bigger surface, so I calculated that only 2.6 W would be produced for each cm2.

Instead about snake heater, could not we use only a simple resistive wire around a small ceramic rod ?

However this wounded rod heater too short would be too hot to emit in far infrared which remains a key to me.

In this case, wouldn't be surround this heater by a wide tube in steel or better in ceramic as well as its area will respect these 2,6 W / cm2 and finally emit in the Far infrared up to Ni mesh ?

What you suggest ?

Quote from RobertBryant

Hi Magic sound.

The convection contribution is probably minor from my brief consideration of Rayleigh number based on recent arxiv paper by Yang et al

https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw2ktL0NGlyP1HVTluOyafNs

Unfortunately the calculation of Rayleigh's number requires yet more deuterium known values

kinematic viscosity and thermal diffusivity.

I think the thermal expansion coefficient can be modelled as 1/T(K)

I get a Rayleigh number of well below 100.. which means that conduction dominates over convection

Conduction based on a simple annular model can be a major contributor to heat flow.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

I get something like Power = 0.36 x (delta T) in watts assuming a rod radius of 2.7 mm and an inner reactor radius of 5.4 cm.

Assuming the rod is 550 and reactor is 300C.. delta T= 250--> power = 90 watts.

This compares with radiative transfer from a o.o1 m2 rod of 139W at emissivity 0.7

and only 40 W at emissivity 0.2..

The radiation contribution depends strongly on the emissivity of the rod.

Does the deuterium atmosphere disturb the stainless steel surface greatly?

Display More