MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Wyttenbach

Don't mix your picture with my picture, that is also the physics picture behind LENR. The maximum amount of energy that can drain out of D*-D*, D*-A, H*-H*-A is given by the coupling magnetic moment.

I am not presupposing any particular mechanism for the LENR phenomenon. What I am saying is that if you contend that the rate of heat release from the fuel increases with temperature, then there should be an inflection/trigger point.

Roughly speaking, what shape do you predict for a plot the rate of the reaction vs temperature?

Quote from JedRothwell

Cold fusion data shows that sometimes there is a distinct ignition point, but sometimes there is not. Why not? Who knows!?

A problem with the Hokkaido and Rothwell/Mizuno data is that the calibration runs also sometimes have an inflection/ignition point and sometimes not. My worry is there appear to be LENR active runs that do not show an inflection point. If the LENR mechanism is temperature sensitive then there should be one.

This is more important than you seem to believe. I will remind you once again that 1-2 years ago you referred me to a figure from Fleischmann's work that he (Fleischmann) said in a letter was the most significant figure he had ever seen. It showed an inflection point.

Quote from THHuxleynew

There might be thus-and-such a problem.

Specifically, a difference between active and cal runs that results in 30% less heat output from the calorimeter on cal run than on active.

All that is needed for this is for the reactor, or possibly some elements inside the reactor with thermal bridge to outside, to be much hotter during cal conditions cf active. As Jed points out an equilibrium is reached in which the heat out is still the heat in (roughly). However this can be with different temperature of the reactor and therefore different heat loss. The reactor temperature depends on the cooling of the air, the internal heater temperature depends on configuration and internal gasses (relevant if this thermally bridges outside the reactor.

How would I check? Increase by factor of 2 the insulation everywhere and see whether apparent heat excess reduces.

The way these results scale makes them look like some such issue to me, but it is easy enough to check and provide convincing support if they are real.

(Quote space compressed to display entirely without "display more" button)

The more heat from either LENR or resistive heating, the greater the temperature of the reactor. The greater the temperature, the greater the transfer by radiation to the walls, convection via the cooling air, and conduction by the supporting hardware and the pipes. But if the thermal resistance of the conduction is the same, the thermal radiation transfer goes to the T^4 power, and the convection captures a similar amount at the same calibrated temperature, hotter output air means more power. It can be calibrated and we are assuming that the U Hokkaido crew did a reasonable job as it is not hard. That's it. While we don't have all the calibration data or run data (i.e. the temperatures in each setting), we can assume that Hokkaido did a replication. Once calibrated there is no need to recalibrate by changing the insulation. That's 1 replication.

Future replications will be forthcoming as the technique has been open sourced. It takes about 6 months it appears to do a replication. There are at least 3 other teams working right here on this forum. They will eventually be better documented. So we can just wait right here on the forum, or we can go out and do it ourselves.

If the signal to noise ratio is that good and if it is as simple as Mizuno says to create the reactor with the simple materials, we can't miss the signal in other replications.

Quote from THHuxleynew

As I said, nit picking. There is no evident way in which such a large difference in temperature with the same electric energy input can be explained by anything conventional.

The issue is what is the heat loss. I agree differences between cal and active cannot be larger than the total cal losses: but we do not have much info about what these are at the moment.

One caveat, if the in/out temperatures as measured are a not fair average of the air stream that would be another error that could be reactor temperature dependent (altering turbulence etc). Do we have info about that?

What difference does it make if there is a temperature error due to turbulence as long as temp measurement is consistent and monotonically increasing with actual temperature. Doesn't change the calibration, i.e. if a 500 watt inert control reactor makes the temperature rise 70C, and the active run shows an increase by 100C, that difference of 30C is positive and can be calibrated by running the control reactor at 600W, 700W, and 800W.

