What about a Mizuno/Rothwell demonstration? It would make things easier...
Mizuno reports increased excess heat
-
-
What about a Mizuno/Rothwell demonstration? It would make things easier...
My guess is it would take many weeks to happen. Meanwhile we have Deneum video-documenting their prep and ready to run in a few days and other pioneer replicators/"analoguers" who will be ready in a couple weeks or so.
-
2 posts moved to clearance (sadly). This is not a rossi thread, nor a psychiatrists couch.
-
it is 0.21 W/m-K at 20°C
Thanks for pointing this out.. Magic Sound
I think the properties of deuterium
at low pressures
may become an engineering focus if R20 style reactor become popular.
Deuterium appears to have the highest thermal conductivity of any gas
Maybe H atoms/He-3 gas have higher?
Is there some magnetic interaction??
I might look into kinetic theory to see if 0.21 is explainable relative to H2 and He.
Those 3 mg of deuterium seems to be working hard
if they can conduct of the order of 90 watts.
-
Those 3 mg of deuterium seems to be working hard
if they can conduct of the order of 90 watts.
Many experimenters reports strange fluctuations of TC close the metal at any place in a reactor.
D*-D* pairs - pre fusion state of deuterium - are still mobile and can relax ( give off his excess energy) also directly to the steel enclosing. Steel containing Mn,Mo is as good as nickel in doing the job. 57-Fe is a very good acceptor!
-
No, that is out of question. The reasons are given in the papers, and I addressed that question specifically in the presentation. Reasons:
The bottom of the calorimeter is well insulated.
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.This is one reason errors can happen in this type of experiment. The experimenter becomes confident in the reliability of the method and misses an essential variation that leads to an apparent anomalous result. If you keep running enough experiments, eventually this will happen. You can't assume that all the different sized reactors that have been tried accurately calibrate for the current result. This is particularly true because the claim is that new physics is happening. Even though the bottom of the reactor may be insulated, it is very likely to have a higher heat conduction level than air. I will qualify my statement a little about not being able to assume the calibration is accurate. You can assume it's accurate until you get an anomalous result. Then you need to assume that you made a mistake and do everything you can to prove that you made a mistake by conducting follow-up experiments. There's an additional complication in this case in that there is a language barrier with the researcher leaving you stuck defending his results.
-
Many experimenters reports strange fluctuations of TC close the metal at any place in a reactor.
gave an example, please
-
This is one reason errors can happen in this type of experiment. The experimenter becomes confident in the reliability of the method and misses an essential variation that leads to an apparent anomalous result.
No, this is bullshit. The calorimeter has been calibrated hundreds of times with many different reactors. The air temperature Delta T is always the same at the same power lever. If it were not the same, that would be obvious.
If you keep running enough experiments, eventually this will happen. You can't assume that all the different sized reactors that have been tried accurately calibrate for the current result.
Mizuno and every other research I know always calibrates before and after every test, and sometimes on the fly. No one assumes that different sized reactors calibrate for the current result. They are all the same. That fact has been confirmed for every reactor, from 50 kg down to 300 g. Why would they be any different, in any case? What flow calorimeter would produce different results for different sized reactors? Why would it?
-
Quote
What flow calorimeter would produce different results for different sized reactors? Why would it?
To be picky, there could be non-uniformities within the calorimeter and slightly different pathways for extraneous and perhaps unaccounted heat loss, all of which depend on the empty space inside the calorimeter, so in general "size matters" but those are clearly entirely negligible effects as are most fine calorimeter details considering the claimed power level and power ratio of Mizuno and the consistent Joule heat calibrations. I still don't grasp why anyone is looking for small errors in this project. If there are errors sufficient to account for the result they have to be on a very large scale. It is very hard to see how anyone would make such errors in such a straightforward system with such apparently excellent calibration. Just for insight, compare to Rossi's early experiments with the original ecats in which he had a typical power ratio of 6. But this was accounted for if the claimed dry steam was in fact wet (which it clearly was). And of course, Rossi consistently and vehemently refused and obstructed any efforts to calibrate. Those are the sort of conditions needed for an error to account for Mizuno's results. Such conditions are not at all present with Mizuno's experiments, quite the contrary.
