Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • When the direction of the airflow is known, choose a UNIdirectional probe.

    If you are assuming... assuming that the flow was multidirectional.

    Please show calculations.. diagrams of the flow in the anemometer traverse

    based on the literature rather than generalised manuals..

    perhaps you could refer to paradigimnoia and ask him to do his PhD thesis on it.

    and caution him that his life was at risk when he used a cheap hotwire anemometer in turbulent flow

  • RB asked me to post the FULL quote.

    The warning about TURBULENT flows is at all velocities.

    The warning about the HIGH flows (turbulent OR laminar) is NOT applicable.

    ps : Life experience -- I've bought over $10M equipment based on specifications and acceptance tests (Including "latent defects"). One vendor had to "remove and replace" a system because it didn't perform within its "useful lifetime" (7 years).

  • A prominent pump is useless for Mizuno...just send him some fake sparrows tears.

    Thanks for the calculation. I got 3x60x5= àbout 900 cfm.

    thank God (or Napoleon) for metric units.

    My calculation on my mind was 990 fpm but I preferred to check it with an online converter juts for precision.

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

  • thank God (or Napoleon) for metric units.

    I started my academic life with FPS. Then we switched to cgs. No, wait! MKS. Ooops : SI .... no wonder I can't remember any physical constants,

    ps: But I prefer Imperial for human-scale ...

    pps: My FIRST computer (Ferranti Perseus) had a mixed-radix MILL (arithmetic unit) .. so you could multiply stones,pounds, ounces by pounds, shillings, pence ... I have the manual.

  • The warning about TURBULENT flows is at all velocities.

    The warning is not heeded by the majority of airflow engineers who use hotwire anemometers as the tool of choice for measuring turbulent flows which are the majority of the flows encountered in process engineering for reasons of cost..

    As I said if the turbulent profile is stable its normal to use them.. Mizuno.. and any engineer will make sure they use them on stable turbulent profiles

    the problem is that AF has failed to distinguish btw stable and unstable profiles

    especially by using the BLACKBOX metaphor

    the sign not of serious argument but of rhetorical argument.

    which he introduced in a supposedly technical thread.

    ÄF.This is a TECHNICAL topic about Mizuno's Airflow Calorimetry.

    AF.In pharmaceutical terms it would be a black-box warning :

  • Reflections on hotwiregate and Mizuno-style results

    The source I linked to was a vendor, not a manufacturer

    Measuring Airflow With a Hot Wire Anemometer

    The principal of a hot wire anemometer is based on a heated element from which heat is extracted by the colder impact airflow. The temperature of the hot wire is kept constant via a regulating switch, and the current (amp draw measured internally) is directly proportional to the air velocity. When using a hot wire in turbulent air streams the measured results can be impacted by turbulent airflow striking the measurement sensor from multiple directions. This could indicate a higher measured value than a vane probe. This characteristic is typically prevalent in ducts where turbulent airflow can occur even at very low velocities.

    Measurement Location and Selection

    All measurements should be made in a straight section of duct if possible. In an ideal location the duct will have a minimum of 10 diameters before the measuring spot and at least 4 diameters after before making a transition of turn. The airflow should not be inferred by dampers.

    Hot wires are calibrated to a specific air density and either require the density to be input to the meter or a correction to be made. Many are calibrated to standard air which is 68F 0%Rh and 29.92mmhg. Consult the manufacturer. Hot wires are best suited for low velocity measurements at or near standard air conditions. Care must be used when measuring conditioned and turbulent air. Hot wires are not recommended for air velocities exceeding 2000 FPM unless they are specifically designed for that purpose. Heavy duty models are available that can measure in excess of 6000 FPM.

    First, a big thank you to Alan for useful investigation and presenting results without presumption or claim to know whether they apply. Alan is not saying he knows the use case here for hot wire anenometers is incorrect, he is merely raising a big question mark based on the vendor's recommendations about how to use their instrument.

