MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Thank you Robert. Yes I agree thr Brucian model is a model not reality. Climate models are also over simplified, only work when assuming water vapor is linked to CO2, don’t account for clouds, variable nucleation due to cosmic rays during solar minima, don’t account for geothermal energy, and on and on. All of them failed to predict the pause.

So all I’m going to say is excellent work on your nice model. I sincerely mean that. But your simplified model doesn’t prove anything except that your model is over simplified.

The 500lb gorilla in the room is the >6 sigma measurement of excess heat in two different labs and two different calorimetry methods.

Observers and validators reading this thread can weight which data holds more weight. An admittedly over simplified model or painstakingly recorded data from two labs with the exact same result.

I wrote that on my phone before morning coffee Robert...I meant to say the Brucian model. We have moved significantly ahead since these publications. I meant to commend Bruce for his efforts which are really nice but irrelevant to our current work. Nobody serious questions our ability to produce excess heat with 100% reliability. Nobody serious suggests its chemical or systematic error or anything of the sort. Suffice it to say that although Mizuno and I were at the same University and I had been following his work for decades, I was healthily skeptical in the beginning. In my own journey from skepticism to passionate belief in our mission, I was able to share some of these experiences and receive some interesting support, which is never enough but anyway we are still here and moving forward. We at MTI prefer to work with like minded supporters who truly believe in us and our mission. We have turned down very large sums of money because it wasn't the right fit. We prefer to struggle in our humble facilities and wait for fate to bring us the right partner.

We are no longer wondering about possible systematic or experimental error when we have what we have. We are purely focused on scaling up. I sincerely desire for this industry to bloom with proper competition. Some, like CP, and IH have tried nefarious and illegal ways to compete. We believe fate and karma will eventually prevail and they will get what they deserve. There are some honest attempts at R&D and commercial development of LENR which we are hopeful for. The prize is big enough that surely many firms will eventually be competing. The energy mix will always be that, a mix. There is not currently one solution for energy and there will likely never be. MTI intends to focus our efforts on the niches that we feel we are strong in and build upon our humble foundations and find applications that benefit humanity while providing excellent returns for our shareholders.

Quote from RobertBryant

there are gorillas and there are snakes

God Bless your mustard seed

Faith is necessary! Yes some are motivated by pure unadulterated greed (do I hear a hissing sound?) while others are motivated by a deep passion to do what is right for humanity. The gorillas are just bystanders in this game that few bother to lift their heads to notice.

The Arrhenius function -- the one Mizuno uses to characterize the temperature dependence of reaction rate -- is sigmoidal.

Just like the one I use in my model.

Bruce I think you are confused a bit. The Arrhenius plot is the inverse absolute temperature on the X-axis and excess heat on the Y-axis. The plots which we were discussing were time on the x-axis and temperature on the y-axis. The Arrhenius plot is an exponential not a sigmoid but it shares half the "S" of the sigmoid so I am not sure I follow your argument.

With all due respect, I don't find your model relevant. If we had sensitive enough equipment and a desire to prove your model right, the sigmoid might well be there but with the equipment we use now we don't see it but we do see a hell of a lot of excess heat so I don't understand why we would use time and resources to try to prove or disprove the sigma.

All I care about is heat. Period.

So all we need to do is convert your excess heat to electricity, presumably by generating steam? Or do we simply use your device for direct central heating? Such systems (heat pumps) already exist using reversed air conditioning or by running pipes under the soil. With scale-up of your cold fusion device, do you envisage a hybrid fission-fusion device (e.g. NASA) or is your vision of the future pure LENR devices to replace modern-day electricity generating systems (which are still highly dependent on U235 fission or fossil fuels)?

Quote from Daniel_G

Bruce I think you are confused a bit. The Arrhenius plot is the inverse absolute temperature on the X-axis and excess heat on the Y-axis. The plots which we were discussing were time on the x-axis and temperature on the y-axis. The Arrhenius plot is an exponential not a sigmoid but it shares half the "S" of the sigmoid so I am not sure I follow your argument.

The Arrhenius function characterizes the temperature-dependence of the reaction rate coefficient, "k". It is sigmoidal. It is usually written k = Aexp(-E/RT) where A is the maximal rate, E is the activation energy, R is the gas constant, and T is temperature. When T is small, the term in the parentheses, "-E/RT", becomes very large and so k goes to zero. When T is large, "-E/RT" goes to zero and k approaches A, the maximum value.

The Arrhenius plot is an time honoured way to empirically estimate the values of A and E of the Arrhenius function. If you log-transform both sides of the Arrhenius function you get a linear relationship between logk and 1/T. Before computers, this was great because then you could gather data, put them on an Arrhenius plot, and use a ruler to fit a straight line to them by eye. The slope and intercept of the line then gave you E and A, respectively. Nowadays one can use a computer to least-squares fit the untransformed function straight to raw data to extract E and A. No Arrhenius plot needed.

Quote from Daniel_G

With all due respect, I don't find your model relevant. If we had sensitive enough equipment and a desire to prove your model right, the sigmoid might well be there but with the equipment we use now we don't see it but we do see a hell of a lot of excess heat so I don't understand why we would use time and resources to try to prove or disprove the sigma.

All I care about is heat. Period.

You really ought to be concerned with understanding the totality of what you have. I find the lack of even a hint of an inflection point puzzling. And, although I haven't mentioned it so far, together with the inflection points you should also see regions of temperature instability and hysteresis in this system (these are more predictions of the same model). The instability can lead to meltdown.

There are millions of power generation engineers that know how to convert heat to electricity. There is also a massive market for steam as process heat that would not require conversion to electricity. This isn't a heat pump. Heat pumps require a heat source and efficiency drops dramatically at low temps. This is why they are having a hard time heating EVs with them in cold climates.

