Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from Curbina

but the volume of air traveling at the speed you are stating is misrepresented is negligible compared to the volume of air properly represented!!! The effect on terms of the calorimetry is negligible!!!!

Are you sure?

The peak velocity is (normally) in the center, and the lowest flow is at the edge.

The velocity directly affects the volume calculation, from which all output is derived.

So what effect on power output is represented by a 10% overestimate of velocity? How does that scale with temperature?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

however Mizuno's traverse locations are not at all similar to the ASHRAE

Your interpretation of Mizuno's traverse locations are in error..

there is one located in the centre and two very close to the wall

Quote from JedRothwell

You did that wrong. You are missing a red dot. He has 4 horizontal dots: center, R1, R2, R3 cm, and 4 vertical. The radius is 33 mm, so R3 is only 3 mm from the edge.

It was closer to the wall than you thought, and there is no measurable difference even at 3 mm.

Anyway, your test will tell. When you get your gadget revved up, just do a traverse test including all points, the black ones and the red ones. I predict you will see no significant difference in the results of the two sets of dots.

Display More

If there is another dot close to the edge then I have no issue with the report averages, with the possible exception that a center dot might skew things a tiny bit higher.

It is a bit hard to read some of the diagrams due to the resolution, BTW.

My apologies for wasting time on this again.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If there is another dot close to the edge

I read seven dots..one at centre, two at 1 cm from centre, two at 2cm from centre, 2 at 3cm from centre.

the last two are 3mm from the wall... you are not the only one who had difficulty interpreting this

perhaps Jed needs to draw a diagram... for those new to velocity traverses.

Quote from RobertBryant

I read seven dots..one at centre, two at 1 cm from centre, two at 2cm from centre, 2 at 3cm from centre.

the last two are 3mm from the wall... you are not the only one who had difficulty interpreting this

perhaps Jed needs to draw a diagram... for those new to velocity traverses.

Typically traverses go across the diameter, from one side to the other.

Starting from the center I think is what is throwing some people off.

(It might be easy at the outlet, but it would take some extra finesse to do that through a hole in a pipe)

Quote

If you think that redesigning reactors and starting over is a sign of fraud and junk science, you know nothing about experimental science.

Sorry. I initially misread that. We were (I was anyway) discussing reactors that were made and tested and I assumed the redesign remark applied to one of those. And yes, that would be congruent with hallmarks of fraud and junk science to redesign and rebuild in a different manner an already well working reactor. Since that is not what you meant, I withdraw the remark. Lighten up a little.

Can you say again, if you said it before, how many reactors Mizuno had to give away or sell, how many were tested, whether of the R19 or R20 variety or some other and how many were sold, given away or left on the shelf? I know it's a bother and don't do it for me. I am going to guess many other readers will want to know. I don't think it's been made clear before but if so, just the post number or link please. Thanks.

https://coldfusionnow.org/cold…or-heats-room-in-sapporo/

Quote

[...] But if replications confirm the kilowatt effect, funding won’t be a problem, and Prof. Mizuno isn’t waiting around. He’s put reactors that he calls HIKOBOSHI in the hands of users, for other labs to independently test.

"I rented and sold 12 CF furnaces to Japan and overseas. They are collecting data and having a lot of data, I am going to announce the data."

It seems implied that they are R20 reactors (which he nicknamed "Hikoboshi"), but it's not 100% clear from the interview. From his comment about them collecting data and him announcing it at some point, I assumed that they were already informally confirmed to have reproduced his results.

Thank you. Maybe someone who knows rubycarat and/or has her email address could ask her about this startling assertion?

Quote

Very busy right now with another interview, preparing for ICCF22, and painting her cottage, so need for anyone to try and contact

Ah yes. Shane D. 's response is what I love about the LENR community. They all want to save the world but resist the slightest suggestion as to how.

