MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Daniel_G

Um no. Power is what is measured. To get energy you have to integrate over time.

Also in an oven calorimeter, calibration gives you the power vs temperature curve.

There is no a priori “how it should work”.

I thought it was solve for Q, ( = m•C•ΔT , the answer is in joules), then derive power.

How does one measure the oven output besides temperature that results in a power or energy output term? I think the oven method should probably work OK in its normal working, um, range, but the output really isn’t measured as such and so I’m on the fence if it it actually qualifies as a calorimeter in the true sense of the word.

There is a direct relationship between power released inside the oven and the final equilibrium temperature. You create a steady state where conduction, convection and radiation outflows balance with the power released inside the oven. Additional power is detected as a change in such equilibrium temperatures.

It’s not only a true calorimeter, it’s inherent simplicity eliminates many possibilities for systematic error. The air inside is well mixed, temperature is measured with calibrated TC at multiple locations. It has very high resolution and accuracy as long as calibrations are done correctly. KISS.

Quote from Daniel_G

There is a direct relationship between power released inside the oven and the final equilibrium temperature. You create a steady state where conduction, convection and radiation outflows balance with the power released inside the oven. Additional power is detected as a change in such equilibrium temperatures.

It’s not only a true calorimeter, it’s inherent simplicity eliminates many possibilities for systematic error. The air inside is well mixed, temperature is measured with calibrated TC at multiple locations. It has very high resolution and accuracy as long as calibrations are done correctly. KISS.

I like the simplicity.

How does it work when an anvil is in the oven?

As expected. Slower path to the same equilibrium temperature.

Quote from Daniel_G

Is this the same Bruce I have been arguing with? Aliens take over your body? Yes Bruce you are correct. Perhaps my poor skills to explain were the problem…

My aliens and I thank you for your kind words.

My characterization of steady-state calorimetry above is exactly what I have been saying all along. No change. It is what is captured (in an extremely simplistic way) in the model I made.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I thought it was solve for Q, ( = m•C•ΔT , the answer is in joules), then derive power.

How does one measure the oven output besides temperature that results in a power or energy output term? I think the oven method should probably work OK in its normal working, um, range, but the output really isn’t measured as such and so I’m on the fence if it it actually qualifies as a calorimeter in the true sense of the word.

I think that anything that tries to estimate the thermal energy of a system by a rise in temperature of one of its components is calorimetry. As far as I understand, you even really need to characterise all heat pathways for this to count as calorimetry. After all, if you know through calibration that the component you are measuring captures X% of the heat you can estimate what 100% is. Of course that is a risky process because if you don't have the right value for X, or if conditions in one of the other components changes, you might not be aware of it and your estimate could go badly awry.

It s these risks that you have been assessing for Mizuno's air-flow calorimeter.

Oven Internal Temp∝Input Power x Rth (thermal resistance) x surface area

Axh∝oven internal temperature

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I thought it was solve for Q, ( = m•C•ΔT , the answer is in joules), then derive power.

How does one measure the oven output besides temperature that results in a power or energy output term? I think the oven method should probably work OK in its normal working, um, range, but the output really isn’t measured as such and so I’m on the fence if it it actually qualifies as a calorimeter in the true sense of the word.

@Para, I don't understand the second part of your statement above. Do you care to elaborate? The calibration establishes the relationship between final equilibrium temperature and power input. Yes, the actual total (input + Axh) has to be within the calibration range as you rightly point out.

"the output really isn't measured as such": What does this mean?

What do you mean by saying it's not a true calorimeter? How do you define a "true calorimeter"?

Quote from Daniel_G

Oven Internal Temp∝Input Power x Rth (thermal resistance) x surface area

Axh∝oven internal temperature

@Para, I don't understand the second part of your statement above. Do you care to elaborate? The calibration establishes the relationship between final equilibrium temperature and power input. Yes, the actual total (input + Axh) has to be within the calibration range as you rightly point out.

"the output really isn't measured as such": What does this mean?

What do you mean by saying it's not a true calorimeter? How do you define a "true calorimeter"?

Display More

What I mean is, that by definition, a calorimeter measures energy (calories).

The oven has measured input, and reaches thermal equilibrium at some level of input. All of the output is allowed to flow into the environment without being measured. The interior temperature is used as a proxy for heat (energy). The output energy (or average power) is assumed to be the same as input for calibration purposes. With an empty oven that is a fairly safe bet. The addition of a second heat source with unknown output (reactor) complicates things

The addition of a large thermal mass (anvil) ensures that reaction temperature increases are actually associated with extra heat (energy, not just temperature). It will drag for sure on the time to steady state.

I have several problems with your explanation. The physics and thermodynamics are entirely well known. The temperature is a proxy? No I’m afraid not. The temperature is exactly a result of input power. The calibrations prove that unequivocally.

