MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • 0.04% seems high compared to mortality due to shingles itself . . .


    That is not the actual mortality from the vaccine. That is the number of people who happened to die soon after getting the vaccine. It was just a coincidence. You can see that from the number who died after getting the placebo. They give this mostly to old people, who tend to die.

  • If I get excess heat, what is the best gas to use to kill the excess heat without permanently ruining the chances of getting excess heat again (I would not do that until I've collected a lot of data with D2)?

    Helium?

    Is nitrogen a bad choice because it would somehow permanently bond with the nickel or palladium and ruin future chances of getting excess heat with D2?

    I think air would be a bad choice because that would form metal oxides (that may or may not be removed with D2).

  • If I get excess heat, what is the best gas to use to kill the excess heat without permanently ruining the chances of getting excess heat again


    I think air is a good choice. Helium or argon will probably kill it permanently. You should be able to remove the air. You always have to purge the air with a cold fusion experiment, except when the electrode surface is eroded in situ in near-vacuum conditions with glow discharge.


    If possible, do not let any gasses or other contamination in.

  • I need a gas that I can use at high temperature that won't kill the excess heat reaction permanently (that eliminates air and nitrogen in my view) so that I can recheck the calibration constant. This will verify that the calibration constant hasn't changed. The reason that it might change is that calibration and running with activated nickel can be months apart.


    Helium and Argon are two non-reactive gasses.

  • I need a gas that I can use at high temperature that won't kill the excess heat reaction permanently (that eliminates air and nitrogen in my view) so that I can recheck the calibration constant.


    I guess you should use a resistance heater for that purpose.


    Helium and Argon are two non-reactive gasses.


    And yet they seem to permanently kill the reaction. I do not know why.

  • I need a gas that I can use at high temperature that won't kill the excess heat reaction permanently (that eliminates air and nitrogen in my view) so that I can recheck the calibration constant. This will verify that the calibration constant hasn't changed. The reason that it might change is that calibration and running with activated nickel can be months apart.


    Helium and Argon are two non-reactive gasses.


    Argon is probably best. Helium is just sneaky enough to wedge itself into the lattice. It mightbe easy to remove, but then again not in which case it clogs things up. Air in my opinion is not a good idea, purging the oxides formed in a hot reactor is too time consuming.

  • if helium can't be used because it permanently kills the reaction then Argon is the safest choice unless Mizuno has a better idea.


    I would want a gas that has similar heat transfer characteristics and helium (mass number 4) fits that bill. Argon is ok because I can calibrate with it and I already know the calibration offset relative to D2 (I'll determine that and post it here someday soon). Argon has a mass number of 40 that compares to D2 which has mass number 4.


    If a small amount of nitrogen mixed with the D2 temporarily killed the reaction (but not permanently) then that would be useful to know.


    I don't use flow calorimetry. I use the average temperature of 8 external thermocouples clamped (using big pipe clamps) onto the vessel. I then calibrate it using Argon and D2 gas with a small amount of stainless steel mesh (as a non-active control) inside. I calibrate at different temperatures and pressures between 50 mT and 4 Torr. I do wonder what my calibration constants would be if I had used more non-active stainless steel mesh. I may have to do that after I try the activated nickel.

  • if helium can't be used because it permanently kills the reaction then Argon is the safest choice unless Mizuno has a better idea.


    He said he thinks argon will also permanently kill the reaction. I don't know why he thinks so, but apparently inert gasses are not good. The safest choice is air, as I said.

  • sure, use the turbopump to decrease the deuterium pressure and kill the excess heat. But Mizuno says there is some excess heat even at very low pressures, I don't know how low.


    Also, importantly ... I want to check my calibration at the same temperature (such as 350 C) with a gas having the same heat transfer characteristics as deuterium but doesn't produce excess heat. If I could use Argon then I would.


    My control (null experiment ) calibration with stainless steel mesh didn't use as much mesh as I will be using in the active nickel experiment. I expect the mesh to change the heat flow inside the vessel with more heat flowing to the top of the vessel. So double checking the calibration with the active nickel and a gas that temporarily kills the excess heat effect would be very useful.

  • Paradigmnoia

    I think that your work with the non-active Mizuno mock up is a valuable contribution. Can you summarize here what you found out and how it applies to the interpretation of Mizuno's results?

    Sorry I missed this post earlier.

    In general, the Mizuno type calorimeter seems to be sufficient to effectively compare the heat output of anything that fits inside without taking up too much volume. It can be improved, by which I mean that the heat recovery fraction of the total heat produced can increased to a higher percentage, but this may require fan speed changes, or worse construction material changes, to be able to handle higher powers (IE: 700 + watts) if the internal temperature climbs too high. This complicates comparisons to lower power levels, and so greater losses at higher powers end up as the unfortunate but simpler side effect of the design. A strong comparison calibration “library” for as many power level steps as reasonably possible mitigates effects caused by the decreasing heat recovery with greater power. I don’t think it is too much to ask to see a calibration curve in the vicinity of the recorded excess heat level as an effective cross check of results. This of course means that the calorimeter specifications stay as constant as possible. (Thermocouple positions, fan speed, position of tubing, wiring, reactors, the ambient temperature for each test constrained to a small range if possible, etc.).


    The inlet thermocouple arrangement is a critical specification, and I think it should be improved. In the design in photos, the thermocouple is potentially affected by the internal air temperature of the calorimeter. Back eddies forming around the thermocouple end suspended at the inlet, flush with the front of the calorimeter, can draw heated calorimeter air to the thermocouple tip, decreasing the delta T measured. Hydrogen piping, wiring, etc, can also cause this. If this happens during an experiment , it may reduce the delta T, reducing the total output calculated, making it look like a failed or less effective experiment when it is not. If it happens during calibration, it may look like the calibration makes less heat than it does, making a failed or excess heat result compared to it look better than it is. My experiments have shown over 5 C variation (increase over true ambient) at the inlet, (at only 200 W input!) directly related to air flow around the thermocouple tip contaminated by the heated calorimeter inside air. Thankfully this is easily rectified by adding an extension tube to the inlet, and putting the inlet thermocouple(s) several cm both from the new inlet and the calorimeter outside. This also reduces inlet temperature fluctuation “noise” substantially. I used a 20 cm long, 75 mm ID, ABS pipe.


    My greatest concern, which can be addressed by better insulation, is that in none of the reported experiments, to my knowledge, has the measured output power of an excess heat-producing experiment ever exceeded the input power, at any power level. There are some good reasons why this is so, and they can easily be valid, but I find it vexing.

  • is that in none of the reported experiments, to my knowledge

    P's knowledge is incomplete.. he has no need to be vexed by it.

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    the 120W excess heat shows the measured airflow heat output(3.06MJ) to be in excess of the elecrical input (2.48 J)..

    For the question", has the measured output power of an excess heat-producing experiment ever exceeded the input power?"

    The answer is yes.


    the raw data as a 120W spreadsheet has been posted at least three times on this forum. on several threads..


    it has been discussed at tedious length.


    these 120W results cannot be very well compared with either P's pipe contraption results or the 500W Mizuno result posted

    because different reactors and reactor temperatures' will produce different calibrations.

  • Please point me to the Measured output power that exceeds the input, not examples of Measured output power converted to 100% heat recovery compared to input.