MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from JedRothwell

    72 hours is WAY too long. That is not a useful calorimeter. The results will be blurred out over those same 72 hours.

    When I replaced the acrylic in my Mizuno-type calorimeter with rigid insulation the settling time dropped from 1.6 hours to less than 1/2 hour. Small heat changes (10 W lamp on/off) take only about 8 seconds to appear in the temperature trace.


    Mizuno had a bit of built-in delay in his calorimeter response because his reactors are so heavy, (in addition to the bulky acrylic box) to heat.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    What kind of engineers lose data?!

    72 hours is WAY too long. That is not a useful calorimeter. The results will be blurred out over those same 72 hours.

    there is a large thermal mass. I have no idea what you mean by blurred out. There is nothing wrong with the calorimetry. No idea how anyone can lose such important data. SMH.


    The methodology was reviewed by myself and Mizuno. It’s an adibiatic calorimeter not air flow. The time required to reach equilibrium is a function of the heavy ceramic material it is constructed out of.


    It’s good to have results confirmed by a different type of calorimeter. The only issue is the power output was too far outside the calibration numbers so they need to run additional calibration runs at 800, 1000, and 1200W. Due to radiative heat losses increasing at the fourth power of absolute temperature small increases in temperature require large changes in input power.


    Equilibrium temperature was 563C with 667W input power during calibration and the test run was 593C with 644W input power. We need the additional calibration runs to resolve this 30C difference. This method is quite robust and simple.


    The system has a data logger on it track input power and temperature. That’s how these calorimeters work. If you have any questions about the details I suggest you discuss with Mizuno directly rather than conjecture about something you don’t understand. They are far less complicated than air calorimeters and their uncertainty factor is small with relatively high resolution and far fewer potential pitfalls.


    The drawback is the large thermal mass of this design requires long times to reach equilibrium but that is due to physics. It in no way, shape or form, “blurs” the data. Unless you are saying the instrument measurement has drift error over the measurement period. Pre and post measurement calibrations confirm the drift over 72h is not significant.


    Once we get the new calibration data my eyeball guess is the output power is going to be around 1000W with 644W input which is almost exactly what Mizuno measured for the same reactor in his own calorimeter.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    I can only repeat it. With a COP of five you need no complicated calorimeter.


    As a COP of 3 (Brillouin) today is standard I do not engage in low effect LENR discussions. Its just a waste of time.

    COP of three with how much absolute power? Funny you quote only the COP. Is this internal data or from outside validation experiments? We are measuring roughly 400W. In our own lab we can get whatever COP you want from 24.5 and even all the way up to infinity.


    Do you have the details of the Brillouin numbers you are quoting? Absolute power per unit area, mass or volume allows us to extrapolate lab numbers to assess potential commercial application.


    You seem to be stuck in the cognitive rut of not understanding the difference between a physics experiment and commercial product development.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Do some of the engineers understand this or do they just run the calorimeter routinely from the company manual?

    The data comes from a multibillion dollar auto parts manufacturing group not a university lab. They are trying their best.


    Their results will confirm our own in-house data which represents about 0.5W per cm2 of catalyst from our older generation reactors.


    Our current generation catalysts are now getting 1W per cm2 and nextgen we are expecting even more.


    In the real world nothing is perfect. But we keep working tirelessly to advance this technology.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    COP of three with how much absolute power? Funny you quote only the COP. Is this internal data or from outside validation experiments? We are measuring roughly 400W. In our own lab we can get whatever COP you want from 24.5 and even all the way up to infinity.

    You are a XXXX. Either you show your proper COP in your lab with the proper glow discharge stimulation. Otherwise please stop to talk about - annoy us with - the fake Mizuno nonsense you discus here.


    I also do not like the Mizuno patent as people that know the details of the matter 100% agree that nobody skilled in the art can replicate the claims based on the patent so its void. It's Mizunos hope that the replicators can show the effect based on the wrong /inexact claims....


    (Of course we both know that some key factors no longer can be patented and thus basically everybody can repeat and sell the Mizuno stuff).


    As said nobody is interested in watts else I would recommend Lithium bombs...

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Our current generation catalysts are now getting 1W per cm2

    W/cm2 is a much better expression than COP..but W/ccm?

    of course in certain Swiss diplomatic circles 20W/ccm has been reported with nextgen

    atomecology,,


    'optimal temperature' suggests that there is a goldilocks temperature and

    hotter is not necessarily better..