OK Shane, no need to disturb anyone to find out more about the location and fate of 12 or more working and possibly purchasable LENR Mizuno reactors. Much more important to reorganize your sock drawer. And let more people spend their time mucking about with stainless steel welding, flanges and leak testers not to mention nickel mesh, palladium rubbing and all sorts of pretesting that Mizuno, it seems, already did. Much better to have those folks work in the dark than with known working devices.

That there are 12 reactors out there somewhere which could be tested or retested with little or no delay is not a startling assertion? You confirm my impression of LENR enthusiasts living for the most part in alternate universes.

This weird lack of understanding of the implications of a discovery and how deal with it in a timely and appropriate manner is also a hallmark of junk science. A very common one.

3 kilowatts, 10:1 power ratio, all on a whiff of deuterium and a nickel grid merely rubbed with palladium, excellent calibration, etc. etc. and it's business as usual. No big deal. Dozens of others did equally important demonstrations. Take your time. I suspect folks who think this way, deep down don't believe it. That is what all this tells me.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

3 kilowatts, 10:1 power ratio, all on a whiff of deuterium and a nickel grid merely rubbed with palladium, excellent calibration, etc. etc. and it's business as usual.

Not at all SOT.. not business as usual

as you know there is an immense danger of explosion with these reactors

without a pressure relief valve..

this is dangerous in the extreme..

seriously ..people have got better things to do than listen to empty rhetoric

Quote from JedRothwell

Why do you think it took Mizuno years to get it to work, and about 3 years to get back to the high power levels he first measured in 2016, after years of seeing nothing?

Because this is a likely frequency at which it could happen that a researcher eager to make a sensational discovery makes a providential, albeit inadvertent, major error which allows him to come across these extraordinary results and, since he strongly wants to believe that this erroneous results are real, he avoids checking the experimental set-up and data with the care required in these occasions.

Quote from JedRothwell

By the way, the visitor -- like me and everyone else -- brought his own power meter and confirmed the input power. So now we have at least 5 meters agreeing that the input power is 50 W, not 300. But I am sure you will continue to claim all 5 meters were wrong. I suggest you find an authoritative document describing how power measurements of an ordinary resistance heater powered by an ordinary power supply can be measured incorrectly to this extent by 5 different meters, including plug in and clamp on types, including one that cost $16,000, all to the exact same extent. Please, show us how that can happen.

Why don't you start showing us how it is possible that, in the spreadsheet you published in 2017 (1), the "input power" values measured directly by the $16,000 wattmeter were replaced by the product V*I (2,3), please? It would appear like a deliberate manipulation of data. Could you give us an alternative explanation?

You know, publishing manipulated data would not be the best way to improve confidence in the reality of the data supporting extraordinary results like those claimed for the R19 and R20 devices.

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

(2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(3) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from Curbina

but the volume of air traveling at the speed you are stating is misrepresented is negligible compared to the volume of air properly represented!!! The effect on terms of the calorimetry is negligible!!!!

The fraction of cross-sectional area (and hence flow volume) close to the walls is surprisingly large, because the area at a distance D from center is scaled by 2piD.

Quote from JedRothwell

He did not sell those. They are still there. The R19 was working a few weeks ago when a visitor confirmed the measurements of power, inlet and outlet temperatures and air flow rate. It was pretty much the same as last spring. A little less heat per watt of input. R20 was recently refitted but I do not have the data yet.

I am not sure what you mean by "external checking." Do you mean handheld instruments on the outside of the calorimeter chamber? There are lots of them, all around the room. If you mean instruments brought by other people, that has often been done, most recently a few weeks ago, as I just said, and many times before that.

By the way, the visitor -- like me and everyone else -- brought his own power meter and confirmed the input power. So now we have at least 5 meters agreeing that the input power is 50 W, not 300. But I am sure you will continue to claim all 5 meters were wrong. I suggest you find an authoritative document describing how power measurements of an ordinary resistance heater powered by an ordinary power supply can be measured incorrectly to this extent by 5 different meters, including plug in and clamp on types, including one that cost $16,000, all to the exact same extent. Please, show us how that can happen.

