Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • If there was anything more we could suggest, we would have included it in the recipe. However, as I said in the recipe, this is for people who are skilled in the art. That means people who know how to make leak-proof vacuum chambers that do not contaminate the gas with something like solder; people who know how to operate mass spectrometers; people who will not accidentally ingest nickel dust, and so on. I myself am not one of those people. I could not do this experiment. Consequently, I cannot add anything to the recipe.


    I think a person has to know a great deal just to follow the instructions. If you don't know this stuff, I cannot imagine you will succeed. It would be like me trying to cook a cordon bleu gourmet meal suitable for a first-class restaurant.


    I take your point about people needing a basis of technical experience in order to effectively follow published instructions. However I think you do not appreciate that the same instructions may be accomplished differently in different labs. Basically what you are saying is that one cannot put every last procedural step into a paper and that is why you have to rely on your readers having a foundation of pre-existing technical experience to fill in the gaps. But every lab has its own traditions and ways of doing things -- and as different investigators fill in the gaps in their own way, slightly different procedures may result even if the same instructions are followed to the letter.


    I asked if you or Mizuno could think of unreported changes in procedure that were made early on in the ramp-up from marginal success to the large COP presently reported. You replied that if you had anything to suggest along those lines you would have included them in your paper. But I am pretty sure that there are lots of things done in Mizuno's lab that are done differently than in other labs. Differences that are not appreciated right now and cannot be addressed by simply assuming a common technical background between you and your readers. Will these differences be crucial? Maybe. But maybe right now is too soon to ask about this. If there is a continued run of negative results from replicators, then I guarantee this is exactly what you will be asking yourself.


    Two effective ways of dealing with the issue of differences in technique between different labs ...


    1) Have someone from lab A actually work for a while lab B (this is what I suggested as the standard move used in academic research to transfer knowledge)


    2) Video the procedure from stem to stern. I notice the Deneum group asking for this.


  • Hi THH,


    thanks for your in-depth lesson on PSUs. Very interesting. Now, I understand your concerns much better, although I have a different idea about what caused the apparent COP of about 2 in the May 2016 tests.


    IMO, a much more straightforward and simple explanation should start by observing that, during the active and control tests, two different resistors were used to heat the two reactors: the active reactor was heated by an internal resistance heater, while the control reactor was heated by an external resistance heater. This fact is evident by observing the trends in the output power curves shown in Figures 27 and 28 of the Mizuno's paper published in 2017 (1). Obviously, this was a serious mistake of the 2016 experimental campaign: it is not possible to use different settings for the active and control reactors. This elementary requirement was known to the tester, but evidently something went wrong during the preparation of the wiring of the experimental set-up.


    The other fact to consider is that the DC voltage and current to the resistance heaters were measured by using two voltmeters and one shunt resistor. Voltmeter readings went directly to the data logger, but the value of the shunt resistance was probably entered manually in either the data logger or the PC for data acquisition at the beginning of each run. Therefore, a simple hypothesis that would explain the error which caused the false COP is that the two resistance heaters (internal and external) were associated with two different shunts, but that the same resistance value (the highest of the two shunts) was used to calculate the value of the DC current, in the false presumption that the same heater was connected both in the active and in the control reactors. If the shunt resistance required for the internal heater was actually half the value of the shunt resistance of the external heater, the DC current calculated (and logged) during the active test was half of the value actually fed into the reactor and this error led to a COP of about 2.


    All the above mess could have happened inadvertently, due to a mistake in wiring the circuitry of the cables coming out of the two reactors.


    On the contrary, what is very difficult to explain is the difference between values reported in the "Input power" column of the active and control spreadsheets. The two tests at 120 W were performed on two consecutive days. So it's certain that in the "Input power" column of both the original spreadsheets there was the same quantity, namely the power measured by the Yokogawa power input analyzer (the wattmeter). This implies that the spreadsheet of the active test has been later modified to remove the original values directly acquired from the wattmeter, by replacing them with the V/DC*I/DC products. This fact would seem to implicitly confirm the above hypothesis about a major, although very probably inadvertent, mistake occurred during the experimental campaign held in May 2016.


