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.
In a giant oven with a 72 hour-long climb to steady state?
It depends upon other things on the positioning of the thermocouples used to control the heaters, but it is possible to measure a hot-spot in any system if you have a thermocouple nearby. The 72 hour clamber up to temperature is a bit beyond my ken. It possibly indicates an incredibly sensitive system - the kind of calorimeter that responds to somebody entering the building 2 floors down - in which case to measure 50W XSH is trivial. The other possibility is that the system has excessive thermal mass - or even losses - that would render it less useful than we might imagine.
We only need no more than 10 mns to go to space...
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.
It depends upon other things on the positioning of the thermocouples used to control the heaters, but it is possible to measure a hot-spot in any system if you have a thermocouple nearby. The 72 hour clamber up to temperature is a bit beyond my ken. It possibly indicates an incredibly sensitive system - the kind of calorimeter that responds to somebody entering the building 2 floors down - in which case to measure 50W XSH is trivial. The other possibility is that the system has excessive thermal mass - or even losses - that would render it less useful than we might imagine.
The enormous thermal mass is the most likely reason that 72 hours would be needed.
Possibly a wonderfully precise and accurate measurement can be achieved by 72 hrs of waiting for the asymptote to occur, but that destination should be fairly obvious much sooner than that, unless the reaction is unstable or the thermal mass is very large. In that case the huge thermal mass makes it very difficult to assess any instability because the hysteresis likely much greater than the instabilities.
OTOH, if the reaction is unsteady but temperature variations stay within a reasonable range, the giant thermal mass can smooth that out to a quite reasonable average after a significant period.
I don't recall much unsteady temperature data in the earlier Mizuno work.
In fact, it is almost all a bit unsettlingly smooth.
20W/cc
its a bit less than in a U235 fuel pellet ~595W/cc?
Why I don't have uranium power in my laptop or phone?? lol
Anyway, we have enough power density to do a 1:1 swap of uranium fuel rods for CF fuel rods. That should be good enough.
For the lions share of applications our overall power density, including ancillary equipment is likely high enough to even power airplanes. At least on paper.
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.
Well Mr. Wyttenbach, you seem to have supernatural spying powers to know so much, even more than me. To be completely clear, the technology and patents published were completely real at the time. No trickery involved. Anyone who knows Mizuno would laugh at the suggestion. But since that time, the technology has moved forward as is the normal progress of any new technology. If anything you are pointing out the fact that Mizuno and MTI have been able to move the technology forward at a pace far faster than our competitors with much fewer dollars and resources, so thank you for the kind compliments. There is nothing nefarious involved with moving technology development faster than expected. I am sorry that you feel hurt that we don't share all of our proprietary information online. We at MTI feel we do our absolute best to walk the tightrope between transparency and commercial IP protection issues. All of these debates will be moot when working generators are available so let's keep fighting until that wonderful day comes.
As far as I know almost all cf companies play their cards much closer to their chest than MTI.
However, the above comment about fuels is something I find quite interesting. You seem to have a tendency to spread delusional fake news here and this is another gem from you. We have third party validations that have shown the reactors running for weeks and months and our longest running experiment was for about 25,000h+ so no idea where you get these ideas from about short lived fuels. Are you looking for a career in science fiction writing? 
Anyway, thanks again for your compliments.
Display MoreThe enormous thermal mass is the most likely reason that 72 hours would be needed.
Possibly a wonderfully precise and accurate measurement can be achieved by 72 hrs of waiting for the asymptote to occur, but that destination should be fairly obvious much sooner than that, unless the reaction is unstable or the thermal mass is very large. In that case the huge thermal mass makes it very difficult to assess any instability because the hysteresis likely much greater than the instabilities.
OTOH, if the reaction is unsteady but temperature variations stay within a reasonable range, the giant thermal mass can smooth that out to a quite reasonable average after a significant period.
I don't recall much unsteady temperature data in the earlier Mizuno work.
In fact, it is almost all a bit unsettlingly smooth.
Its the thermal mass. I will post some raw data from runs when I have time. I am open to and welcome and appreciate criticism.
It depends upon other things on the positioning of the thermocouples used to control the heaters, but it is possible to measure a hot-spot in any system if you have a thermocouple nearby. The 72 hour clamber up to temperature is a bit beyond my ken. It possibly indicates an incredibly sensitive system - the kind of calorimeter that responds to somebody entering the building 2 floors down - in which case to measure 50W XSH is trivial. The other possibility is that the system has excessive thermal mass - or even losses - that would render it less useful than we might imagine.
Hello Alan. The air within the incubator is highly mixed and we have 5 thermocouples inside. The positional temperature differential was less than 1.5C. Not bad when measuring 600C.
I am going to be posting some background data on the calorimeters we use. Here is a simple powerpoint explaining the basic principle and design.
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?
I see what you mean. I guess this is possibly what JR meant by the data being blurred out. But that assumes a non-Steady state reaction. We find that our current reactors are incredibly stable. Air flow calorimetry introduces a whole slew of additional variables. We would need extremely accurate mass flow and thermometry as well as dynamic control systems. With all that stuff going on I don’t think the data would be convincing, hence our move to adiabatic calorimetry.
Now I am designing a much better insulated adiabatic calorimeter with advanced materials to improve insulation while lowering thermal mass. If anyone knows where I can buy one of these please let me know so I don’t have to build it myself!
I see what you mean. I guess this is possibly what JR meant by the data being blurred out. But that assumes a non-Steady state reaction. We find that our current reactors are incredibly stable. Air flow calorimetry introduces a whole slew of additional variables. We would need extremely accurate mass flow and thermometry as well as dynamic control systems. With all that stuff going on I don’t think the data would be convincing, hence our move to adiabatic calorimetry.
