MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from RobertBryant

perhaps a short educational thread on spreadsheet statistical analysis would be in order

with the binomial approximation for mean=np and SD =SQRTnpq

Sounds great! Let’s start over with a Mizuno spreadsheet that is a lot newer than 3 years old.

I added some information from Saito et al., including a schematic of the equipment, and calibrations and excess heat tests at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. See pages 6 - 12:

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

Quote from JedRothwell

I added some information from Saito et al., including a schematic of the equipment, and calibrations and excess heat tests at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. See pages 6 - 12:

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

Interesting!
One question: doesn’t the output power graph of the 72W calibration run look weird with a decreasing slope?

Quote from milton

One question: doesn’t the output power graph of the 72W calibration run look weird with a decreasing slope?

Yes, it does look weird. I don't know what to make of it.

I have the other graphs. I will look at them more closely to see if they have something similar.

Quote from Curbina

It seems it worked far better at 500W. Can they do 500W again?

That does seem to be the sweet spot. I think they are going to step through a whole set of power levels again to see if that shows up again. I assume this is the optimum temperature, not the power lever per se.

Think I would improve the insulation so that more energy is captured by the airflow calorimeter. I know that the results apparently show excess heat compared to the calibration but the coincidence referred to (power captured = input power) gives too much ammunition to the nay sayers. Just double up the insulation and get rid of it.

no trigger point at any graph, hard to believe it.

Why does it take 80000 seconds to reach steady state with the 500 W calibration, and it reaches steady state in 20000 seconds with 500 W input with excess heat?

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

page 13, 14.
"Temperature Distribution Study The image and graph below are from a study of the surface temperature of a reactor. The reactor is producing approximately 300 W, including ~30% excess heat. This is an approximate estimation because the reactor is in open air rather than in a calorimeter. The thermocouple is mounted on the surface at the point marked K. Some other points on the surface marked with blue dots were at a significantly higher temperature than point K. The mesh is under these points, which supports the conclusion it is the source of excess heat."

if the spring outside the cylinder is the heating resistance, the temperature matches perfectly its position more than the mesh position.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Why does it take 80000 seconds to reach steady state with the 500 W calibration, and it reaches steady state in 20000 seconds with 500 W input with excess heat?

I assume that is the effect of excess heat. It heats up faster. Or it might be because the calibration reactor heats up slower than the active reactor. I do not think they are exactly the same, as they were in some of Mizuno's experiments.

Quote from Cipolla

if the spring outside the cylinder is the heating resistance, the temperature matches perfectly its position more than the mesh position.

Yes, I think this is a calibration run. You can see the reactor is not placed in the calorimeter, so even if there were excess heat, you wouldn't know that.

Quote from Cipolla

no trigger point at any graph, hard to believe it.

What "trigger points" do you expect? What other cold fusion data shows them? F&P triggered the effect with a heat pulse, but I do not know of others who had discrete trigger methods or points.

Quote from JedRothwell

What "trigger points" do you expect? What other cold fusion data shows them? F&P triggered the effect with a heat pulse, but I do not know of others who had discrete trigger methods or points.

i expect to see a point where the power has a clear rise, this is the trigger point where the reaction start.

to me all those graphs looks like a standard electrical heater, the increment from lenr start at room temperature and continue up to the equilibrium, this is not credible.

something like this

Quote from JedRothwell

I assume that is the effect of excess heat. It heats up faster. Or it might be because the calibration reactor heats up slower than the active reactor. I do not think they are exactly the same, as they were in some of Mizuno's experiments.

Is the calibration unit vacuumed out and filled with just a tiny squirt of gas just like the active (but minus the mesh)?

Quote from Cipolla

i expect to see a point where the power has a clear rise, this is the trigger point where the reaction start.

to me all those graphs looks like a standard electrical heater, the increment from lenr start at room temperature and continue up to the equilibrium, this is not credible.

something like this

Exactly. Other than the little bump shown in one example, the heat just monotonously rises from the start, but goes higher than the calibration. It is like the reaction ‘knows’ it will be anomalous.

JedRothwell ,

Is there available an equivalent to Figure 3 for the excess heat period?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Exactly. Other than the little bump shown in one example, the heat just monotonously rises from the start, but goes higher than the calibration. It is like the reaction ‘knows’ it will be anomalous.

Paradigmnoia & Cipolla: Disagree IF the output was say 50 extra degrees or 250 more watts when temp is calibrated to power than the control because excess heat might be a continuous function of temperature; such that the slope is increased without a bump. There would only be a bump if there was a way to "turn on" the excess heat when already at calibration temperature.

I am not impressed that we have a definitive demonstration if the excess temperature is only say 10 degrees on a 200 C base, i.e. that could be caused by other variations in the control vs. the active run (especially if the control unit and reactor unit are not literally the same piece of hardware).

Quote from anonymous

Paradigmnoia & Cipolla: Disagree IF the output was say 50 extra degrees or 250 more watts when temp is calibrated to power than the control because excess heat might be a continuous function of temperature; such that the slope is increased without a bump. There would only be a bump if there was a way to "turn on" the excess heat when already at calibration temperature.

I am not impressed that we have a definitive demonstration if the excess temperature is only say 10 degrees on a 200 C base, i.e. that could be caused by other variations in the control vs. the active run (especially if the control unit and reactor unit are not literally the same piece of hardware).

If the control is so different that the calibration and excess at the same heat level have very different thermal constants, then the control is rather poor for the purpose.

In figure 5 (excess at 500 W input) there is a small spike in output power with no change in input (as Jed notes), but there is a drop and also a spike in output power in the calibration for the “750 W” (~700 W) plot (figure 8).