MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • Was there a consensus about the best cheap stainless 120 x 500 mm “reactor chambers”?

    I need two for blanks, so vacuum sealing isn’t necessary although I would like to close them up to significant air movement. At least able take one end off to change heaters, etc.

  • Was there a consensus about the best cheap stainless 120 x 500 mm “reactor chambers”?

    I need two for blanks, so vacuum sealing isn’t necessary although I would like to close them up to significant air movement. At least able take one end off to change heaters, etc.

    LDS Vacuum will fabricate CF full nipples to any desired length. A 6" CF flange diameter corresponds to a 4" tube OD, which is close to the 120 mm you stated. A CF full nipple has removable flanges at both ends, and the flanges are available as blank or with various fittings such as VCR/

  • Trying to work out where the velocity went.... Now about 1/2 of what it was before installing and heating up the calibration tube... so only COP 0.58. I realize that most of the insulation is not yet installed... but that isn't it I think. Shouldn't affect air velocity much.

    Waiting for everything to cool to ambient to see if it is temperature related...

  • A large part of the apparent velocity decrease is due to the integrated ambient air temperature sensor in the anemometer tip being relatively far from the tip. So measurements with unheated air are no problem, but heated air does not impinge on the thermistor unless the anemometer tip is stuck far into the flow. I was able to increase the apparent velocity in a single location by covering and heating the thermistor area with my hand while the hot wire tip was in an unchanged airflow location. The thermistor probably sets the baseline temperature for the anemometer hot wire temperature control.


    The thermistor area seems to hold heat for a significant amount of time so I think that I can stuff the anemometer end (~15 cm) into the air outlet to heat the thermistor to the outlet temperature before and between traverse measurements. I’ll try this out.

    -Tested with excellent results. The probe tip doesn’t need to leave the outlet air duct while measuring or returning it into the outlet tube, so the temperature is correct (and agrees with the outlet thermocouples) and the velocity readings are about 1m/s higher when read hot. However this whole traverse thing is annoying and I so will replace the hot wire probe with a vane anemometer sized to the outlet and be done with all the many points, averaging, etc.



    Secondly, the heated air is thinner, and the fan RPM climbs significantly (up to 800 RPM faster) at the same input power. So this will affect the outlet air velocity somehow.

    -Solved. Electrical SSVR noise confusing the Hz meter above 100 Hz. Momentarily turned off the calibration heater and Hz signal became perfectly clear and essentially unchanged from before heating. So no noticeable change in RPM.

  • https://e-catworld.com/2019/10…zuno-replication-efforts/


    We are not the only ones wondering. I know after their null result, Deneum "played a bit with the meshes" using various combos of pressure/heat, but nothing happened. Dmitry is on to other things now, and may attempt another replication later on. There was also a rumor at the ICCF of another null, but the source may have been intentionally misleading, so unreliable.

  • Now getting a pretty solid 80% heat recovery without full insulation on the box, if the flow rate is correct (I have some doubts. I think it is actually a little bit higher, and will test some more).


    I also caught an error in my spreadsheet a few days ago, where I accidentally put 1.06 for the heat capacity of air, when it should have been 1.006, and was used for all calculations. This had the effect of reducing the solution for the Power Point page 19 Mizuno-Rothwell calculations to ~86% recovery, from the ~90% I had re-calculated above).

  • Power Point page 19 Mizuno-Rothwell calculations to ~86% recovery, from the ~90% I had re-calculated above).


    I still do not know how I got 99%. I think I just used the STP value and ignored the effect of heat on the density of air. Mizuno's spreadsheets are much more sophisticated, yet he got 99% too, which mystifies me. I haven't had time to look into it.


    I am busy with !#@%!! PowerPoint. Did you know that PowerPoint slides converted to JPG or TIF images always come out at 96 dpi? And there is no option to change that except by fiddling around with the Microsoft Windows Register? Did you want to know that? No, of course you didn't. Neither did I. More useless information. Here is a program used by millions and they don't even have an option to convert images to a publishable format.

  • I still do not know how I got 99%. I think I just used the STP value and ignored the effect of heat on the density of air. Mizuno's spreadsheets are much more sophisticated, yet he got 99% too, which mystifies me. I haven't had time to look into it.


    I am busy with !#@%!! PowerPoint. Did you know that PowerPoint slides converted to JPG or TIF images always come out at 96 dpi? And there is no option to change that except by fiddling around with the Microsoft Windows Register? Did you want to know that? No, of course you didn't. Neither did I. More useless information. Here is a program used by millions and they don't even have an option to convert images to a publishable format.

    Maybe you have another set of 200W measurements we could go through.


    Once I insulate the box fully, I figure that I should get a bit better than 90% recovery with no other changes. I used up one 2’ x 10’ roll of foil bubble wrap already, covering only 2/3 or so of the outside. If the improvement in recovery is expressed in air temperature increase, then the delta T will start getting quite large at increased input. I already have a delta T of 14.x C at ~200W.


    I should have a vane anemometer by November that is 72 mm diameter (blades?) that I will attach to the end of my 65 mm diameter outlet tube somehow. I can then compare that velocity to my traverse results.

  • Maybe you have another set of 200W measurements we could go through.


    I just checked them. Mizuno's calculation from that time showed nearly 100% recovery. I do not think that included heat losses from the calorimeter walls, because the 500 W reaction did not. See pages 4 - 6:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf


    I do not know what to make of it, and I do not have time to deal with it this week or next.