    (1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

  • IMO, a much more straightforward and simple explanation should start by observing that, during the active and control tests, two different resistors were used to heat the two reactors: the active reactor was heated by an internal resistance heater, while the control reactor was heated by an external resistance heater.


    That is incorrect. In all previous tests with this technique, both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater. In previous glow discharge tests, they were sometimes heated internally, sometimes externally, and sometimes in combination. In all cases, with all reactors and with heaters only, ranging from 50 kg down to 300 g, the calibration points are indistinguishable. The data points fall on top of one another within the margin of error. You cannot tell the difference between internal and external heating. You cannot tell the difference between glow discharge and resistance heating. You cannot tell the difference between a 50 kg reactor and a resistance heater alone. It makes no difference what is in the reactor: air, deuterium or a vacuum. The Delta T temperature difference of outlet minus inlet air is a function of the heat produced only. No other factors affect it. It impossible to tell where the heat is coming from.


    This is obvious to anyone who has used a calorimeter. If this is not how it worked, it would not be a calorimeter. The fantasies and nonsense that you and THH post here about magical changes in the way heat affects the air temperature would violate the conservation of energy. Your other notions are also preposterous nonsense, such as your claim that a digital power meter can mistake 300 W of electric power going into a resistance heater for 50 W, and for some reason it only does this when there is deuterium gas and a Pd-Ni mesh in the cell. How would it know? How can a power meter be affected by the cell contents? The resistance heater cannot be affected by the cell contents. If it were, I suppose it would break or contaminate the gas.

  • I take your point about people needing a basis of technical experience in order to effectively follow published instructions. However I think you do not appreciate that the same instructions may be accomplished differently in different labs.


    I am well aware of this. Various experts are doing replications, and they are sending Mizuno and I detailed descriptions of what they are doing. They are using different types of calorimeters, because they happen to have things like high precision Seebeck calorimeters. (One of them is amazing. It must be 2 orders of magnitude more precise than Mizuno's calorimeter.) The cells of different sizes, because a large cell would not fit into most calorimeters. However, as far as we know, these changes will not affect the outcome. We cannot be sure, of course, but it seems unlikely. Mizuno thinks the critical factors are the material preparation, cleanliness measured with a mass spec, and the temperatures used to heat the reactor. Plus, the geometry of the R20 seems to be a big improvement, but the previous externally heated reactors also worked. As far as we know, the people in touch with us have not departed from the recommended methods of preparation. Where they have departed from the recommendations, we do not think it will matter. Of course we could be wrong about that.


    I think a Seebeck calorimeter should work. It should put the cell in the same environment as an air flow calorimeter does. Mizuno seems to think so too, so we think a Seebeck is okay. A water cooled calorimeter cools the cell too well, too rapidly. There are ways to prevent this, but I expect they would complicate things.


    There is some question as to whether sanding and preparing the mesh underwater will affect the performance. I have no idea. Mizuno thinks it is probably okay. He did not do it that way, but he agrees it is safer.


    Some people suspect the tap water in Sapporo may make a difference. They are investigating this. There is a detailed description of this water in Japanese which you can Google translate. It is here:


    https://www.city.sapporo.jp/su…/suishitsukekkah31-04.pdf

  • IMO, a much more straightforward and simple explanation should start by observing that, during the active and control tests, two different resistors were used to heat the two reactors: the active reactor was heated by an internal resistance heater, while the control reactor was heated by an external resistance heater.


    That is incorrect. In all previous tests with this technique, both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater. In previous glow discharge tests, they were sometimes heated internally, sometimes externally, and sometimes in combination. In all cases, with all reactors and with heaters only, ranging from 50 kg down to 300 g, the calibration points are indistinguishable. The data points fall on top of one another within the margin of error. You cannot tell the difference between internal and external heating. You cannot tell the difference between glow discharge and resistance heating. You cannot tell the difference between a 50 kg reactor and a resistance heater alone. It makes no difference what is in the reactor: air, deuterium or a vacuum. The Delta T temperature difference of outlet minus inlet air is a function of the heat produced only. No other factors affect it. It impossible to tell where the heat is coming from.