    A point here about uncertainty. RB, properly, asks everyone else for precise information to back up warnings that maybe some part of the calorimetry is wrong. Less happily, he usually refuses to give alternate calculations that address the specific errors suggested. As the result of his care we now know a lot more about this system than Jed and Mizuno knew initially. For example, that the flow from the fan in the pipe has not had time to settle down to an equilibrium velocity distribution, and is still highly dependent on the fan turbulence. It would maybe settle down after 10 diameters of the pipe (60cm) at which point the edge flow would be slower then the central part of the flow. Paradigmnoia has then shown that this may not happen even then in this case, if the air from the fan forms a vortex. These things are all very helpful to any of the replicators trying to use air calorimetry - though I think most intend to rely only on relative measurements (active versus control) thus making the whole anenometer flow error issue irrelevant.

    Now AF is pointing out, backed up by vendor'd warning, that HWAs are not always accurate in measuring air velocity in turbulent flow. The point is that "average air velocity" in turbulence is not the same as "instantaneous air velocity hitting the fan". If the wire were unidirectional, measuring only the component of the air velocity parallel to the pipe, there would be no difference. If the wire instead measures just the speed of air hitting it, and the direction of that air can vary, we get an over-reading of the average velocity from basic physics which all here will agree.

    In this case it is obviously not possible for anyone to quote a research paper saying whether this problem does or does not affect this particular system, or how much it affects it. We can say that if there is a problem it will be an over-reading of airflow. We cannot say how large it will be, or if it will be significant in this case. At least I don't think we can.

    That is uncertainty. RB cannot claim, in such uncertainty, that the airflow measurements are known correct unless he has other information backing that up. However no-one can say they are known to be not correct.

    I think a lot of the argument here comes from different interpretations of this situation. Skeptics take such uncertainty as something that raises questions about the (uncertain) measurement. It does not necessarily invalidate the whole paper, maybe the uncertainty there is smaller than the results, or maybe there is other data not affected by that uncertainty. But it may invalidate specific results. In this case other data, not affected by anenometer errors, would be the comparison with the control results. Those less skeptical see plentiful evidence from other places that this is real LENR and think those who raise uncertainty are nitpicking.

    In this case I'd say that Mizuno's paper has three distinct sets of evidence, all strong, but none certain:

    • R19 absolute measurements
    • R19 comparison between calibration control and active reactors
    • R20 measurements (these are so large it does not matter absolute or versus control)

    Each of these sets of results has different characteristics. As scientists (or amateurs trying to be scientists) we cannot infer from one to the other: "R19 calorimetry error does not matter because R20 is so large it would not be affected by any error". We can definitely say that for these results to be not real we need three distinct types of mistake/error:

    • Absolute calorimetry errors
    • Changes in conditions that make relative (control) results invalid
    • Some mistake that invalidates the R20 results

    It is theoretically possible that the same type of mistake could affect more than one of these results, but most of the things we have looked at affect only one. For example, the anenometer over-reading would affect absolute errors but not relative ones.

    In science, we cannot assume that because each of these errors/mistakes is unlikely, they are all independent. Experimental practice that delivers one such mistake is more likely to deliver others, even though they are all different.

    In any case, that is putting the cart before the horse. To get good analysis we should consider each part of the evidence separately without pre-judgement.

    Some here will ask why, when most experimental results are accepted easily, these results get such a rough ride. It is because they show something that is truly extraordinary, and not predicted by any existing theory. Such results need much more proof, because they are difficult to distinguish from errors and mistakes. Normally, when experiments are looking for results, "weird" results caused by mistakes will be questioned and investigated to check all is correct. If however you are looking for some unexpected heat excess, any "weird result" in that direction will not be questioned specifically.

    That is why finding patterns in the results can be so helpful to validation. Ed Storms here on another thread pointed out that LENR excess heat would be likely to obey (for some part at least of its temperature range) an Arrhenius curve where reaction rate and hence power out varies as the log of the temperature. Patterns can diagnose other things too. For example, if the R19 results included excess heat versus input power with a range of powers (maybe 6 or more equi-spaced points) the shape of the excess heat graph would give us insight into the mechanism - whether it was a calorimetry error, a mistake, or an exothermic reaction. How often have people recording results on a graph noted one outlier (obviously a mistake?).