  • I just checked them. Mizuno's calculation from that time showed nearly 100% recovery. I do not think that included heat losses from the calorimeter walls, because the 500 W reaction did not. See pages 4 - 6:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf


    I do not know what to make of it, and I do not have time to deal with it this week or next.

    The temperature delta, outlet temperature, and average velocity for 200W calibrations (and any other input power calibrations), if different from the power point page 19 plot, are all I am really looking for. Everything else we know or can calculate. Whenever you have time.

  • JedRothwell


    Hey Jed. I suppose you are doing something like this video:


    I wonder if converting to Google Slides and then saving as jpeg might serve your needs.


    https://www.businessinsider.co…werpoint-to-google-slides



    I feel your pain. First convert, then save. The tedium of life sings us to sleep and sometimes makes for nightmares. Then again, the alternative revolts us, and we sometimes garner inspiration from toil and hardship.


    Our forebears might find our challenges inconsequential. Fuel for invention surrounds us.

  • The temperature delta, outlet temperature, and average velocity for 200W calibrations (and any other input power calibrations), if different from the power point page 19 plot,


    Referring to this document:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf


    Look at the poster starting on p. 30. The page numbers start over again. The results are on poster pages 4 and 5. See the 500 W calibration on p. 5, with 90% recovery. This is also shown in the blue calibration data point well below the line on p. 6, with the arrow saying "500 W." The other calibrations are mainly 200 W and they are also below the line. So, losses from the calorimeter walls are not included.


    Now go page back to p. 15, and look at the control and the excess heat run. Mizuno calculates a recovery rate of 99% for the control. So did I, but he did it more carefully.


    Notice his method for this set of tests. He measures all energy output, from the time the power goes on, until the cell is turned off and the temperature falls back to room temperature. (See p. 16.) That takes 37 kiloseconds in this case, or 10.3 hours. That does not explain the discrepancy, because the two methods produce roughly the same output/input ratio, as shown below.


    There is also some heat coming in from the fan, for reasons I still do not understand. Fan power was not included in the input power for the old data set. It is now.


    Here is a more recent 200 W calibration, from 2018-12-26:



    Input power: 197 W

    Output after stabilizing around 1:21: 155 W

    Recovery rate: 79%


    Events:


    Turn on power 0:13

    Turn off power 5:26

    Stop recording 6:53


    Total input joules between 0:13 and 6:53: 3.7 MJ

    Total output joules between 0:13 and 6:53: 2.9 MJ

    78% recovery rate



    So, as I said, I don't know what to make of it. More recent calibrations and excess heat runs are probably more careful and reliable.

  • JedRothwell ,

    Thanks for looking into this.


    FWIW, I got 80% (+/- 1%) recovery with insulation on top and bottom of the calorimeter box, but uninsulated sides, in three consecutive tests.


    I fully insulated the outside of the box last night, and will heat it up today to see what improvement it made. I am a little leery of putting the bubble foil insulation on the inside of the box, especially on the inside top, because if it falls onto the hot calibration tube it will be awful. There will be melting, if not fire. I’m not sure how to ensure the insulation stays put on the inside.


    Do you have the temperature data for the above plot? I am wondering how well my temperature vs input heater power is matching with Mizuno’s, as well as how the air heat was calculated.

  • Do you have the temperature data for the above plot?


    Which temperatures? Here are some for times 1:40 - 5:00


    Inlet air temp: ~23°C most of the time. See graph below. The room temperature was warmed with a room heater during the test. This is in December.


    Av. Input 197.45 W

    Av. Output 153.82 W

    Avg. Delta T 9.10°C (outlet minus inlet air)

    Avg. reactor temp 35.02°C (this is the surface temperature of the inactive NOT IN USE reactor surface)

    Avg. control temp 363.28°C (active "control" reactor)

    St dev 12.58

    Max 390.90°C (active reactor)

    Min 327.35°C

    Max-Min 63.55°C


    Control (active) reactor surface temperature:


    Inlet air temperature:


  • I fully insulated the outside of the box last night, and will heat it up today to see what improvement it made. I am a little leery of putting the bubble foil insulation on the inside of the box, especially on the inside top, because if it falls onto the hot calibration tube it will be awful.


    I suggest you run only during the day when you can keep an eye on it.

  • Avg. reactor temp 35.02°C (this is the surface temperature of the inactive NOT IN USE reactor surface)


    AND, I expect this is the temperature of the inside wall of the calorimeter box. Not very hot. So maybe you should not worry about the insulation temperature? On the other hand, if the bubble foil falls off the wall onto the reactor (which is at 363°C), that might be a problem. I suggest you heat some metal up to ~363°C and hold a piece of bubble insulation up against it to see what happens. I expect the plastic will melt, but maybe nothing bad other than that. The stuff is probably engineered to avoid fire hazards.

  • JedRothwell ,

    Do you have an average air velocity that goes with that above data?


    Just plugging the numbers in, using 3.957 m/s (from the earlier example) and 1.293 kg/m3 for air density, the recovery I calculated is 81.3421 %.

    Using the outlet air temperature and 60 % humidity to determine air density, 1.448 kg/m3, the recovery result is 72.0189 %.


    (Edited the recovery slightly due to using 65 mm rather 66 mm for outlet diameter the first time).