    Jed - I don't think you can be understanding ascoli. He is, here, considering the R20 results where the active reactor undoubtedly has an internal heating element. The calibation runs, he thinks, where done with the old calibration reactor, which like all the earlier reactors has an external heater.


    Like me, ascoli thinks that there might be some mistake in the active R20 input power measurement: he suggests a wrong shunt resistor, where a chnage necessitated by higher heater currents was inadvertently not propagated to the spreadsheet that determines results. I suggested that I is calculated from V only ignoring the change in heater resistance.


    In addition, ascoli notes that such a mistake would not give high COP except that the wattmeter (independent of shunt resistor) column has been replaced by a column calculated from V*I in the spreadsheet.


    Now, that replacement - for the R20 active run but not the cal data - is indisputable and a problem because it introduces some difference.


    Ascoli thinks the V*I (active) figures might be wrong.


    I agree with him, but am also confused by your statements about the PSU because input power side measurement will not give accurate output power, depending on voltage, PSU, etc. Therefore, for the R20, the (calibration) input side measurement could easily go wrong given that it likely used a different PSU. In addition we have the problem that any non-regulated PSU (or regulated PSU used beyond normal limits) could cause the V*I power measurement to be wrong by a potentially large factor.


    This is all a mess: what I can say is that the input power measurements as currently presented for the R20 are unclear, and therefore the results cannot be trusted. More transparency in methodology, exact measurement details, equipment details, processing details, etc, as is good practice, would resolve this whole matter.


    Best wishes, THH

  • Jed - I don't think you can be understanding ascoli. He is, here, considering the R20 results where the active reactor undoubtedly has an internal heating element. The calibation runs, he thinks, where done with the old calibration reactor, which like all the earlier reactors has an external heater.


    I understand him perfectly well. I said "in all previous tests" -- meaning all tests before the R20 used external heaters for both the control and active cells. That is, all tests with this mesh technique. As I said, the glow discharge control tests sometimes used internal heating.


    You are now saying that for some unstated magical reason, an internal heater is different from an external heater. That is wrong. No calorimeter in history could possibly tell the difference. If it was different, that would violate the conservation of energy. Do you think the heat just vanishes? It gets transported to Mars perhaps? No matter where it originates, the only way the heat can emerge from the calorimeter is via the same two paths: in warm air, or as radiation from the walls. At a given power level, it always leaves in the same ratio from these two paths. It makes no difference how big the reactor is, or whether the heater is inside it, outside it, or sitting by itself. That's what the data shows. That is how all calorimeters work, as anyone who has used a calorimeter knows. All of your blather and bullshit will not change that fact. Your purpose is to introduce doubts and bullshit and to confuse the issue here, and make people think that McKubre, Mizuno and all the others are wrong. You will only convince idiots who do not understand the conservation of energy.


    Calibrations show that it makes no difference where the heater is placed: inside, outside, by itself, in a combination of inside and outside . . . the air temperature difference is always the same, and it always the textbook value. There is no mechanism which would allow the heat to escape undetected.


    You are also saying that all previous tests with the R1 through R19 don't count. They used external heaters; they always calibrated correctly, so you will now pretend they do not exist, and only the R20 test with an internal heater exists. And it must be wrong, for magic reasons. You are up to your old tricks.

  • I understand him perfectly well. I said "in all previous tests" -- meaning all tests before the R20 used external heaters for both the control and active cells. That is, all tests with this mesh technique. As I said, the glow discharge control tests sometimes used internal heating.


    In that case it would be helpful to keep to the point here, which is the R20 tests? I note some issue with R19, and you or RB correctly say it does not apply to R20 . When I note some R20 issue you say it does not apply to R19. That is true, but avoids the point, don't you think? I am clear myself that R19 and R20 results are distinct.


    You are now saying that for some unstated magical reason, an internal heater is different from an external heater.


    No. I'm saying that M's internal heater was different (resistance, and probably drive PSU) from previous external. Why would it be the same? Unlikely.


