MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • I am finally in condition to do a first fueled runs. Not too much time...

    During calibration one question came to my mind. When I insert nickel mesh inside the reactor it will change thermal conductivity to some extent. But how much it will affect readings then?

    I mean the empty space filled with hydrogen during calibration becomes non-empty. So the way how heat from the core is delivered to the reactor surface will certainly change somehow.

    So I recommend to perform calibrations with unprepared Nickel mesh.

    Eventually we could see excess heat at the outer reactor shell in comparison to such calibration. But in my opinion error will be not greater than 5%.


    Another aspect is - Mizuno recommend to fill reactor with Deuterium when it is OFF. But pressure is changing very noticeably during heating.

    In my case from 200 Pa at room temperature to 2000 Pascals at the max. heater power.

    Is it indended that pressure is still at 200 Pascals during whole run? Because this factor is extremely dependent on the reactor construction. Shall we try to hold the constant pressure?

    What if pressure is changed by the reaction or by fuel during run? Calibration will then not match likely.

  • I am finally in condition to do a first fueled runs. Not too much time...

    During calibration one question came to my mind. When I insert nickel mesh inside the reactor it will change thermal conductivity to some extent. But how much it will affect readings then?


    Desireless : The best thing you can do is to run extended sets of calibration runs with varying pressure. The heat transport function of Hydrogen is highly non linear as it interacts with most metals. You could use a dummy iron mesh to simulate the setup. To avoid further discussions calibrations are sometimes of greater value than the measurements. I would spend some days doing it properly. Especially in the range where Mizuno did see excess heat I would run fine grain calibrations with varying T,p. Further you need at least 2-3 (different p) full runs with starting at ambient T up to the full reaction Temperature.


    Best would be to start all full runs at ambient to avoid (false peaks) possible shifts by phase changes of e.g. the reactor surface/mesh.


    The more careful you do the report the higher its value!

  • Usually there are optimal T points for LENR reactions. You can have multiple stable points. But currently you need a stimulus to uphold the proliferation of H*/D*. Once we are able to produce better fuels we could do it without stimulation. But then the control will be a severe challenge...

    A subcritical system that requires constant pulsed input, modulated control signals or radiative light input is desired. There are situations where a little criticality is desired, but make sure you got everything in place to help!

  • Data from last test plotted up and examined.

    Ended up with a best Delta T of 15.9, which is 0.1 C less than the previous maximum. With input power bouncing around a little bit, that is basically the same.

    However, steady-state operation began an hour earlier than previous tests, so reducing the calorimeter air inlet opening (but not actually causing an air restriction), was a good improvement.

    .

  • The best thing you can do is to run extended sets of calibration runs with varying pressure. The heat transport function of Hydrogen is highly non linear as it interacts with most metals.

    As I pointed out several times, the heat transport function of hydrogen cannot possibly affect Mizuno's method of calorimetry. The heat is measured outside the reactor. So, what is your point? Why do you say this? Is Desireless trying to measure the heat in the reactor?

  • JedRothwell You are right. But hydrogen is medium which has direct influence on the outer temperature. I know heat can't be lost, so a proper calorimetry is needed. When measuring with IR Camera you HAVE to measure from each side to calculate it properly. Measurement with TC can also lead in a false interpretation.


    Following conditions could occur:

    a) Powerin = 200W, Pcore = 300 Pa, Theater = 500°C,Tshell = 200°C, Powerout = ??? calculated from Tshell = FATAL ERROR

    b) Powerin = 200W, Pcore = 300 kPa, Theater = 400°C, Tshell = 400°C, Powerout = ??? calculated from Tshell = FATAL ERROR or we have COP = 2 ?? Certainly no. But for man unskilled in the art it would look so.


    In other words, I can change internal pressure to change external temperature. External temperature is not good indicator for measuring excess heat because of this, temp must be measured everywhere, including inside the core.

    OR one must perform calibration with exactly same internal reactor conditions as with fueled run - this is my case since I have no calorimetry.


    Absolutely convincing factor would be if Theater < Tshell. I think that with COP around 10 this might easily happen.

  • this is my case since I have no calorimetry.


    Then you are on a sticky wicket. This kind of work in general demands an enveloping type of reactor like Mizuno' or possibly immersion calorimetry using an oil-bath. Thermometry will be fraught with problems unless you create a matched pair of reactors (control and test) that enable accurate comparisons throughout an experiment. That would be probably more difficult than building a calorimeter.

  • If I understand it correctly, excess heat can be measured (according the paper) right from 100°C at the outer shell. This mean that the Nickel mesh might have just slightly higher temperature if it is in a close contact with stainless steel, am I right?

  • The thermal conductivity of 316SS is quite low, so you might find a hot-spot outside where the mesh is in close contact with the reactor inner wall. But move your thermocouple a centimetre or less and you will find another spot at a different temperature - working as you are they are incredibly sensitive to position errors. The end result of this is is often very confusing unless you are talking about very vigorous LENR events giving sufficient delta-T to remove all doubt.

  • For this reason my setup has:

    • TC for sheath heater
    • IR Camera for whole reactor shell - can measure any point at the reactor
    • IR Gun for verification
    • Pressure gauge with around 50 mPa resolution
    • All data logged


    And of course black body paint for reactor shell.

