Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • I think picking apart small details of the calorimetry is silly. Large error sources would be another story but it is puzzling what such a source could be, absent deliberate deception, especially considering the calibrations. I have not read any theories for such errors here. Did I miss it?


    Not exactly a theory, but a clear evidence of a possible source of large errors in Mizuno's experiments (1): the spreadsheets of the active and control tests carried out in May 2016 (120 W in, COP=2 ca.) show the existence of serious inconsistencies about the electrical parameters of the input power. Similar inconsistencies could easily explain the extraordinary results (50 W in, 250 W out) claimed for the R19 tests.


    IMO, before taking into account any small detail of the calorimetry or attempting a replication, it would be necessary to understand what caused the inconsistencies contained in the May 2016 spreadsheets and to carefully look at the data recorded during the R19 active and control tests.


    (1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Not exactly a theory, but a clear evidence of a possible source of large errors in Mizuno's experiments (1): the spreadsheets of the active and control tests carried out in May 2016 (120 W in, COP=2 ca.) show the existence of serious inconsistencies about the electrical parameters of the input power.


    Input power is confirmed with several instruments, including a cheap digital watt meter between the wall and the power supply. There is no possibility of a significant error.

  • There is no theory for cold fusion. Nothing is based on theory.

    Unfortunatey a typical theory is like Vysotskii/skyy.~2013 - revised 2018 version


    General... not useful for experimentors ..the paywall hides nothing useful

    "

    Features of Correlated States and a Mechanism of Self-Similar Selection of Nuclear Reaction Channels Involving
    Low-Energy Charged Particles
    V. I. Vysotskiia,* and M. V. Vysotskyy accepted December 20, 2018

    https://link.springer.com/arti….1134%2FS1063776119040125







  • While everyone takes a breather, it is a good time to appreciate how quickly this story has developed. Mizuno started seeing these remarkable results only this past February with the R19, and ending in June with the R20. To his credit, he immediately worked with Rothwell to translate his results, and write a paper so as to get the word, and details out, so that others in the community would have the information necessary to replicate. While not the perfect operating manual...on such short notice, it is a darn good first draft under the circumstances.


    Now, only a little less than 2 months after publication, we have a small army racing to, and already in, their labs. The first attempts results are already in the books, and while not fully what we hoped for, many more will follow. I believe the speed at which this is happening is remarkable. I may be wrong, and if so; what other LENR related experiment/s, have been published this soon after success in the lab, and followed by so many replication attempts a few months after? Not FP's, because they saw signs years before going public.


    Whether this turns out "The One", or not, I hope it is a model for others to follow. By that I mean; if you think you are seeing something unique, or extraordinary, get it out to the community ASAP (as soon as possible) like Mizuno did. Let them decide your claim on it's merits, and if it passes their muster, write them an operating manual so they can try to verify your results.

  • All the literature about gas-loading metals suggests that high pressure (BarG+) is beneficial. The fact that Mizuno was seeing anomalous heat right down at 3 Pa is certainly counter-intuitive. That doesn't mean to say it is wrong, it just means that this is a very unusual version of cold fusion.

    Not all the literature. The formation of Rydberg matter of H at the surface of a metal such as Ni requires a low pressure. Actually it is best formed exactly at the pressure levels recommended by Mizuno. Hardly a coincidence IMHO.

    A high pressure may OTOH be required when the metal has to be loaded in order to have desorption of H in cracks within the metal, in other words at internal metal surfaces. Loading/unloading cycles may not only create cracks but also create a low pressure environment in cracks.

  • By that I mean; if you think you are seeing something unique, or extraordinary, get it out to the community ASAP (as soon as possible) like Mizuno did.

    Mizuno gave information without parts, without dimensions, without the location of the heater, without the position of the nets, without many other important details. And is silent.

  • Not all the literature. The formation of Rydberg matter of H at the surface of a metal such as Ni requires a low pressure. Actually it is best formed exactly at the pressure levels recommended by Mizuno. Hardly a coincidence IMHO.

    A high pressure may OTOH be required when the metal has to be loaded in order to have desorption of H in cracks within the metal, in other words at internal metal surfaces. Loading/unloading cycles may not only create cracks but also create a low pressure environment in cracks.


    For what it's worth (I realize few subscribe to his theories), Leif Holmlid often saw increased Rydberg matter production after a prolonged period of operation at a low pressure in his UHV chamber also thanks to catalytic hydrocarbon cracking on the surface of his catalysts. The graphite islands formed there, which eventually became visible in the form of an easily removed dark surface layer, apparently in some instances were the spots where Rydberg matter emission would be the most intense. Holmlid often used a diffusion vacuum pump which tends to dirty up the chamber with pump oils more than other vacuum pump types.


    So the state of the foreline trap (if used) or for example of the mesh itself after a prolonged period under dynamic vacuum conditions might be worth examining in Mizuno's reactors, as catalytic cracking of any volatile hydrocarbon will also occur on these meshes and as—I suspect—possibly more of them will get volatilized the lower the vacuum level reached and the more prolonged the operating period under such conditions is.


    Attached excerpts from:

  • Mizuno gave information without parts, without dimensions, without the location of the heater, without the position of the nets, without many other important details. And is silent.


    The location of the heater and the position of the screens is shown in the schematic and described several times in both papers and PowerPoint slides. We said -- quite clearly, in two places -- that the heater was moved from the outside of the cell to the center inside. The photo of the flange shows that.