As long as the heat transfer is more or less the same between control and active reactor, it is calibrated. What could we be missing here THH? I know you're a skeptic and I want to hear it. I don't have this reactor in front of me to prove it for myself, but the report on its face seems like it would be proof if accurately reported. I'd like to see more details like in a peer reviewed paper (JCMNS is fine) where the reviewers point out missing elements in the paper and the authors fix the paper to improve its quality. But it seems pretty conclusive if the detail is provided. The details will come because Mizuno committed to open sourcing the test and we are doing it. Someone will write the conclusive paper.

Happy New Year All!

It would be nice to see the inlet and outlet temperature data.

If everything is behaving properly, the whole thing boils down to the delta T.

Quote from Bruce__H

If the LENR mechanism is temperature sensitive then there should be one.

Why? The total energy function f (T) can smoothly follow the increasing input energy. Just to remind you: There are reactions that start at room T where e.g. AR like reactions do not. You assumption does not work in them first case.

Quote from Bruce__H

A problem with the Hokkaido and Rothwell/Mizuno data is that the calibration runs also sometimes have an inflection/ignition point and sometimes not.

Where do you see that? There are fluctuations in Mizuno's data, caused by ambient temperature changes.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Why? The total energy function f (T) can smoothly follow the increasing input energy. Just to remind you: There are reactions that start at room T where e.g. AR like reactions do not. You assumption does not work in them first case.

My assumptions do, indeed, work in the case where reactions proceed at room temperature. In that case the ignition/inflection point would appear at a higher temperature.

I don't understand what your conception of the "total energy function f(T)" is. Do you mean the rate of energy release from the fuel as a function of temperature? If I picture this as roughly sigmoidal over a range of temperatures extending from room temperature (where the rate is low) up to several hundreds of degrees C (where the rate is higher) would this make sense?

Quote from Curbina

again an hypothetical scenario that in no way can be applied to the configuration reported.

Let us not allow facts get in the way of a good red herring.

Quote from Bruce__H

You won't find it now because the entire thread was deleted by the site administrators because of something to do with Russ George.

I think it was more to do with what Mike McKubre called Russ George. (Obnoxious & untrustworthy IIRC).

Quote from anonymous

What difference does it make if there is a temperature error due to turbulence as long as temp measurement is consistent and monotonically increasing with actual temperature. Doesn't change the calibration, i.e. if a 500 watt inert control reactor makes the temperature rise 70C, and the active run shows an increase by 100C, that difference of 30C is positive and can be calibrated by running the control reactor at 600W, 700W, and 800W.

As long as the heat transfer is more or less the same between control and active reactor, it is calibrated. What could we be missing here THH? I know you're a skeptic and I want to hear it. I don't have this reactor in front of me to prove it for myself, but the report on its face seems like it would be proof if accurately reported. I'd like to see more details like in a peer reviewed paper (JCMNS is fine) where the reviewers point out missing elements in the paper and the authors fix the paper to improve its quality. But it seems pretty conclusive if the detail is provided. The details will come because Mizuno committed to open sourcing the test and we are doing it. Someone will write the conclusive paper.

Happy New Year All!

To answer this: if the average out temp is different from the sensor temp due to non-mixed air, then many changes in conditions, e.g. small ones that will exist always between cal and active, could change this and result in a relatively large change in temperature. Of course it is possible to be pretty sure the air is mixed.

We know from the extensive analysis of m's system that there are a relatively small number of issues that need to be checked here, and I'd expect anyone now doing this stuff getting positive results to check them one by one:

• unmixed air out
• thermal bridging direct to sensor from hot case
• change in heat loss due to different airflow active vs cal
• change in heat loss due to thermal bridging from hot heater inside to outside
• errors due to room temp drift (I think easy to address, and maybe have been here)

Perhaps I've missed some but those seem the main issues to me.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

unmixed air out
thermal bridging direct to sensor from hot case
change in heat loss due to different airflow active vs cal
change in heat loss due to thermal bridging from hot heater inside to outside
errors due to room temp drift (I think easy to address, and maybe have been here)

Perhaps I've missed some but those seem the main issues to me.

Here is what you missed:

All of these things are dead easy to check for.

It is 100% obvious to every person who has ever used a flow calorimeter that you must check for these things.