Now I am designing a much better insulated adiabatic calorimeter with advanced materials to improve insulation while lowering thermal mass. If anyone knows where I can buy one of these please let me know so I don’t have to build it myself!
If you are planning on making an oven-type calorimeter that goes to 600+ C , rather than a flow type calorimeter, then significant mass is pretty unavoidable, due to fire safety issues.
Otherwise, 2” of rigid Corning foam insulation plus 1” of foil-lined isocyanate rigid foam insulation (on the inside) works really well for calorimeter walls.
there is a large thermal mass. I have no idea what you mean by blurred out.
That was a blurry way to express what I had in mind. I meant that if it takes 72 hours to establish one calibration point, it will take 72 hours to measure one stable power output level. With cold fusion, power output usually varies a great deal over 72 hours. It is not stable. So you end up with several different power levels together in one measurement. Pushed together, as it were.
As you say, I had in mind what Paradigmnoia said, ". . . stopped when the oven was 300+C inside, would it be possible to even notice it?"
There is nothing wrong with the calorimetry.
I would say there is something wrong. It takes too long to calibrate and to register one power level.
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.
Then there is too much ceramic material. The thermal mass of the calorimeter itself is too big.
Why I don't have uranium power in my laptop or phone?? lol
Because uranium is dangerous. On the other hand, decades ago you could have had plutonium power for your pacemaker. See:
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?
I do not know, but the jury will remain out until they are independently replicated. The claim will be promising but unproven. I have great respect for those people, but no claim can be accepted until it is independently replicated.
That was a blurry way to express what I had in mind. I meant that if it takes 72 hours to establish one calibration point, it will take 72 hours to measure one stable power output level. With cold fusion, power output usually varies a great deal over 72 hours. It is not stable. So you end up with several different power levels together in one measurement. Pushed together, as it were.
As you say, I had in mind what Paradigmnoia said, ". . . stopped when the oven was 300+C inside, would it be possible to even notice it?"
I would say there is something wrong. It takes too long to calibrate and to register one power level.
Then there is too much ceramic material. The thermal mass of the calorimeter itself is too big.
Engineering decisions are nearly always a compromise. The electrical circuit equivalent would be measuring a bumpy DC voltage after a large capacitor. Yes the precise ups and downs will be averaged out but in no way will this affect the power measurement. We chose to sacrifice time scale resolution for simplicity and accuracy.
I am quite sure I can make a calorimeter with all the best aspects for measuring lenr reactor performance. Thirty years of Mizuno’s experience plus my own on metrology and design should produce a rather nice bit of equipment. I could not be happier if someone actually knew of a commercial product that would work like this.
I was looking at materials suggested by paradigmoia at first but then I thought I could innovate a bit. It would be nice if we could go up to the 1000C range but the material selection gets very limited as you go above 1000C.
You can’t just say thermal mass is too big and it is too long to get each point. Those were negotiated deals. Sacrifice complexity and uncertainty for time. You have to look at both sides of the equation.
You say the output was variable in the past. Well it’s hard for me to say because is see a signal after the giant capacitor that is the thermal mass but the precision is uncanny. Within watts of what Mizuno measured with a totally different type of calorimeter.
That’s pretty convincing to at least my eyes. The down side is they modified a commercial muffle furnace so they get the large thermal mass.
Nothing is free in engineering!
Trade offs are the name of the game. Yes if I can get some of these exotic materials I want, I’m quite sure I can get better insulation with less thermal mass so all you guys can see high COPs and then praise the technology when it’s only an artifact of the measurement system.
My prediction is that once we show it, everyone will claim that it’s self evident. Exactly as arthur schopenhauer said. Or some naysayers will say we were faking!
Serious question: which lenr company is closest to commercialization? Which has been the most transparent with replication and validation?
I am going to be posting some background data on the calorimeters we use. Here is a simple powerpoint explaining the basic principle and design.lenr-forum.com/attachment/20122/
I am finding a broken link here.
I changed the link above to a built in PNG file. Maybe that fixed it. Here is the data from a random calibration run. It looks like it took about 10 hours to get close to equilibrium. Maybe they over did it a bit with a total 30+ hour run but anyway lots of data from doing statistics. We looked at the average first derivative to be as close to zero as possible and then took the average over about 5 minutes for each point on our calibration curve. Standard deviations were calculated for each point and they were very small. Actually in this validation experiment the temperature sigmas were consistently between 0.1 and 0.2C. Surprisingly the input power showed more variation. I was expecting the opposite but when doing this type of calorimetry the temperature data accuracy and resolution are more critical so I was pleased with that aspect.
I added another run which was about 43 hours below. With airflow calorimeters, I think that's simply the wrong tool to look an effect that is dependent upon temperature. I am convinced that removing variable amounts of heat from the system and not having any control system was the cause for not being able to find the Esh signature in many replications. Most certainly this is not purposeful fake by Mizuno as some nonsense people suggested.
I wonder how many replicators would find a positive result by simply changing to this method.
The KISS principle rules when doing replications/validations. If I had more time I might load the data into a database and display it on an open source package like Grafana. If enough people want that I could be persuaded to do it.
Serious question: which lenr company is closest to commercialization?
The race is on... My hope is the Solid State Energy Summit will bring news that answers that question. I expect you have a rough timeline and as that gets clearer you will have a solid date for market entry. I look forward to your announcement...
Thanks Big Thanks
The race is on... My hope is the Solid State Energy Summit will bring news that answers that question. I expect you have a rough timeline and as that gets clearer you will have a solid date for market entry. I look forward to your announcement...
Thanks Big Thanks
LF staff, and MTI are working on that. Stay tuned.
Can you see my calorimeter illustration now?
