MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Shane D.

Russ George's LENR reactor = Atom Ecology (AE). although IMO, his interest in LENR has slipped in priority behind ocean seeding.

I'm never quite sure what to call the LENR side of Ecalox. Androcles? Atom Ecology? Something now trademarked and not to be uttered on this forum? is it even associated with Ecalox now? Is Russ George still associated with Ecalox or has he wandered off on to some new venture? The whole thing is a mess with no meaningful hard data to exhibit.

However the Mizuno/Rothwell work turns out, at least they publish their work. Good for them!

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, you are wrong. No one is doing that, and your statement is a little obnoxious. Mizuno, I, and everyone else doing air flow calorimetry always shows graphs adjusted for losses, because losses tend to be high with this technique. Losses are high because the calorimeter chamber is much larger than with other methods. It is supposed to be larger. That's the whole point. It is made large to accommodate a large cell. If the cell were small, you use a smaller water flow or Seebeck calorimeter, which are much better in many ways. With a large cell, water flow does not work, and a Seebeck calorimeter would cost a fortune.

Without this adjustment, the results are confusing. It looks like there is no excess heat. You seem to have noted that. Surely you understand that is an optical illusion, and a coincidence with no deep meaning. As I said, if the results fell a little below the calibration line, would you dismiss them altogether? What sense does that make?

Mizuno and I made it quite clear in our papers that we are adjusting some (but not all) graphs to reflect losses. We spent weeks working on the losses. Saito et al. graphed the loss rate carefully, with 13 points, in the graph I posted above. That is at least 13 days of data collection, over several months, with some points tested multiple times. (And if they were to change the insulation, they would have to throw that out and start all over again.)

You can reduce losses with an air flow calorimeter, but other issues are more important. Especially ensuring a stable ambient temperature, and making sure the loss rate is linear and consistent, always the same at the same power level, with any shaped heat source.

Display More

Adjusting the graphs for losses is the same type of adjustment as not showing that the measured power happens to be same as input power (which is probably coincidence since 100% recovery is unlikely). It is promotional. However it can be confusing.

Promotional is fine, really, unless this is something that one prefers to remain in a few labs and garages forever. Make it look good, but with as little data massaging as possible. Sometimes emphasizing something looks like de-emphasizing or obscuring something else, even if that is not the intent.

Do the calibrations get adjusted for losses? Not often, it seems.

Why not just show uncorrected calibration power and uncorrected excess power, both, with a respective (same) input power trace? Then we can easily look at the losses for the calibration if we want to.

(I wouldn’t be surprised if the excess power fluctuations are magnified by the loss correction.)

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Adjusting the graphs for losses is the same type of adjustment as not showing that the measured power happens to be same as input power (which is probably coincidence since 100% recovery is unlikely). It is promotional.

It is not promotional because I am not promoting anything, and neither is Saito. This whole discussion is silly. If you want to see how the graphs look without the adjustment, look up the adjustment factor on the calibration curve and lower the output curve. Hey presto! So what the heck are you talking about? Nothing! You are kvetching about a trivial change that you can undo in a few minutes. Nothing is hidden or obscured.

(Actually, it would be easier to change the y-axis scale and then raise the input curve, since it is a straight line. Don't bother with a computer. Print it and use a pen, the old fashioned way.)

Quote from JedRothwell

(Actually, it would be easier to change the y-axis scale and then raise the input curve, since it is a straight line. Don't bother with a computer. Print it and use a pen, the old fashioned way.)

Or just take the calibration input power, multiply by 0.69 (which is what almost all Saito examples show: 69% heat recovery), and presto! There is the measured output power at steady state.
I would expect the same losses/ heat recovery factor for excess, since it is so linear.

Quote from RobertBryant

Perhaps Paradigmnoia could promote his vacuum system..in his schedule.. which is essential for replication,,,. rather than noise...

I have no plans for real vacuum anything. I managed around 27 in Hg with a Food Saver and a big syringe, with some good one-way valves. I could rough the Food Saver down in big gulps by pumping the syringe and using Jar mode. Enough to get full glow discharge in regular air vacuum, with a cargo-culted , Rossi-esque XD device.
Enough also to decide that some current is needed to do real work, which requires probably the arc end of things, for which high vacuum probably isn’t necessary.