    That is wrong. No calorimeter in history could possibly tell the difference. If it was different, that would violate the conservation of energy. Do you think the heat just vanishes? It gets transported to Mars perhaps? No matter where it originates, the only way the heat can emerge from the calorimeter is via the same two paths: in warm air, or as radiation from the walls. At a given power level, it always leaves in the same ratio from these two paths. It makes no difference how big the reactor is, or whether the heater is inside it, outside it, or sitting by itself. That's what the data shows. That is how all calorimeters work, as anyone who has used a calorimeter knows. All of your blather and bullshit will not change that fact. Your purpose is to introduce doubts and bullshit and to confuse the issue here, and make people think that McKubre, Mizuno and all the others are wrong. You will only convince idiots who do not understand the conservation of energy.


    You are here missing the point. I'm not saying the heat output for given power in is different. I'm saying the power in might be measured (mistakenly) differently. I came to this possibility early on, ascoli, independently and for different reasons, came to the same possibility.


    Calibrations show that it makes no difference where the heater is placed: inside, outside, by itself, in a combination of inside and outside . . . the air temperature difference is always the same, and it always the textbook value. There is no mechanism which would allow the heat to escape undetected.


    Yes, I'm not arguing that. Though there are, as always, second order effects, I'm not considering them.


    You are also saying that all previous tests with the R1 through R19 don't count. They used external heaters; they always calibrated correctly, so you will now pretend they do not exist, and only the R20 test with an internal heater exists. And it must be wrong, for magic reasons.


    I've never said that. Could you provide a reference? I'm actually more interested in R19 results than R20 - because R19 has been more carefully written up.


    You are up to your old tricks.


    That looks to me like a personalisation: you are reacting to some stereotypical behaviour you assign to me, rather than what I say.

  • In all previous tests with this technique, both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater.


    OK. So, the correct resistance heater to be powered during this type of test is the external one for both the active and the control reactors. This fact explains very well why Mizuno didn't get excess heat for months and then, during the May 2016 test campaign, he suddenly got a COP of about 2: he simply connected the wrong (internal) resistance heater of the active reactor and at the same time a wrong value of the shunt resistance was manually entered in the data logging and processing system.


    Quote

    In all cases, with all reactors and with heaters only, ranging from 50 kg down to 300 g, the calibration points are indistinguishable. The data points fall on top of one another within the margin of error. You cannot tell the difference between internal and external heating. You cannot tell the difference between glow discharge and resistance heating. You cannot tell the difference between a 50 kg reactor and a resistance heater alone. It makes no difference what is in the reactor: air, deuterium or a vacuum. The Delta T temperature difference of outlet minus inlet air is a function of the heat produced only. No other factors affect it. It impossible to tell where the heat is coming from.


    This could be true only in stationary conditions. Vice versa, the transient curves, like those shown in Figures 27 and 28 of the Mizuno's paper published in 2017 (1), tell a lot about the position of the heating source!


    Quote

    This is obvious to anyone who has used a calorimeter. If this is not how it worked, it would not be a calorimeter. The fantasies and nonsense that you and THH post here about magical changes in the way heat affects the air temperature would violate the conservation of energy.


    I wonder how it is possible that calorimetry experts don't understand the elementary notion that the rate at which the air temperature increases reveals the position of the heating source, especially with a reactor whose body weights more than 20 kg. It's just a matter of conservation of energy. When the heater is inside the reactor, the heating of the cooling air is delayed due to the need to heat the reactor body first.


    Quote

    Your other notions are also preposterous nonsense, such as your claim that a digital power meter can mistake 300 W of electric power going into a resistance heater for 50 W, and for some reason it only does this when there is deuterium gas and a Pd-Ni mesh in the cell. How would it know? How can a power meter be affected by the cell contents? The resistance heater cannot be affected by the cell contents. If it were, I suppose it would break or contaminate the gas.


    You are confusing me with someone else. I'm not interested in the R19 or R20 tests. I've already proposed elsewhere how to deal with such astonishing claims (2).


    Here, I'm only talking about the May 2016 tests, those for which we have a lot more information, including the 2 spreadsheets of the active and control tests at 120 W.