Every book about calorimetery written in last 100 years such as Hemminger & Hohne tells you to look for these things.

You seem to think you are the first person in history to think about flow calorimetry, and you imagine that the people who do calorimetry are blithering idiots who were born yesterday and don't know the ABCs of high school level experiments.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is what you missed:

All of these things are dead easy to check for.

It is 100% obvious to every person who has ever used a flow calorimeter that you must check for these things.

Every book about calorimetery written in last 100 years such as Hemminger & Hohne tells you to look for these things.

You seem to think you are the first person in history to think about flow calorimetry, and you imagine that the people who do calorimetry are blithering idiots who were born yesterday and don't know the ABCs of high school level experiments.

Display More

Jed,

This summarises the (only) difference between us on this site.

You make assumptions. I don't. And you simplify. It may be 100% obvious those things need to be checked (is it, to everyone, given many replicators are not professionals in calorimetry?) - but the very fact that you are implying they are dead easy to check means that some may agree with you, do a superficial "making assumptions" check, and think all is good.

In fact, because thorough testing of all these things is not simple I think it likely that with early results they are not checked: reasonable assumptions will be made but not yet fully validated. That is the smart thing to do. And, equally, I'd expect those replicators all to agree with me not you and therefore know they have made assumptions, and do that checking carefully, reporting they have done it, before confirming initial promising results.

Maybe I'm wrong? We will see.

THH

Adiabatic temperature rise= 0.243 C

which is a large proportion of 0.35 C.(actually measured)

Oh, wow. I've not been reading here carefully. Is it really true that the results here are based on such a low temperature difference (out - in)? Surely not! It would be unsafe in lots of ways. And unnecessary because in any air calorimeter flow can be reduced to increase out - in temperature difference.

Anyway I guess I am taking your comment out of context?

Very low temperature changes are unsafe because then second order factors affecting the heat content of the air (like pressure - as in your adiabatic contribution, moisture) become more relevant. Though I can't see how moisture could be different between input and output.

we can try to imagine to switch off the electrical heater when we arrive to the plateau, what happens?
what for COP<2 and what for COP>2?

this in the hypothesis the lenr is heat activated.

The curve looks to me (different time constants for the same power levels) that insulation was changed or that the air flow changed. I would worry that the fan speed was correlated (say from same uncontrolled supply) to the system heater.

Quote from Cipolla

we can try to imagine to switch off the electrical heater when we arrive to the plateau, what happens?
what for COP<2 and what for COP>2?

this in the hypothesis the lenr is heat activated.

It depends on the details of the LENR mechanism, but broadly speaking you can think of fuel/reactor system as being multistable. There is an LENR-low stable state near room temperature and an LENR-on stable state at higher temperature. When the electrical heater pushes the temperature past a threshold the system travels up to its LENR-on state. Now, even if the electrical heater is turned off, the internal heating from the LENR mechanism keeps the system hot and the temperature plateaus. There are now 2 alternatives that depend on the nature of the LENR temperature sensitivity. Either the system stays on until the fuel is exhausted (or reaction-inhibiting products accumulate), or natural cooling may gradually cause the temperature to decline until it encounters a threshold after which the LENR-on state collapses and the system returns to its near room temperature stable state.

I am including here an Excel file I originally posted on the now defunct Atom-Ecology thread. This is a simplistic model (sigmoidal LENR temperature dependence, Newtonian cooling, lumped system) that nonetheless shows the phenomena I described. The chart at bottom centre shows the temperature time course. The chart at upper left shows the temperature dependence of LENR heat production (red) and the rate of cooling (blue). The chart at upper right shows how heating and cooling balance against each other. You can play with different configurations by changing the constant in the cells highlighted in yellow. Change the number in red and the 2 numbers to its right to alter the properties of the LENR temperature dependence. Once you make a change and hit enter, you will see corresponding changes in the 3 charts underneath.Temperature-dependent LENR.zip

if i do a test giving a COP of 20 I immediately do one ore run where i switch off the electrical heater once i arrive to the plateau.