MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • perverse desire to make yourself look smarter than Martin Fleischmann

    more outlandish nonsense

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

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


    wrt Mizuno allege pasting (= Rothwell truncation) and

    "

    THHnew

    14th Sept


    “Strangely, he(Ascoli) considered rounding effects (= truncation) in much more detail than did RB above”



    THHnew

    14th Sept


    Dear all, in the interests of communication, can anyone other than RB understand how his point relates to the heater issue?

  • a Mizuno spreadsheet that is a lot newer than 3 years old.

    The truncation/pasting issue was only with a small part and only with the 2017 spreadsheets

    it never impacted on the calorimetry at more than 0.2% level but formed the basis of vexatious attack..

    it is not relevant to replication but may be interesting from the POV of high school level statistics..which I did in year10

  • 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.


    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.


    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.


    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.

  • 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

  • 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)?


  • 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.

  • the increment from lenr start at room temperature and continue up to the equilibrium, this is not credible.


    AFAK The thermocouple that measures the fuel temperature has little to do with the thermocouple monitoring the heater temperature. It is all a question of position. The fuel starts out at room temperature, picks up radiant heat from the heater and the temperature slowly climbs, then it hits a trigger temperature (which JedRothwell is something I see often) and the excess heat lifts it to a new level. Simples.

  • 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).

  • 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).