Thermocouple (or other temperature sensor) errors are always a possibility especially in electrically noisy environments. There may possibly be a problem of this type with Brillouin's results. But noisy input issues will apply to properly performed calibrations as well. While I am not sure about Brillouin's calibrations, Mizuno's are very clearly well done if in fact what he reported actually happened. And calibrations by Mizuno failed to reveal any issues at all with noise or otherwise faulty sensors.
-
What flow calorimeter would produce different results for different sized reactors? Why would it?
In this case anything that alters the heat recovery rate will give different results.
What determines this? Heat recovery will depend on the airflow round the reactor, and thermal coupling with the walls.
We know from the paper that up to 22% of heat is estimated as not recovered. That figure will vary with reactor size and position, which create varying heat transfer to air and walls.
Mizuno and every other research I know always calibrates before and after every test, and sometimes on the fly
The protocol in the paper describes using a different reactor, differently located in the box, to calibrate. While that, done before and after the test, is a lot better than no calibration, it leaves open the possibility of systematic errors due to the different size and position of the reactor, unless that has been explicitly tested under identical conditions for the specific reactors used. The paper does not make it clear under what conditions this additional calibration has been done.
I should point out it is quite possible that the differences here are small: but given what we know of the calorimeter that will depend on geometry and can't be assumed.
THH
-
I should point out it is quite possible that the differences here are small: but given what we know of the calorimeter that will depend on geometry and can't be assumed.
That's my point. I want the data to provide little other possible explanations for excess heat before all these people waste time and money trying to replicate an experiment that may (or may not) contain significant flaws. If we were talking to the researcher (Mizuno), he would probably say, "Ok, let me remove the fuel and run a calibration with the same reactor." That is what I am asking for. The fact that apparent excess heat increases linearly with input power is a hint that systematic error is at play (I saw this with false positives in my own research). There is no sign in the reactor temperature of anything anomalous in the heating curve. See the chart I made of Mizuno's results below.
We need someone who will follow ANY hints of a problem. The person who would have the best intuition about what may have gone wrong would be Mizuno who is not here. Instead there is one intermediary, who understandably, would probably not want to offend Mizuno by suggesting his methodology may need some scrutiny. I'm not criticizing Jed for that--it is understandable. But it is a flaw that potentially prevents this science from moving forward as efficiently as it could. I have little doubt we'll get to the truth of the matter, but how much time and money are being spent?
-
I would appreciate if someone knowledgeable would walk me through the air density calculations. I had to go back to the 2017 paper to find the equation being used.
Forgive for being a total newb to air flow calorimetry..
But it seems that there is an expansion coefficient being used for the air at x temperature, which seems weird or incomplete if the air being measured is under some pressure because it is being forced through a pipe at 4 m/s. The hot wire anemometer measures air flow and more directly measures flow as a function of density of the moving air, so some calibration is needed there. The position of the anemometer traverses seems precarious so close to the fan and presumably at the outlet, but for now I assume it is good enough. The calorimeter box is under a slight partial vacuum because air is being forced out of it, and it is this air that is being pushed by the outlet fan. So I wonder about the anemometer traverses and calibration for each calibration power step, since the air pressure in the box will change slightly due to temperature inside the box, which is then pushed out by the fan, and the air temperature itself affects the air density if the air flow rate is the same, and therefore anemometer response changes. (And I wonder if the outlet temperature at high power may exceed the anemometer temperature rating (50 C) but I’m not sure if that is for the just hand held electronics part or the probe end).
Maybe some of these things cancel out and others or all are insignificant but since there is little info on this I don’t get it at present.
-
Respect to all posters:
I have read that the body part most sensitive to radiative heat is the lips.
I see little use in calorimetry if a device heats a room.
My context is proof of operation. Tuning can wait.
-
Display More
Respect to all posters:
I have read that the body part most sensitive to radiative heat is the lips.
I see little use in calorimetry if a device heats a room.
My context is proof of operation. Tuning can wait.
I am drawn to the idea of replicating Mizuno’s calorimeter. It looks relatively expensive to start from scratch, but way easier than dealing with the reactor procedure.
-
I am drawn to the idea of replicating Mizuno’s calorimeter. It looks relatively expensive to start from scratch, but way easier than dealing with the reactor procedure.