    Mizuno has not been silent, and neither have I. I added a supplementary paper to after first publishing, with comments by Mizuno, me, and others:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf


    Mizuno and I are working with some top-notch scientists. He is providing prepared screens for them. They have not complained about these things. They have not said that "many important details" are missing. So your statements are no in evidence, and I don't appreciate them, or your attitude.

  • ......

    Mizuno and I are working with some top-notch scientists. He is providing prepared screens for them. ....

    What is it with this field and all the "secret" scientist! First Rossi was always bringing in "experts" that were never revealed. Then it is reported that important and respected "visitors" who were impressed were working on the AE project and yet a year later not a peep from any of them.


    Now this project has clandestine top notch secret scientist? Even Jed himself slightly criticized this approach a while back.


    What gives?

  • For what it is worth, I did a quick sensitivity analysis of the calorimeter calculation inputs.

    Using this: https://www.tlv.com/global/TI/…h-piping.html?advanced=on (ignore pipe sizes) to compare air volume product of equations. (The final heat calculation is dependent on the air volume).


    Set at 65 mm diameter pipe, air pressure 0 mmHgG (2 mm is about 1 inch H2O), 20 C, and 4 m/s velocity for baseline.


    Air pressure: small influence in likely range (0 - 2 mmHg range tested)

    Air temperature: small influence in experiment range (20 - 40 C)

    Air velocity: very sensitive. (3.5 to 5 m/s) 0.5 m/s makes a big change

    Pipe size: extremely sensitive (60 - 77 mm), but even 1 mm is significant

  • Just one question: where is the location and size of the heater shown? The figure in the article has neither one nor the other.

    ------_

    The commander built a company and says:

    - Attention! The radio on the tank, who fix it, that 10 days to go!

    Voice:

    “Comrade Major, what’s the walkie talkie on field effect transistors or diodes?”

    - For especially smart ones, I repeat - RADIO ON THE TANK!

  • What is it with this field and all the "secret" scientist!


    They will not be secret for long. They will publish their results, positive or negative. I would not be working with them otherwise. Just wait . . . All in good time.



    Are they paid by IH??


    I wish! The meshes were paid for by me. $4,000.



    Just one question: where is the location and size of the heater shown? The figure in the article has neither one nor the other.


    For crying out loud. It is in the text (twice!) and in the schematic. The text says:


    "Any heat resistant sheath heater should work. In these studies, we used a 500 W capacity Flexible M2 Model Microheater (Monotaro Co., Ltd., part number 1M2500). This is 2 m long. It is flexible but stiff, so it is folded to fit in the reactor."


    The details of the folding are not available. The R19 and previous reactors had the heater wrapped around the outside. They worked pretty well, so the type and position of the heater is not absolutely critical.

  • Mizuno’s active and control test at 120 W, May 2016 – Remarks about wattmeter data


    Input power is confirmed with several instruments, including a cheap digital watt meter between the wall and the power supply. There is no possibility of a significant error.


    OK. A digital wattmeter placed between the wall and the power supply is good way to provide an overall estimation of the input power.


    Actually, on the spreadsheets of the active (1) and control (2) tests at 120 W run on May 2016 and just on the right of the "V/DC" and "I/DC" columns, there is a column titled "Input power". An upper note explains better the contents of this column, but provides two possible sources for the data listed therein: "V/DC*I/DC but probably measured directly with a wattmeter".


    In order to solve the ambiguity, I calculated two more values:

    - VxI, ie the product of "V/DC" and "I/DC";

    - P-VxI, ie its difference with respect to the "Power input".


    The next jpeg shows the curves of "Input power", "VxI" and "P-VxI" for both the active and the control tests.

    JSUs2TI.jpg


    The graphs reveal a weird mixed situation:


    - as for the active test, which was run on May 19, it seems that the "input power" column contains the product V/DC*I/DC. In fact a large percentage of the value of P-VxI are zeros and the positive and negative spikes can be easily explained as the effect of the rounding off of the numbers;


    - as for the control test, which was run the next day, on May 20, the "input power" column contains for sure the data coming from a different instrument with respect to those used to measure V/DC and I/DC. Very likely this other instrument is the wattmeter you have mentioned.


    Well, as you understand, this situation raises a very critical question: why are the wattmeter readings reported only on the control test spreadsheet and the active test spreadsheet contains the results of the product V/DC*I/DC?


    Can you please provide an explanation or maybe ask Mizuno?


    (1) Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    (2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Input power is confirmed with several instruments, including a cheap digital watt meter between the wall and the power supply.


    Installed by me. A Sanwa WattChecker, $75.


    https://direct.sanwa.co.jp/con…sp/wattchecker/index.html


    These things are extremely reliable. The trick is to plug the meter into the wall, then plug the power supply into the meter, and then turn on the power supply without connecting it to anything. That gives you the minimum overhead for the power supply. It will consume somewhat more overhead power and produce more heat with high output, but you can ignore that. It is a reality check.


    In my opinion, expensive instruments should always be double-checked with modern, handheld digital instruments.

  • 2) We will find out soon. I made a 10 x 20 cm inlet, which I will be able to adjust the size of. In addition to the 5 cm inlet hole.


    I doubt the inlet orifice size matters . . . but then again I would not change it midway through a run! Don't block it. Leave everything alone. Calibrate, run, calibrate again.


    Blocking it might reduce the air speed slightly. Blocking it completely surely would.