    (1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

    (2) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

  • Actually ascoli, I was confusing this. The speadsheets relate to earlier tests? In that case have been misapplying them to later tests. I guess I don't know, for R19 or R20, whether the input power is measures with wattmeter, or as V*I. Each of these methods has different possible issues.

  • Ascoli65I'm not sure you got the timeline right in terms of when Mizuno switched to internal heater. Jed can confirm.


    As far as I know, with the Pd rubbed or deposited Ni experiments, the R20 is the first one with internal heating. That's what Mizuno said. I have a bunch of photos and schematics of previous reactors, R13, R14 etc. They all seem to have external heating. Such as R14:



    The older glow discharge reactors were obviously heated on the inside. With glow discharge. That beautiful blue plasma shown in the photos. They had internal resistance heaters, as you see in the papers. Plus there were heaters wrapped around the outside. As shown in the various papers about them. They were calibrated with both the inside and outside heaters.


    The 50 W calibration shown in Fig. 7 was performed on 2018-10-06. It does not list the type of reactor but I assume it is the R14 externally heated one, because most of the calibrations are marked "Version R14 control" from back then. Some of the more recent calibrations are marked "Stick Heater" which is 300 g rod-shaped heater. I think that means a cylinder with a heater inside it. I do not have a photo of it. It produces exactly the same Delta T air temperature as any other internally or externally heated device. Because energy is conserved!


    Granted, the amount of time it takes for a reactor or heater to reach the peak temperature will vary with the mass of the device, the thermal mass, and the placement of the heater. You can tell them apart if you have the history of the heat pulse from the moment it starts. After a few hours, when output heat balances input heat, it becomes impossible to tell. For a calibration point, you usually use data from the stable time after input balances output, continuing for hours or days. Such points will be the same for any sized device with the heater in any location. Or if that isn't the case, your calorimeter is not working. The whole point of calibration is to confirm that it is working.

  • Actually ascoli, I was confusing this. The speadsheets relate to earlier tests?


    As also indicated in my jpeg (1), the only two publicly available spreadsheets refer to the 120 W tests performed in May 2016, whose results were reported in various documents, starting from a JCMNS article issued in 2017 (2).


    Quote

    In that case have been misapplying them to later tests. I guess I don't know, for R19 or R20, whether the input power is measures with wattmeter, or as V*I.


    It doesn't matter for the moment. Thanks to the availability of the spreadsheets, the only tests which worth to be analyzed are the 120 W tests held in May 2016.


    When JR will release the spreadsheets of the more recent tests (3), it will be interesting to extend this analysis to the R19 or even the R20 reactors.


    Quote

    Each of these methods has different possible issue.


    The main issue connected with these two methods of measuring the input power is that for the 120 W active test the data directly acquired from the wattmeter have been deleted and substituted by the V/DC*I/DC products. This is a serious methodological issue, rather than a technical one.


    Ascoli65I'm not sure you got the timeline right in terms of when Mizuno switched to internal heater. Jed can confirm.


    Officially, the internal heating was adopted after the May 2016 tests. Internal heaters were mentioned in an article published on JCMNS in 2018 (4).


    But actually the results of the active tests run in 2016, also reported in Figure 4 of the 2018 article, were obtained by inadvertently powering an internal heater, probably the ceramic heater largely described in the 2017 article (2) and also represented in the schematic in Figure 1 of the 2018 article (4).


    (1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    (2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

    (3) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    (4) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf

  • If they respond quickly, I can't see why Mizuno is not the highest priority. And can't they walk and chew gum at the same time?


    It doesn't have to be highest priority. It doesn't have be done this year. But I would do it in six months.



    With all that yummy money?


    Well said. What's the point of having billions of dollars if you cannot make up your mind to do things and take risks? What's the worst that can happen?

  • The anemometer traverses of the outlet of a 64 mm ID tube, 60 cm long, using a 65 mm OD axial fan were a little unusual (unexpected by me anyway).

    Several times higher velocity was measured at the tube edges than in the middle. This is the opposite of what I was expecting. This may be an axial fan thing.