  • Have you tried to direct the air flow from a fan heater to the exterior walls of your box?

    Maybe it's possible to reproduce the strange behavior shown in Figure 6. "Calibration and excess heat at 72 W."

    See also The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

    I am attempting several sorts of artifact inducement. So far the calorimeter is remarkably robust.


    My box currently has an air gap between the exterior bubble foil and the acrylic box, so outside influences are minimal. The interior acrylic can heat up, but transfers little to the outer surface (or vice-versa, presumably). Previous tests showed about a 10% improvement in heat recovery from adding the air gap.


    Previously, before the air gap was introduced, active cooling of the outside would probably have lowered the maximum interior temperature, and therefore decrease the outlet air temperature.

  • I am attempting several sorts of artifact inducement. So far the calorimeter is remarkably robust.


    My box currently has an air gap between the exterior bubble foil and the acrylic box, so outside influences are minimal. The interior acrylic can heat up, but transfers little to the outer surface (or vice-versa, presumably). Previous tests showed about a 10% improvement in heat recovery from adding the air gap.


    Previously, before the air gap was introduced, active cooling of the outside would probably have lowered the maximum interior temperature, and therefore decrease the outlet air temperature.


    Thank you.


    Your box is much better insulated than the Saito calorimeter shown in Figure 1 (1). The latter has a metal frame, probably in aluminum, and only one layer of bubble foil which separates the interior space from the external air. Needless to say, I would be very curious to see what would happen if you remove the interior acrylic box and leave only the exterior bubble box. Maybe it could be the right sort of artifact inducement to attempt.


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

  • Thank you.


    Your box is much better insulated than the Saito calorimeter shown in Figure 1 (1). The latter has a metal frame, probably in aluminum, and only one layer of bubble foil which separates the interior space from the external air. Needless to say, I would be very curious to see what would happen if you remove the interior acrylic box and leave only the exterior bubble box. Maybe it could be the right sort of artifact inducement to attempt.


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

    As was discussed on this thread earlier, bubble foil is terrible as insulation if it can conduct heat anywhere. The reflective properties of bubble foil are only effective when used with an air gap on both sides, in still air. (The R value of bubble foil is 1.)

  • You are right. But hydrogen is medium which has direct influence on the outer temperature. I know heat can't be lost, so a proper calorimetry is needed. When measuring with IR Camera you HAVE to measure from each side to calculate it properly. Measurement with TC can also lead in a false interpretation.


    For a proper control you must have many different measurements points. Just looking at the heat that shines up with a delay of some 10 seconds does usually not work out. This might be the main reason why most replications fail as they miss some critical point.

    As I pointed out several times, the heat transport function of hydrogen cannot possibly affect Mizuno's method of calorimetry. The heat is measured outside the reactor. So, what is your point? Why do you say this? Is Desireless trying to measure the heat in the reactor?


    This is OK only for a perfect reactor that works at a steady state with constant input power. For understanding the reaction you need to do more.

  • As was discussed on this thread earlier, bubble foil is terrible as insulation if it can conduct heat anywhere. The reflective properties of bubble foil are only effective when used with an air gap on both sides, in still air. (The R value of bubble foil is 1.)


    So, you are confirming that the calorimeter at Hokkaido University of Science is totally inadequate to isolate the interior space from the external air.


    Is it possible, in your opinion, that the 3 down spikes at the end of the "excess heat" test at 72 W, held on October 23, were simply caused by the late activation (during the evening) of a fan heater, operated in an on-off cycle?


    Couldn't be possible that the regular trend of the corresponding calibration test at 72 W, held on December 2, does converge to a lower value due to the permanent activation from the beginning of the same fan heater?


    (Here you can find the temperatures in Sapporo: https://www.timeanddate.com/we…storic?month=12&year=2019 )

  • The 72 W power drop/recovery part is something other than a reactor cooling heating effect, in my opinion, because it took 12000 seconds to raise the power from 60 W to 70 W the first time, and around 1200 seconds the next few times. Without overshooting the previous maximum of 70 W. The largest thermal mass in the calorimeter is the reactor, which as seen from the calibration and excess periods, requires a long time period to change temperature and therefore the outlet air temperature from which power is calculated.


    More similar to someone opening the side panel and putting it back on.

  • JedRothwellYou are right. But hydrogen is medium which has direct influence on the outer temperature. I know heat can't be lost, so a proper calorimetry is needed.

    Do you mean the outer temperature of the reactor? If so:


    1. No, the hydrogen cannot change the terminal outer temperature of the reactor. It can only make it reach that temperature slower or faster. The terminal temperature if a function of the power inside, only. It cannot be affected by the gas. If it could be, you could set up two cells with different gases, have one hotter than the other, and you would have a perpetual motion machine in violation of thermodynamics.


    2. Even if the temperature was different, and it was not a magic violation of thermodynamics (meaning it did not mean more energy was coming out of the hotter cell), this magic would have no effect on the calorimetry. Because the calorimetry is not based on the reactor surface temperature. It is not based on the internal temperature either.


    This is not complicated. I suggest you learn more about flow calorimeters before speculating about them.