MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

this debate is about what I see.
there is an excess heat starting as soon as switch on the electric heater, with a curve behaving like an electric heater, what should i say?
frankly, or there is a measurement error or a cheating, it is really hard to believe there is a new reaction behaving exactly like an electrical heater. at least in this document.

one more note: in the experiment with COP 20 (if I remember properly), the heater values 1 and the "LENR" values 20 for the output heat.
if I switch off the electrical heater 1, I expect the "LENR" 20 still continue producing heat, if the excess heat is starting near to room temperature and it is temperature dependent. has be done this test?

Quote from Gerard McEk

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.

Definition of thermal inertia: the degree of slowness with which the temperature of a body approaches that of its surroundings and which is dependent upon its absorptivity, its specific heat, its thermal conductivity, its dimensions, and other factors. Other factors - heat exchange with the environment.

In other words, thermal inertia characterizes the ability to resist changes in temperature over a certain time.

The heating time is practically independent of the heating power. But the final temperature depends on the heating power.

If it takes 22 hours to reach thermal equilibrium at 500 W, I would start with putting those fire bricks outside of the calorimeter envelope.

Quote from Curbina

Support your insinuations, or otherwise you are offering grounds for being banned.

We don’t tolerate this kind of statements unless is factually supported.

The support is that the power curve looks just like a resistance heater.

If charcoal was burning inside (your earlier example) it would not self ignite at room temperature, and then scale its heat output to an electrical heater input, and it would continue to burn if the heater was turned off.

Quote from Curbina

I refer to support of the alegation of measuremente error/cheating. The interpretation of the results is open to debate, but this is questioning of the data and the intentions of the data.

An insinuation of incorrect interpretation of the data is completely different than an insinuation of measuring error/cheating. Measuring error would be that when 100°C is reported the actual temperature is not 100°C, Cheating would be that the entire data set is either fabricated or performed with intention to deceive.

A valid criticism would be debating if the methodology employed by the replicators can really detect excess heat.

One can argue that the calibration is performed in a way that invalidates the comparation with the active run. I see no evidence of that, besides nit picking at irrelevant minutia as if the calibration runs with a mesh inside or not (which I dont know but think is irrelevant in terms of explaining the different output of calibration vs active runs), assuming the gases and pressures inside the chamber are the same in both runs as is reported.

Can you explain to me how the same electric energy, applied to the same resistance can produce that much different temperature output in the same reactor, with the only difference of the addition of a few miligrams of Pd rubbed in a few grams of nickel mesh inside the reactor, comparing the calibration vs the experimental run? Do you think that somehow magically the heater becomes more efficient just by having the mesh inside?

If you can explain that without telling thet the experiment is fake, then I am all ears.

Display More

Well, I doubt cheating is what is going on.

I think I have an inkling of a solution (which is not LENR), but testing it may be difficult for me. I am working out how to test parts of my hypothesis.

It is entirely possible that the air heating is way more effective with a strong vacuum in the test device, however the calibration device must not also have a strong vacuum for this hypothesis to work. Jed hasn't answered if the calibration device was evacuated like the active device yet. We don't even know if the calibration device is remotely the same as the active device yet, actually. I know better than to presume that it is.

The coincidence that the input and output for "active" devices are almost unity at all inputs is a bit sketchy, but some insulation addition should fix that up,

Quote from RobertBryant

I look forward to the fleshedout hypothesis and the worked out test.. perhaps it will be worthy of a new thread

Anyhoo, at 200W, it takes about 3 hours for my Mizuno-type calorimeter to stabilize. (That has internal heating).

.

Edit: This is probably 220 W input. I was mostly testing the outlet temperature stability with two thermocouples and didn’t take a lot of notes.

Quote from RobertBryant

Your reactor/heater is 50 cm long?

Room T is 12.5 C..well controlled? I wish..

We will crack 40 C in North Ryde NSW at 3pm.

That was the shop temperature at the end of October. Well-controlled by Mother Nature and some rather poor insulation. At least it isn’t drafty.

I posted a photo of the big cylinder in the calorimeter box (without the insulation) a few months ago. It has the heater element that I built, with ceramic end plates, inside the stainless tube.

Quote from Cipolla

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 do not think so. I would say it looks like excess heat starts up fairly soon at a very low level, and then increases with temperature. It causes the total heat output to increase faster and to a higher level than with the calibration runs. Remember that this is not a direct measurement of the reaction or the reactor temperature. It is a measurement of the heat coming out of the calorimeter. There will be a considerable delay, and the heat will be muffled by the steel reactor and the calorimeter components.

Quote from Gerard McEk

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.

I do not understand this comment. You can see the end temperatures. Just ignore the data before the data before the curve reaches a peak and stabilizes. Note, however, that it does not always stay at a stable level. See especially Fig. 6, p. 10.

Quote from Alan Smith

Having different gases and/or different gas pressures would cause huge variations in calibration. I would expect anyone with a passing knowledge of physics to know that - but you cannot be sure of course.

I suppose more calibration details will dribble out over the next few weeks.

Quote from Alan Smith

Having different gases and/or different gas pressures would cause huge variations in calibration.

Not with an air flow calorimeter after a while. With different gases (or a vacuum) the heat come out of the reactor more quickly or more slowly. This changes the shape of the initial curve. But after everything stabilizes and the curve flattens out, the power level will be the same. It is the same no matter what gas is in a cell, or with a bare resistance heater and no cell.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Well-controlled by Mother Nature and some rather poor insulation. At least it isn’t drafty.

In other words, not well controlled. Being drafty is the pitts. It makes the measurements imprecise. Reasonably accurate but imprecise.

JedRothwell ,

Does the Hokkaido University calorimeter box have acrylic panels in addition to the bubble foil?
It is hard to tell from the photo.