    "

    1.8 Summary of findings
    The best powders did deliver at least 20 Watts/ccm
    for at least a minute - at the optimal temperature.
    During a cool down multiple production points
    ( highly stable temperatures) could be seen.
    Typical fuels did show 30% excess gamma counts.

    Hello my friendly detractor Mr. Wyttenbach. Ummm where do I start. Be patient my friend. We don't have any magic. What we achieve is made from tireless hard work and may or may not become something practical. We will be judged by our achievements not by words written here.


    Nobody is interested in watts? I find this comment quite amusing. ;)


    As I have said many times in the past I think healthy competition is good both from a commercial and societal standpoint. The more the better! If you ever find the details of the Brillouin data you quote here I would be very interested to see them. The more successful LENR companies that exist will fuel a massive influx of competition and that rising tide will float all boats.

    Interesting data Robert. 20W per cc is an incredible number.


    Can they scale up and sustain that reaction to make GJ level energy?

    Quote from Daniel_G

    that rising tide will float all boats.


    Quote from Daniel_G

    Can they scale up and sustain that reaction

    They are waiting for the tide...

    and checking for holes

    some boats have holes.. :)

    Italian Cold Fusion Tide Lifts All Boats. ARXIV IPaper Confirms Rossi Fusion - Atom Ecology
    Cold fusion independent review confirms energy production far beyond any non-nuclear source. Top European energy research organization backs arxiv paper.
    atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    I can only repeat it. With a COP of five you need no complicated calorimeter.


    As a COP of 3 (Brillouin) today is standard I do not engage in low effect LENR discussions. Its just a waste of time.

    Can you please explain to me (sorry if I am not clever enough to follow your argument) why COP of 5 is important?


    Ideally we can disagree and debate any scientific or other issues here but the unspoken aim of this forum is that such debates should result in some progress for the readers and other practitioners here.


    I get it that you think all of Mizuno's work is fake and irrelevant. I put our work out here with the hope that some constructive criticism will actually help me to make more credible data in the end. I would respectfully request that instead of making emotional and ad hominem arguments, it would be better for you to present your own data and theories and why you think our methods are wrong.


    Mizuno has been called many things over the years but your "fake"claim is quite laughable to those that know him. Anyway, I hope we can proceed with some more civil debate from now on. It is possible to disagree with someone without being impolite.


    Respectfully,

    Quote from RobertBryant

    They are waiting for the tide...

    and checking for holes

    some boats have holes.. :)

    https://atom-ecology.russgeorg…er-confirms-rossi-fusion/

    Post
    RE: The Playground
    […]

    The waves roll in, pause, then slip back into the sea. This is the way it has been for uncounted eons. Waves rolling in, pause, and the waves roll out. Just like your breath. That’s right. Breathe in, pause, and breathe out. Let the distractions slowly fade away. The waves roll in, pause, the waves roll out. Breathe slowly in, pause, calmly breathe out…


    Then, somewhere out in the ocean, a sound. A nearly subsonic rumble. The creatures of the sea feel it, and sense danger. There is nowhere to…
    Paradigmnoia

    The jury is still out for Brillouin with their COP approaching 3 - have they factored in the energy applied during the transients of their DC applied pulses? Simple answer try passing simple sinusoidal AC to their Hydrogen Hot Tube devices and see if you obtain the same COP values. If so, then the Widom-Larson CECR theory is correct. If not then it's back to the drawing board, folks! 8)

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I get it that you think all of Mizuno's work is fake and irrelevant.

    You exactly know what I did say: Jed has been pushed by Mizuno to cheat the community with a fake receipt. Same for the Mizuno patent. Only issued for diversion.


    The insiders exactly know how the Mizuno process runs and also how to produce very high COP's.


    So: Mizuos work is not fake. Just its communication... But LENR forum is good for diversion since ever.


    We also know that Rossi had some really good fuels. But what does it help, if these only run for a few hours. Same for Mizuno.

    Funny, I suggested getting the fire bricks out of the old calorimeter, and now the new one has dozens of the hysteresis magnifiers in it.

    If 50W excess heat began, continued for 45 minutes. then stopped while the oven was 300+ C inside, would it it possible to even notice it?

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    If 50W excess heat began, continued for 45 minutes. then stopped while the oven was 300+ C inside, would it it possible to even notice it?

    Very easily if you measure the drop in electrical input needed to maintain the temperature at 300C. Precisely what Russ and I could do in a tube furnace constructed entirely from Alumina bricks and wrapped in ceramic fleece insulation.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.