Yes, inexpensive and easier than a reactor. The effort can also bring more data to breakfast on.
-
As I understand it water calorimetry was ruled out due to the high temperature or the reactor. Would it be possible to put a small amount of insulation (kiln paper?) between the mesh and reactor wall to keep the mesh temperature high while reducing the wall temperature to allow water based cooling/calorimetry? The whole reactor could be put in a water bath to capture all the heat output.
-
As I understand it water calorimetry was ruled out due to the high temperature or the reactor. Would it be possible to put a small amount of insulation (kiln paper?) between the mesh and reactor wall to keep the mesh temperature high while reducing the wall temperature to allow water based cooling/calorimetry? The whole reactor could be put in a water bath to capture all the heat output.
I think JedRothwell mentioned that the problem was that water cooled the reactor wall (presumable locally) too much and 'put out the fire'. That seems possible and would rule out immersion calorimetry which looks temptingly easy.. The usual method of doing higher-temperature fluid calorimetry is to use silicone oil, but underlying the other problems is the fact that switching reactors with 'hard-wired' plumbing is much more time-consuming and complex than just putting them into a fan-cooled box and taking them out. Also calibration becomes very 'positionally sensitive' where moving the cooling tube a few mm across the reactor wall can change results hugely. And AFAIK Mizuno is a 'lone wolf' researcher who needs to save time where he can.
I am not a fan (pun intended) of air calorimetry but I can see the utility of it for Mizuno. My own preference in such a case would be to use multi-point relative thermometry, with as many thermocouples as possible fixed permanently to the surface of the reactor/
-
I think JedRothwell mentioned that the problem was that water cooled the reactor wall (presumable locally) too much and 'put out the fire'. That seems possible and would rule out immersion calorimetry which looks temptingly easy.. The usual method of doing higher-temperature fluid calorimetry is to use silicone oil, but underlying the other problems is the fact that switching reactors with 'hard-wired' plumbing is much more time-consuming and complex than just putting them into a fan-cooled box and taking them out. Also calibration becomes very 'positionally sensitive' where moving the colling tube a few mm across the reactor wall can change results hugely. And AFAIK Mizuno is a 'lone wolf' researcher who needs to save time where he can.
I am not a fan (pun intended) of air calorimetry but I can see the utility of it for Mizuno. My own preference in such a case would be to use multi-point relative thermometry, with as many thermocouples as possible fixed permanently to the surface of the reactor/
JedRothwell was clear that the air calorimetry was chosen precisely because water flowing calorimetry quenches the reaction. That’s why Dr. Mizuno had to look for a very precise set up for the airflow calorimetry of his experiment, with very accurate bounds (in spite of the endless argument about it). I’m sure that a therminol circuit could be used, but we have to remember that is much more expensive and hard to modify, more over if you are working with severe resource constraints, and this is exactly why Dr. Mizuno and Jed are so willing to help replication because they know this has to be replied by others to have the impact it has the potential to.
I think the thermocouples are a good idea also, but we know they are never fully accepted for energy balance purposes (same for IR methodology) so they are valuable tools for quick assessment but calorimetry is a must have at the end of the day.
-
I think the thermocouples are a good idea also, but we know they are never fully accepted for energy balance purposes (same for IR methodology) so they are valuable tools for quick assessment but calorimetry is a must have at the end of the day.
It depends on the relative signal strength. Using the same reactor and the exact same (mechanically fixed) thermocouple positions and calibrating the system using ohmic heating before and after key events is fine. It is not a great choice for energy balance, but with hoped-for COP's in excess of 3:1 it should provide sufficient proof to facilitate moving things along to the next stage where more elaborate (time-consuming and expensive) methods can be used.
-
With liquid coolant instead of air, you should be able to get any temperature you want for the reaction by controlling the flow rate of the coolant or if necessary, even adding heat to it via an appropriate control system. See again SGVIT's example of a high temperature calorimeter using liquid coolant mass flow which could be made to fit Mizuno's reactors. This link should be the Google translate English version The particular example in this paper is for a 2kW heater-- well in the range of Mizuno's postulated 3kW device. The form factor fits too.