As for vacuum inside the Mizuno thing, I don’t see how it can affect the calorimeter except by changing the device heating rate, which goes away at steady state. So I hereby declare, unless someone has great reason to resuade me, that the only vacuum that might have a tiny (but probably measurable) effect will that which is inside the calorimeter box, (due to the fan-inlet pressure differential), not the inside of the reactor or null devices.

Quote from RobertBryant

So no replication...

perhaps another thread..."Air calorimetry investigation..( with insulation of course)"

There was a Mizuno calorimetry thread, but it became too raucous and was locked up.

Now everything with even a slight essence of Mizuno experiments ends up here.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Or just take the calibration input power, multiply by 0.69 (which is what almost all Saito examples show: 69% heat recovery), and presto! There is the measured output power at steady state.

Right. So why all this talk about "promotion"? And these insinuations that Saito is hiding something. It is hidden in plain sight!

Promotion is good, when not over-the-top. I’m not suggesting a Super Bowl halftime show.

Just simple plots with easily comparable before and after, without adding what was not measured.

Like: “Here is our house paint vs the competition after 5 years of Mohave Desert sunshine <image of two squares of paint, side by side>. “

Not: “Here is a computer- enhanced photo of our house paint after 5 years in the Mohave Desert showing what it looks like if it was on the mostly shady side of the of house <image of paint square>. The sunny side was faded more but everyone knows that. Here are a half dozen other photos of the paint in sun, out of the sun, at different exposure periods. You can work out what our paint looks like after 5 years in the desert sun by comparing these photos and working out a pixel colour adjustment formula.”

Or: “Here is a plot of 300 W excess heat, if we recovered all of it, which we didn’t , <image of line curving to a flat line about 150 W above input line>. If you are lucky there is another image somewhere on the Internet of a calibration at the same or similar input showing only the measured heat, which probably has a curving line that eventually levels out around 150 W below the input line. If you want to know what the first plot looks like with only measured heat, use this mathematical formula <formula here> somehow on the first .jpeg image, or just squish the image down with Photoshop a bit while leaving the y axis values in place, or use your imagination. Squint or tilt your screen away from you, and you will get the idea, maybe.”

I'm having trouble finding a palladium ingot around 10 grams in size which would have dimensions 31 mm x 18 mm x 1.51 mm.

I tried these two websites and the 1 troy ounce (31.1 g) is in stock ($2400) but the 10 gram (about $800) is out of stock.

https://www.pamp.com/mintedingots/PD00RI005S101

https://www.apmex.com/category…ram-palladium-bars-rounds

A 1 gram sample would be too small and difficult to rub onto the nickel mesh.

I tried contacting a few jewelry stores and coin dealers without luck.

Jed recommends contacting Mizuno but I don't want to risk having his ingot lost in the mail since that may be an important thing to analyze.

Anyone have ideas? Or a piece of palladium that I could borrow? I see the wedding ring idea posted but does it have impurities I don't want or are there fake Palladium rings out there?

Jeff (j9381)

Quote from j9381

Jed recommends contacting Mizuno but I don't want to risk having his ingot lost in the mail since that may be an important thing to analyze.

I do not think he would send you the whole thing. Just a chunk of it, sawn off.

Mesh reactor 30.01.2020

... "I am guessing everyone named Saito in Japan, is doing LENR research."

Not exactly LENR research

The repair parts for four bellows valves arrived today, and I wasted no time disassembling and cleaning the valves and installing the new valve seats. Before repairs it was impossible to pull better than 2e-5 vacuum. With the repairs I can get 1e-7 after an hour. The four valves comprise a manifold that permits the test cell to be evacuated, filled with D₂, and sealed off from the rest of the vacuum system. A 10 um restrictor orifice is plumbed in line with the D₂ generator and is required to introduce gas at a slow enough rate to fill cell pressure to a desired ~10 Torr, pressure. D₂ may be supplied either from a cylinder or, more likely, from a hydrogen generator using D₂O.

Parts also arrived to fabricate the test cells. In this case, 7" long 2.75" CF nipples. A 2.75" to 1.33" reducer was used on one end in order to more easily achieve a gas tight joint between the thermowell tube and the end flange. I bored and reamed a 0.375" hole in the 1.33" flange and then silver brazed the tube and flange. It would be more difficult to perform this operation with a 2.75" flange, due to its larger thermal mass. There are only a few more parts required to complete the system, and then it's on to procuring Ni, D₂, and Pd.