It remains to be seen how far this can go. However the concept of reducing fuel consumption in current fossil fueled plants or conversion of fission to CF is quite attractive for many reasons.

Quote from Bruce__H

The Arrhenius function characterizes the temperature-dependence of the reaction rate coefficient, "k". It is sigmoidal. It is usually written k = Aexp(-E/RT) where A is the maximal rate, E is the activation energy, R is the gas constant, and T is temperature. When T is small, the term in the parentheses, "-E/RT", becomes very large and so k goes to zero. When T is large, "-E/RT" goes to zero and k approaches A, the maximum value.

The Arrhenius plot is an time honoured way to empirically estimate the values of A and E of the Arrhenius function. If you log-transform both sides of the Arrhenius function you get a linear relationship between logk and 1/T. Before computers, this was great because then you could gather data, put them on an Arrhenius plot, and use a ruler to fit a straight line to them by eye. The slope and intercept of the line then gave you E and A, respectively. Nowadays one can use a computer to least-squares fit the untransformed function straight to raw data to extract E and A. No Arrhenius plot needed.

You really ought to be concerned with understanding the totality of what you have. I find the lack of even a hint of an inflection point puzzling. And, although I haven't mentioned it so far, together with the inflection points you should also see regions of temperature instability and hysteresis in this system (these are more predictions of the same model). The instability can lead to meltdown.

Bruce, the Arrhenius function you quoted was developed to characterize chemical reaction rate's temperature dependance. I am not going to answer any further posts from you. I don't mean to be rude but, but I see no utility in following your models and theories. They are not necessary nor even closely relevant to our high priority tasks. A meltdown would be a splendid thing actually, lol. We are a commercial entity with very limited resources. If you want to find your own funding and seek out the elusive sigmoid inflection point you are very welcome to do it. I have made a decision that its not relevant and I will not respond to any further posts on this subject.

My apologies for the directness and wish you luck in your journey.

Daniel_G

OK. This is a behaviour I have seen before. As I have argued elsewhere, it isn't much like science.

I look forward to your white paper.

Is this about a Mizuno breakthrough with COP >5??

At lot to discuss for nothing...

Quote from Daniel_G

Bruce, the Arrhenius function you quoted was developed to characterize chemical reaction rate's temperature dependance. I am not going to answer any further posts from you. I don't mean to be rude but, but I see no utility in following your models and theories. They are not necessary nor even closely relevant to our high priority tasks. A meltdown would be a splendid thing actually, lol. We are a commercial entity with very limited resources. If you want to find your own funding and seek out the elusive sigmoid inflection point you are very welcome to do it. I have made a decision that its not relevant and I will not respond to any further posts on this subject.

My apologies for the directness and wish you luck in your journey.

What Bruce is saying makes perfect sense and I agree generally with what he is saying. Robert’s meddling is (as usual) somewhat off target and not helpful.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Is this about a Mizuno breakthrough with COP >5??

At lot to discuss for nothing...

And this sort of stupid comment from someone who should know better should just be deleted.

A real demonstrable COP of 1.1 is world changing. Make it demonstrable and it won’t be a joke.

Quote from Bruce__H

Daniel_G

OK. This is a behaviour I have seen before. As I have argued elsewhere, it isn't much like science.

I look forward to your white paper.

I am not disagreeing that it would be nice to know. If you have your own lab and funds to do this research you are welcome to do it. In that case I would love to know. Reality is we have to invest our very limited resources with the highest bang for the buck and this just doesn't cut it. No offense meant personally whatsoever and my apologies if it seemed that way. If we had unlimited resources I would love to pursue this further.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

What Bruce is saying makes perfect sense and I agree generally with what he is saying. Robert’s meddling is (as usual) somewhat off target and not helpful.

Paradigmnoia, I softened my words a bit in my above post. The model may make sense to you and I highly respect your opinion but the reality is there is little utility in us spending very limited resources for seeking out this answer. We get heat. Inflection may or may not exist and if it does exist, its likely hidden within our calorimetry methods. I have to focus on our lifeline. If anyone can convince some funding body to fully fund this line of research I would be glad to pursue it. If its that important, someone should fund it. Anyone is welcome to try.

If there is something to be investigated more closely, it is the heat relationships between the volume of the highly heat conductive reactor (due to H or D filling), possibly again for a simultaneous ‘dummy’ reactor, and the remaining volume of the calorimeter filled with normal air.

Now I am focusing on a completely different system which will hopefully lead to a practical heat source and the controls necessary to manage it under real world conditions.

Quote from Daniel_G

Paradigmnoia, I softened my words a bit in my above post. The model may make sense to you and I highly respect your opinion but the reality is there is little utility in us spending very limited resources for seeking out this answer. We get heat. Inflection may or may not exist and if it does exist, its likely hidden within our calorimetry methods. I have to focus on our lifeline. If anyone can convince some funding body to fully fund this line of research I would be glad to pursue it. If its that important, someone should fund it. Anyone is welcome to try.

What worries some people, myself among them, is the essentially perfect dependence of excess heat watts on the primary heat watts. It is not even a simple temperature dependence. Maybe that is the way it works. One day we might find out.

The heat inflection, if there is one, is probably washed out in 10 kg of acrylic and 40 kg of reactors in the older style calorimeter. Even more so in the newer one.

BTW, that little bump on the plot Robert keeps posting is something I have tested for. The one on the ramp up is very likely an adjustment to the air inlet door, and the bump further up, same thing. Maybe putting the inlet cut-out cover back on, or adjusting a wire coming out the hole… something like that. The air inlet hole needs the most work on the old design.

Best wishes on your further work and improvements. You know we are waiting very anxiously for any news.