Display More

Jed: as always these things are more complex than first seems. It is very encouraging that Mizuno still has a working R19, and those results could be validated by others, but some care is needed. I'm itemising the points I think are needed:

1. The calibration test is done and validated by visitor at the same time (before or after) as the active test.
2. The calibration and active test input powers are both measured, the same way. That means with the same shunt resistor if such is used, or with a power meter and the same PSU (if meter is on input side of PSU). This assumes the two powers are identical as would be expected, in which case input-side PSU measurement is nearly OK. However, if PSU input side power measurement is done, it is also necessary to check that the output voltages are the same for the two cases. That will be the case if the heaters are identical resistance. The problem if the output voltages (for same power) are different is that then the PSU efficiency may be different and input side of PSU equality of power no longer means equal input power. Instead the coltage and current at input of the heater could be used, but this would require a circuit change to make sure the same shunt resistor was used for current measurements.
3. The fan power is the same in the two cases (I'd expect this)
4. The geometric details of reactor positions, reactor sizes, airflow entry and exit to the calorimeter are all recorded. I'd suggest a set of photos . The issue here is to estimate differences in airflow that might make a difference to calorimeter efficiency. If the calibration and active reactors are the same size, with external heating coils wound in roughly the same place, and the reactors are situated symmetrically wrt the airflow I'd not worry about this. One check on this is to measure the reactor surface temperatures in various places. The only problem is if the efficiency is much less for the calibration than the active run. That would be if
   • the calibration reactor delivered less power to the outlet air, and more to heating the calorimeter walls
   • the calibration reactor had large piping from which heat could exit the enclosure (not likely but needs checking)
   • both the above possible if the calibration reactor surface temperature is higher than the active reactor surface temperature.
   • The reactors need to be sitting on something very well insulated, or else the extent to which each touches the base on which it rests needs to be checked. I know Jed has said the base is well insulating: all that is then needed is details of the material, thickness, and U value to rule this out.
   • There must be no leaks in the calorimeter enclosure, or gaps in the insulation, that affect one reactor more then the other.

If any skeptical visitor (somone who sees this list as necessary, rather than nitpicking) could check and document check results for these things I think it would be immensely helpful in making these results stand out as extraordinary.

Some details:

• I'm using the comparison between calibration and active output temperature as evidence of extraordinary heat production
• That makes a lot of things, common in the two cases, unimportant
• However, anything that is different between the two reactors needs to be checked. The input measurements, to be sure they are done identically, are most crucial. Then the airflow issues.
• The airflow/efficiency issues are the most difficult things to check. Swapping positions of the two reactors in the enclosure and retesting would help, but there is still a problem if the two reactors are a different size/shape/color. Still, efficiency would not normally be that sensitive to any of these issues, so I'd expect a big difference in efficiency to be related to position in box.
• (Again) We are talking here about R19 results, because you have not said R20 is available working for others to see and check.

Answering your statements above, we can see why they do not actually (without more detail) provide checking:

By the way, the visitor -- like me and everyone else -- brought his own power meter and confirmed the input power. So now we have at least 5 meters agreeing that the input power is 50 W, not 300.

• Was this both calibration and active powers?
• Were the input measurement issues (depending on how power was measured) above checked?
• I note that you are talking about R19, not R20. So we are not talking about 50W vs 300W? Precision is very important in checking stuff, so conflating R20 and R19 does not help matters.

I am not sure what you mean by "external checking."

• It is not so much a question of checking the instruments, but checking that there are no mistakes in the way the measurements are used. My list of points above more or less (I hope) does this.
• I'm assuming the key claim will be difference between calibration and active runs since absolute measurements are much more difficult to check. I reckon the differential results are going to be the strongest, as long as calibration and active runs can be measured identically.

THH