Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • I do see that. In fact, I've often noted here in the past that any reactor that makes substantially more heat than it requires can be made self running with enough insulation and by sending the output heat back to the reactor. And yes, it could be dangerous (but don't tell that to robert bryant .


    But the point is, you are not trying to measure an output of 101 Watts while putting in 100 Watts which is how too many experiments have been reported and judged to be positive. You need an impressive output/input ratio to be reasonably sure that your signal is substantially over any possible noise, ground loops, induced EMF, and other errors and problems. Of course, good calibration also helps.


    ETA: Of course, if you used a liquid cooled, temperature-controlled, forced flow calorimeter like SGVIT demonstrated, you would have better control of the experiment's temperature and better safety. But I do understand that such a system is much more complicated to build and control and if the air calorimeter works, you wouldn't want it.

    Well seven_of_twenty , you brought an interesting number up. Last time I checked, no hot fusion experiment has been able to generate even 1% of excess heat (a number that would be equivalent to the 100 w input to 101 w output you mentioned). Yet, if the NIF would announce a 1% excess heat, wouldn’t it be greeted as a major milestone, an historical moment in mankind’s development? Why then a LENR excess heat of 1% is despised?

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • The higher velocity at the edges of the tube compared to the middle (that I tested) is almost certainly due to using an axial fan. It is consistent with velocity profiles of axial fans from several fan manufacturers. What is a bit inconsistent is that the higher velocity near the edges of the outlet tube persists 60 cm beyond the fan, at which point it should ‘normally’ have settled to laminar flow. I suspect that this particular fan is generating a persistent vortex flow in the tube. I tried a tube of 75 cm long on the inlet side, in addition to the outlet tube, but that made no appreciable difference to the outlet velocity profile.


    I have the current model of the same fan as Mizuno ordered, and expect it to arrive next week, (based on parcel tracking). However I am currently quite far from home, and will be for at least a week, so I won’t be able to do any anemometer traverses for maybe 10 days. Actually I am in Dawson City, Yukon Territory, Canada, and I kissed the sour toe at the Downtown Hotel about 1/2 an hour ago (Google that). Last night for Internet for a week...

  • IHFB: I can't let this one pass unchallenged. Mizuno/Rothwell didn't call it preliminary. And you are twisting the meaning of "sample." Mizuno/Rothwell/paper clearly states: "This section describes a typical result with the latest and most effective reactor, version R20." They are not using the word sample to mean a "one-off result." To the contrary, they are using the word sample to mean a "typical result."


    Compare the published R20 data with the published R19 data. There is very little R20 information. I guess preliminary is no longer appropriate since alas that "convince any skeptic" device has been dismantled before it has had a chance to convince skeptics. I know various people have visited Mizuno but none have written careful write-ups of the checks they made therefore (assuming they all cared) none are skeptics. Unless we do get such a write-up - I live in hope.


    THH

  • Curbina:

    Well seven_of_twenty , you brought an interesting number up. Last time I checked, no hot fusion experiment has been able to generate even 1% of excess heat (a number that would be equivalent to the 100 w input to 101 w output you mentioned). Yet, if the NIF would announce a 1% excess heat, wouldn’t it be greeted as a major milestone, an historical moment in mankind’s development? Why then a LENR excess heat of 1% is despised?


    The comparison with hot fusion is completely irrelevant, as SOT points out.


    Why is 1% excess heat despised? It is not. True, if would have to continue for quite some time to rule out chemical sources. But, mainly, it is not possible to measure since calorimetry with sum of all errors below 5% is tough, 1% very, very tough. The calorimetry here is no where near as good as water mass flow calorimetry and could never get down to such a low tolerance.

  • Compare the published R20 data with the published R19 data. There is very little R20 information. I guess preliminary is no longer appropriate since alas that "convince any skeptic" device has been dismantled before it has had a chance to convince skeptics.


    For a person that refuses to convince himself by visiting a (LENR) lab you have a very very big mouth.


    R20 did run for 100+ days and obviously convinced many visitors.


    I see absolutely no reason why they should convince you as you act like a bot that shows a strong tendency to flat earther arguments.


    The comparison with hot fusion is completely irrelevant, as SOT points out.


    Yes: This is true. Why should we compare real fusion (LENR) with the fantasy (hot fusion) tried by 5 generations of SM fooled physicists??

  • W said:

    I see absolutely no reason why they should convince you as you act like a bot that shows a strong tendency to flat earther arguments.


    I agree - no reason - except that what would convince me would go a long way to convincing mainstream science, thus unlocking vast amounts of scientific time and money.


    Your argument is the one that a child will use to say "no point trying to join in and make friends - everyone hates me". A self-fulfilling prophecy. While maybe everyone will hate you if you do join in, we all know not trying is a poor excuse.


