MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Shane D.

Thx magicsound

I think it safe for me to relay that there was another Mizuno replication 1 month ago (12/4) at a Japanese University. The "under-reported" COP was 1.7, and was probably more likely 2.0. I could not do justice with the graphs, but I can say it made Alan Smith excited.

It was not clear to me however, what year/model reactor that result was based on. From my understanding, Mizuno gives out different reactors for testing, based on the experience level of the end user.

Some, like our one French, and one Swedish friends, get the older models because they are both so capable, but the less experienced get the newer reactors. There is more of course.

Display More

Is there any way we can see some numbers or graphs? Will there be any publication?

Quote from Alan Smith

Nigel Appleton . There will be publication, but we can't jump the gun and publish here. Sadly.

Oh, that's perfectly understandable. It's just that patience is not my strongest suit, and things seem to be moving quite fast now that there are multiple centres using a common (more-or-less) basis for development. The more positive results are reported, the more attempted replications and variations there will be, and there will be an acceleration of progress.

And I would hate it if the field were suddenly to be shrouded in the fog of commercial confidentiality; although I expect it will happen.

Quote from Shane D.

We have Banned @Desireless , as we did @JohnyFive before him, but have allowed the original member me356 to remain active. He is free to continue posting if he wishes.

I don't get this explanation. If Desireless is really me356, why did the heck did you ban the only serious and most advanced amateur cold fusion researcher, who ever visited this very forum? With compare to most twaddlers and arm-chair theorists he can still share some practical experience here. And if he still isn't, then why did you banned him anyway? Many people register multiple times, when they forget password, switch internet provider or from many other reasons. This forum always suffered by its moderators the most.

This is just a your assumption - but you don't know, if me356 is really free to post under his former me356 account right now. But you already did ban his later account. Until people don't present themselves under two accounts at the same moment, then I don't see any problem with it. Me356 could have many reasons to abandon his former account (the lost of e-mail/password for restoring it usually becomes the most trivial one). What do you actually expect from him - to delete his former account and all unique posts, which predated whole E-Cat SK research of Andrea Rossi? Maybe me356 is actually who invented this process at the end.

Quote

If there were reasons why the author chose to post under different names, he should have contacted us for approval. Most likely we would have agreed to go along.

There could be positive outcome of the controversy. But there is still slim boundary between intellectual property and rights of forum platform owners and rights of people who are providing content for it - and who often provide service for public in similar way, like you. Maybe its you who should have contact users with demand for explanation before making any restrictive action first. And to constrain multiple account limit to cases of simultaneous multiple accounts. The identity monitoring is Big Brother attitude after all.

Quote from Shane D.

?

???

I opened up my calorimeter to check for damage after a hour or so of open circuit operation of the heater. It looks like brand new inside the SS cylinder other than the fibreglass AC insulation is a bit faded near the cartridge. Re-crimped and tightened up the connectors anyways. Thinking that this is an ideal time to run some open resistor tests (no SS tube)...

Open resistor 210 W test fired up.

Bubble foil IR blocking for the inlet TC makes it more sensitive to the heat inside. Noticeable on all tests since installed.
Removed. dT +2 C instantly.

Delta T change +5.07 C, averaging the delta T for one hour before removing the TC "IR blocker" and subtracting it from the average delta T after removing it.

That is about twice the effect it caused before removing the SS cylinder and exposing the hot resistor (but 110 C cooler than inside the cylinder) cartridge to the open air.

If it were not for the obvious increase in inlet temperature correlating to the heater and outlet temperatures and sudden drop back to ambient, it might look like ~100 W of excess heat.

.

@Paradigmoia
did you put the inlet TC following as much as possible Mizuno position?
can you please post a photo of its position?

Quote from Cipolla

@Paradigmoia
did you put the inlet TC following as much as possible Mizuno position?
can you please post a photo of it position?

The inlet TC comes down from the top, ending roughly in the center of the inlet hole, and is held on by two bits of electrical tape and otherwise way out in the ambient air. The TC cover was a strip of bubbles cut from the bubble foil barely 1 cm wide. The TC was just poked through maybe 6 consecutive bubbles and installed in the usual position. I noticed the inlet TC climb during the experiment, and falling after, as soon as the cover was installed but decided to leave it on and be sure the bubble cover was worse. Which it is.

It seems that it did the opposite of block the IR. I could paint it black and stick it back on to confirm IR or maybe conduction from the box through the outside bubbles. I wonder if my radiometer can see the coil through the inlet hole?

I have before-and-after photos I will put here.

.

Here one can clearly see the effect of the the TC bubbles in the inlet trace. They were so flat before this.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…6-test-8-100-w-boost-jpg/

.

This is an old photo but the TC set up is basically the same.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…imeter-insulated-web-jpg/

.

Move over little ducky,

Black Swan (or Crane?) is movin' in...

.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Bubble foil IR blocking for the inlet TC makes it more sensitive to the heat inside. Noticeable on all tests since installed.
Removed. dT +2 C instantly.

The inlet TC must equal the ambient temperature. If it does not, something is wrong. You should always monitor both.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If it were not for the obvious increase in inlet temperature correlating to the heater and outlet temperatures and sudden drop back to ambient, it might look like ~100 W of excess heat.

This problem would never cause a mistake, because you would always see that the inlet does not equal ambient, so you would know there is something wrong. You measure ambient with another TC and with an alcohol thermometer. In other words, with an instrument based on a different physical principle. Problems that affect a TC cannot affect an alcohol thermometer.

You also verify the outlet temperature and air speed with multiple instruments based on different physical principles, so there is no possibility they will be wrong. They cannot go wrong to the exact same extent.

Quote from JedRothwell

The inlet TC must equal the ambient temperature. If it does not, something is wrong. You should always monitor both.

This problem would never cause a mistake, because you would always see that the inlet does not equal ambient, so you would know there is something wrong. You measure ambient with another TC and with an alcohol thermometer. In other words, with an instrument based on a different physical principle. Problems that affect a TC cannot affect an alcohol thermometer.

You also verify the outlet temperature and air speed with multiple instruments based on different physical principles, so there is no possibility they will be wrong. They cannot go wrong to the exact same extent.

I noticed the problem almost immediately after installing what I thought would work as an IR blocker. I was surprised at how much the effect was. The effect was increased (I think) due to the high radiant power of the open resistor. Now it is back to normal. The Swan/Crane thing was just for fun after a late night messing with it. A little extra tape... I am also an artist...

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I noticed the problem almost immediately after installing what I thought would work as an IR blocker.

Yes. You noticed the problem almost immediately, and so would anyone else who compares the inlet to ambient temperature. It is impossible to miss. You might say, "but suppose we don't compare the inlet to ambient?" I think that only a person who has never done experiments and has no common sense and no feel for how they should be done would make that mistake. In our recipe, Mizuno and I did not mention this step, because we assumed everyone who does the experiment knows to do this -- along with many other things.

I am glad you mentioned this. But I think you should acknowledge that it is a trivial issue that will never be a problem, because it surely will be discovered immediately.

Elsewhere, you mentioned the effect of changing humidity on the experiment. It is okay to list that, but I think you should have said, "we know that humidity cannot be a problem because it does not vary much in Sapporo, it hardly varies at all indoors, and even at the extremes it is too small to have a significant effect." I think that when you mention that but you do not say it has no significant impact, you do a disservice to the discussion here. You give the impression there may be a problem where there isn't.