# MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

1) I am assuming that the power outputs in the new MizunoTsupplement.pdf were generated using the same airflow calorimetry techniques as the earlier Mizuno papers? Is this correct?

2) Calibration in figure 3, page 7 is in 'arbitrary units'. What's the conversion from arbitrary units for "Air In" an "air out" to temperature in degrees C, i.e. how high a rise are we seeing?

3) Are there photos available in the as tested configuration (including surface polish to know emissivity and surface area are both about the same) of the the control unit vs the active unit? Is the placement of the heater unit within the control vs. active reactor unit the same. Or is is actually the same reactor unit with different gas or metal mesh? Do they have the same gas at the same pressure/vacuum inside the unit during the test, or is one running for example presumed to be inert nitrogen or helium, while the other runs hydrogen (with different conductivities)?

4) Why is the input air hotter for the first 10000 or so seconds?

5) I am assuming the airflow is the same for control vs active run. Is that correct.

6) Do we have available the raw input and output air temperature of the control run and the active run. I agree entirely with Jed's earlier statement (6 months back) that a significant rise in the output temperature (i.e. more than X degrees) running a similar reactor with same interior gas and the same airflow almost certainly has to be excess heat. So for example the 345 watt calibration run may have output temperature of around 200C while the active run having output of around 250C or above would be difficult to explain as anything other than significant excess heat. This lets us on the outside confirm the reasonableness of the calibration calculation.

If all other things being equal the reactor gets a LOT hotter, it _is_ excess heat. +50C on 200C is a LOT hotter. +75C more so. Such a signal can more than compensate for the "noise" of variation in reactor emissivity or internal gas conduction. We can leave the details to the excess power calibration for later, but at least focus now on the Mizuno type rig being a working and repeatable large excess heat producing unit. This supplement at 350 and 500 watts input looks like about COP 1.4 unit. Assuming the non-airflow captured heat can be used to heat the room, it's a 40% more efficient space heater! That's an economic start. (With better insulation around the walls and high temperature materials, input power can be reduced while lowering the airflow to maintain same reactor temperature, and thus COP can be improved.)

Thank you Jed. These are encouraging results.

• 1) I am assuming that the power outputs in the new MizunoTsupplement.pdf were generated using the same airflow calorimetry techniques as the earlier Mizuno papers? Is this correct?

It is similar, but the instruments are better, and the environment is much better controlled.

2) Calibration in figure 3, page 7 is in 'arbitrary units'. What's the conversion from arbitrary units for "Air In" an "air out" to temperature in degrees C, i.e. how high a rise are we seeing?

Actually, I wrote "arbitrary units." The Japanese version did not have any label. I do not think these are converted; I think they just used a range of numbers that worked for all values; i.e. temperature, voltage, pressure . . . Maybe they multiplied one to make it fit? I don't have the actual spreadsheet available on this computer, so I can't tell.

3) Are there photos available in the as tested configuration (including surface polish to know emissivity and surface area are both about the same) of the the control unit vs the active unit?

I do not think they are the same. But surface polish etc. cannot affect the inlet and outlet thermocouples, or the external temperature measurements used to confirm them. Mizuno ended up using a variety of control cells, including ordinary resistance heaters, and heaters of various sizes. There was no measurable difference between them. That's the beauty of flow calorimetry. The temperatures are measured some distance away from the reaction, so they are not directly affected by the reaction, and not affected at all by the reactor size, geometry or surface.

4) Why is the input air hotter for the first 10000 or so seconds?

I don't know. I guess the room was hotter. I guess the environmental controls could be better. Anyway, there are fewer short term fluctuations.

5) I am assuming the airflow is the same for control vs active run. Is that correct.

Yes. It wouldn't be a control run otherwise!

6) Do we have available the raw input and output air temperature of the control run and the active run.

Only for the 500 W tests.

• It is similar, but the instruments are better, and the environment is much better controlled.

...

Only for the 500 W tests.

Thank you Jed

• overlay of calibration and excess heat curves for 500W

• where the LERN reaction starts?

• overlay of calibration and excess heat curves for 500W

Thank you.
Can you please try adding the calibration output trace from the 700 W plot also?

• where the LERN reaction starts?

different thermal inertia in the graphs indicates that the graphs are valid for different devices

• different thermal inertia in the graphs indicates that the graphs are valid for different devices

can also be different input power.

• Can you please try adding the calibration output trace from the 700 W plot also?

the 3 curves match perfectly standard electrical heaters with relative different power.
it is hard to find a LENR reaction here.

• can also be different input power.

Thermal inertia independent of power

• the 3 curves match perfectly standard electrical heaters with relative different power.
it is hard to find a LENR reaction here.

Great work.

The evidence is clear that using low input power is wasting hours of our precious time waiting for steady state to occur when adding more power shortens the wait logarithmically. (Until the onset of diminishing experimental returns due to equipment failure)

• The evidence is clear that using low input power is wasting hours of our precious time waiting for steady state to occur when adding more power shortens the wait logarithmically. (Until the onset of diminishing experimental returns due to equipment failure)

wrong conclusion

• Official Post

wrong conclusion

Can you explain your thinking in a little more detail?

• Is someone able to mark on my pic where the LENR start?

• Можете ли вы объяснить свое мышление более подробно?

With pleasure, when I get to the computer

• can also be different input power.

The input power is the same. The output power is different; there is excess heat. That's the whole point. Granted, that could be wrong, but it is the simplest explanation for the difference in the curves.

the 3 curves match perfectly standard electrical heaters with relative different power.
it is hard to find a LENR reaction here.

I do not see why you say that. There is excess heat from the cold fusion reaction nearly the whole time. There is no sudden onset. This is what other reactions look like.

• Is someone able to mark on my pic where the LENR start?

It is there the whole time. Or it starts up gradually, close to the beginning. I believe you are expecting a sudden onset. Some experiments show a sudden onset, but others do not.

• Official Post

JedRothwell , the 72W calibration starts hotter than what is achieved with the input, the calibration was started from a hotter previous calibration?

I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

• do not see why you say that. There is excess heat from the cold fusion reaction nearly the whole time. There is no sudden onset. This is what other reactions look like.

exactly it looks like that, a kind of magic he got a LENR starting around room temperature and behaving like a standard electrical heater, can we expect something better than this?
i just keep smiling....

• To avoid these discussions about thermal inertia, it would have been better to log only end temperatures where the temperature is stabilized in time at a given input power. The same can be done with the active run. Calculate a curve through the calibrated points (temp. Vs power) and use this equation to calculate the power at the logged active points temperatures and subtract that from the input power in the active points. The result are excess power points that can be plotted against input power or temperature. It is a bit more work, but a lot more clear to show.