    I fully expect this post to be out of the consensus views here: but I feel strongly that it is helpful in cutting through bias and emotion (on both sides) and understanding what type of result will be convincing to people who do not initially agree with the proposition that LENR exists. It also dictates to either Mizuno or replicators what you should do to make your results more generally believable. Find patterns. In this case the obvious parametric dependence to be explored is the relationship between input power, case temperature, and measured output power. A further helpful relationship would be the difference in measured output power for the same input power either delivered via an internal (R20 style) heater, or delivered by an external heater, or the dependence of results on room temperature change (that can be more or less calculated, empirical confirmation would be helpful). I'm choosing here the cross-checks that don't require additional equipment (except maybe another heater element) and would be easy to do and give insight into the obvious uncertainties.


  • On this point of disagreement. AF has quoted evidence. Could you possibly please do the same?

    I tried to some googling. A lot of references showed how HWA was used to measure the amount and characteristics of turbulence due to its high frequency response. I could not find any people using it seriously to measure average airflow in turbulent flows, presumably due to the problem that AF's link highlights.

    Specifically I think the three issues are:

    • How directional is the HWA used here? (I guess not very directional, because difficult to align it properly)
    • When (if?) people use HWAs to measure air velocity do they infer average airflow from average of detected air velocity magnitude in turbulent flows? How does that work when naively it would seem wrong?
    • If the pipe airflow here is turbulent in a way that causes

    PS - those interested just go to the Mizuno airflow calorimetry thread where Alan has I think pretty well demonstrated that average turbulent airflow cannot accurately be measured by hot wire anenometers, at least not without calibration.

  • On the Mizuno results

    Jed can answer. I'm not certain whether the results given in the R19 table are absolute excess (ignoring calorimeter losses) or adjusted excess (compensating for calorimeter losses).

    The difference is that adjusted results are larger by an amount that depends on the calculated losses.

    Hotwiregate technically affects absolute results, but not adjusted ones. However adjusted ones are affected by any differences in conditions between the calibration measurements used to determine calorimeter efficiency and the active measurements.

  • Hot wires are best suited for low velocity measurements at or near standard air conditions. Care must be used when measuring conditioned and turbulent air. Hot wires are not recommended for air velocities exceeding 2000 FPM unless they are specifically designed for that purpose. Heavy duty models are available that can measure in excess of 6000 FPM.

    2000 FPM = 10 m/s. Mizuno measures ~4 m/s.

    Also, this reference says that a hot wire anemometer in a turbulent flow might read a higher value than a vane flow anemometer. This one was ~16% lower than a vane-flow model. No doubt the two could be reconciled in a few days of testing.

  • a vane flow anemometer is a bit clumsy to traverse a 6.6 cm pipe..

    To use a vane anemometer, I would suggest making the outlet orifice the same size as the vane, so it covers the whole thing.

    Here is a nice one that has what they call "Aircone Flow Hoods" which I think cover the whole surface you are trying to measure. I think the vanes are 100 mm in diameter.


    Aircone Flow Hoods
    Aircone Flow Hoods are a fast and accurate method of maximizing
    the usefulness of your 4-in. (100 mm) rotating vane anemometers.
    For a modest investment, you can enhance the capability of your
    rotating vane, turning it into an air volume flow balancing tool.
    Features and Benefits
    • Rectangular and circular cones available
    • Measures volumetric flow at grilles and diffusers
    • Reads air volume quickly and accurately
    • Excellent choice for small grilles

  • That would be fine, as long as it stays on the whole time, since it will increase back pressure and reduce flow rate over when it is not there.

  • since it will increase back pressure and reduce flow rate over

    Can't find any advice in the manual on that..

    any idea how much the flowrate will be reduced... by 1%? 10% 100%?


    another thing for Paradigmnoia to check... perhaps AF could donate a vane anemometer?