If they didn’t, it would not be a calorimeter. Why would a second heat source complicate things as you say? You are welcome to calibrate with multiple heat sources. Knock yourself out. Unless you feel simple addition is complicated I don’t see your point.

Yes larger thermal mass will drag the time to steady state. Any problem here? Everything behaving according to well known physics

Quote from Daniel_G

I have several problems with your explanation. The physics and thermodynamics are entirely well known. The temperature is a proxy? No I’m afraid not. The temperature is exactly a result of input power. The calibrations prove that unequivocally.

If they didn’t, it would not be a calorimeter. Why would a second heat source complicate things as you say? You are welcome to calibrate with multiple heat sources. Knock yourself out. Unless you feel simple addition is complicated I don’t see your point.

Yes larger thermal mass will drag the time to steady state. Any problem here? Everything behaving according to well known physics

The physics say that the heat leaving the oven is equal to the input at steady state.

The surface area and the emissivity of the oven exterior determines its final external temperature.

This means that to a large degree, the exterior size of the oven determines its temperature at a certain input at steady state.

An oven is well-insulated in order to be able to efficiently heat the interior objects. In other words, the rate of heat escape from the oven is limited. The rate of heat escape will be determined by the temperature drop across the insulation and the effectiveness of the insulation. It is readily apparent that even moderate heat input easily exceeds the rate of heat dissipation to the exterior by heating the oven from room temperature to 350 C (I call that a moderate oven temperature). The oven could be heated with a burner at 355 C and wait a very long time, 500 C and turn it when getting close - not so bad, or 850 C for a short period of time and back off the burners quick before it overshoots 350 C interior temperature by a lot. And then pulsing to hold at 350 C.

And I’ll have to continue a bit later. Excuse me.

No idea what you are writing about. Anyway it’s a very standard way to do REAL calorimetry. The concepts we use are well known and understood. Why would you pulse a burner? It seems you don’t understand how these are supposed to work. Keep everything simple.

As my Japanese Professor Masahiro-san used to say: Complex theory is OK for the imagination, but err on caution and choose the simplest theory that fits the data. The simpler the better!

That's why I am repeating myself the equation E=mc^n describes all nuclear reactions, fission and fusion and is the simplest explanation of what we observe empirically!

Dr. Richard, until we can scale up to 100+kW or so, the uncertainty of our data is too high to calculate the mass change and energy output with any real meaning. Why do you choose the variable 'n'? Isn't this usually reserved for discrete integers?

If its any rational number then the equation is rather meaningless since it can go anywhere from E=m to E=m*infinity. Maybe I misunderstand wrongly, but this equation does not seem very useful.

Quote from Daniel_G

No idea what you are writing about. Anyway it’s a very standard way to do REAL calorimetry. The concepts we use are well known and understood. Why would you pulse a burner? It seems you don’t understand how these are supposed to work. Keep everything simple.

Hi, sorry, I became very busy with work stuff.
Quickly, pulsing heat via burner (Joule or fuel) in an oven is a typical operation. Ramp up heat, reach target, stop heat, wait for drop, apply heat. That sort of thing. My electric stovetop burners do the same thing except the jam and sauce burner which does do a steady non-pulsed heat at whatever dial setting.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Hi, sorry, I became very busy with work stuff.
Quickly, pulsing heat via burner (Joule or fuel) in an oven is a typical operation. Ramp up heat, reach target, stop heat, wait for drop, apply heat. That sort of thing. My electric stovetop burners do the same thing except the jam and sauce burner which does do a steady non-pulsed heat at whatever dial setting.

That’s pretty much the basic (or glaringly obvious, to put it in other words) mechanism behind the idea of using the oven as a calorimeter: you measure the energy input to reach a temperature and see how much less energy you need with the active LENR reactor inside.

I still don’t understand what objection can be raised to this methodology. Sure, a lot of systematic errors (or better said, erroneous assumptions) can be made and have to be taken in account, but with a calibration reactor with identical mass but inert mesh, all these erroneous assumptions can be put to rest. If the active reactor makes the oven reach, and maintain, the set temperature with less energy input, the extra energy is being produced by the active reactor. Integrate it over time and you have a measurement of excess energy. Pretty straight forward and fool proof.

Quote from Curbina

Sure, a lot of systematic errors (or better said, erroneous assumptions) can be made and have to be taken in account, but with a calibration reactor with identical mass but inert mesh, all these erroneous assumptions can be put to rest.

Paradigmnoia and I have already agreed with each other that there is nothing he found in his studies of Mizuno's air-flow calorimeter that would account for the differences he (Mizuno) sees between control and active mesh behaviours.