    W said: R20 did run for 100+ days and obviously convinced many visitors.


    Not alas obvious because said visitors have not yet provided (any) write-up of their visits and what convinced them. But I believe there were visitors and look forward to high quality write-ups.



    THH

  • Yes: This is true. Why should we compare real fusion (LENR) with the fantasy (hot fusion) tried by 5 generations of SM fooled physicists??


    The challenge or better problem here is that hot fusion is not a fantasy, but well-known as a terrible dangerous weapon. And well enough understood unfortunately by "SM physicists", so no problem to design and replicate (depending on money, politics and resources) such military "products"... :-(

    Having instead a working recipe for LENR based energy production and a nicely fitting theory would be worth a future Nobel prize, my guess....

  • Your argument is the one that a child will use to say "no point trying to join in and make friends - everyone hates me". A self-fulfilling prophecy. While maybe everyone will hate you if you do join in, we all know not trying is a poor excuse



    Thought you were talking about your declined invite to Essex for a moment.

  • You have the "quick-to-dismiss" disorder that has so engulfed the scientific establishment since P&F.


    I wouldn't say that TTH is being quick here. Just the opposite, he is careful and methodical. Nor would I say that he is dismissive. Instead I would describe him as slow to accept. And this is entirely proper. This is how science works. A lot of TTH's stuff reads to me like the sort of remarks one gets from peer review of a manuscript. So you are correct to say that this sort of thing engulfs the scientific establishment -- just as it has done before long P&F. And I hope it won't stop because, though it has flaws, it is the way things work best. If anything, I think that science is learning that skeptical criticism should be even more prevalent, not less (because of the surprisingly common occurrence of accepted results that can't be replicated).


    I think many of the complaints one sees on this site about how poorly LENR has been treated are from people who have little idea about the nature of careful criticism that usually flows back and forth within the scientific community.

  • I think many of the complaints one sees on this site about how poorly LENR has been treated are from people who have little idea about the nature of careful criticism that usually flows back and forth within the scientific community.


    LENR is exceptional. Not only were the scientific establishment quick to dismiss, but they actively fought against it. They mounted campaigns to block any government funding. They sought to destroy the reputation of any scientist who dared explore further. Such behavior is a wart on the scientific community, and those of us who have followed this phenomena closely will continue to highlight this fact so that it doesn't happen again in the future for some other world-changing technology.

  • R20 did run for 100+ days and obviously convinced many visitors.


    That was R19, in Table 1. I do not know how long R20 ran. It was recently taken apart, and the mesh was replaced. As far as I know, R19 has the same mesh it had in February. It was tested again on July 17. It performed about the same. It took a little more heating to trigger the reaction. Around ~216 compared to ~200.

  • this fact so that it doesn't happen again in the future for some other world-changing technology.


    From a macroeconomic point of view, an unregulated introduction of such a disruptive technology would certainly not be entirely unproblematic with respect to e.g. jobs, corporate profits a.s.o.


  • From a macroeconomic point of view, an unregulated introduction of such a disruptive technology would certainly not be entirely unproblematic with respect to e.g. jobs, corporate profits a.s.o.


    Creative destruction. Progress requires it. If you bring the cost of energy down, the long term macro effect is an increase in the standard of living globally.


  • That is not what the statistics bear out. Richer nations actually have a declining birth rate, which actually is causing a macro demographic problem in itself because not enough workers are available to pay for all of the retirees. LENR is a solution within a mix of solutions to improve the living standard of humans. There are no excuses or reasons that over three million children should die of hunger each year. None. With a significant reduction in the cost of energy, like the Mizuno reactor might achieve, this and other massive problems could be resolved. It also would open up the solar system for human exploration and settlement.

  • They mounted campaigns to block any government funding.


    Not quite sure who you are referring to when you say "they" ... but my general reaction is good! Claims that have been tested and found wanting should receive little but the barest government funds. It is basically the business of science to try and determine what should be ignored and one hopes that governments and their funding bodies would pay attention to this. I would say that homeopathy, for instance, should not receive a government funding as a treatment, and very little funding government funding for research. Same for astrology. Of course there will be IH Fanboys of the homeopathic and astrological realms who will be incensed at this. But if they are, the solution is clear. Find solid results.

  • Not quite sure who you are referring to when you say "they" ... but my general reaction is good! Claims that have been tested and found wanting should receive little but the barest government funds


    The problem is, funding decisions are corrupted by politics and greed. Results are not judged objectively by merit. Instead, influential insiders and well established people are funded. This is not just a problem with scientific funding. It happens with funding for government programs, for the military, in industry, academia and everywhere else.



    Find solid results.


    Cold fusion is solid. It is important. Funding has been denied because of academic politics and greed. The plasma fusion people in particular make intense efforts to prevent funding. Their livelihood is at stake.