MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Here's the complete MR2.5 run with manually sampled 5-minute data:

I thought that compared to MR2.4, pressure increased differently, with each step giving a larger differential value than the previous except for the last one. This probably means that more lattice-bound deuterium was in the mesh. Whether this is a good thing or not remains to be seen (although according to Mizuno and Storms, D loading itself is not what one should be after), but employing the same calibration as used earlier (modified calibration 10 curve with 3rd degree polyfit after adding a 0W step), this time there was no apparent few watts of excess heat for the initial few steps and actually it tracked calibration values quite well except for the last input power step.

However, magicsound used a different calibration that gave lower values,

Putting this aside, there were a few odd temperature and pressure bumps which will possibly be easier to see with the full data.

From ECat World

https://e-catworld.com/2020/05…lication-mr2-5-completed/

The data files are now available at https://tinyurl.com/y9cl6pnw

Changes in ambient temperature will have a small effect on the measurements, and for best accuracy this should be taken into account.

However, the range of ambient temperature change in the lab is on the order of ±2°C at most during a 12-hour experiment.

The run using full data. Some odd variations in cell temperatures during the mid portion (was that also reflected in radiation data?) and last power step:

Below also including the ambient temperature section after the test:

Here is a short paper describing a verification of Mizuno's experiment at the Hokkaido University of Science. This document includes an English version and the original Japanese version.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IgarashiJdevelopmen.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is a short paper describing a verification of Mizuno's experiment at the Hokkaido University of Science. This document includes an English version and the original Japanese version.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IgarashiJdevelopmen.pdf

Jed, was this the result of one of the replicas that Mizuno himself prepared?

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Jed, was this the result of one of the replicas that Mizuno himself prepared?

I do not know the details. I think he provided the reactor. It looks like one of his. I think he told them what to do, and visited there. But they did a lot of the preparation. The good news is, their calorimetry is better than his. Anyway, that's why I called it a "verification" rather than "replication."

I reported a verification test of his reactor, running in his lab, done by other people. See Slide 8:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasedea.pdf

That perturbation in Slide 8 around 4 hours into the test was caused by people moving Mizuno's instruments around and putting in their own. Their results were close to Mizuno's but not exactly the same. It would be suspicious if they were exactly the same.

I think Igarashi et al. was definitely a step beyond this kind of verification. It was more independent. I think a step-by-step approach of doing more with less help is a good idea. People should do that, rather than trying to do a completely independent replication from the start without help.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not know the details. I think he provided the reactor. It looks like one of his. I think he told them what to do, and visited there. But they did a lot of the preparation. The good news is, their calorimetry is better than his. Anyway, that's why I called it a "verification" rather than "replication."

I reported a verification test of his reactor, running in his lab, done by other people. See Slide 8:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasedea.pdf

That perturbation in Slide 8 around 4 hours into the test was caused by people moving Mizuno's instruments around and putting in their own. Their results were close to Mizuno's but not exactly the same. It would be suspicious if they were exactly the same.

I think Igarashi et al. was definitely a step beyond this kind of verification. It was more independent. I think a step-by-step approach of doing more with less help is a good idea. People should do that, rather than trying to do a completely independent replication from the start without help..

Display More

The blower formula seems a little weird. It is close to what they probably meant.

The specific heat for air seems rather low also.

I don’t suppose the spreadsheet described for this is available?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I don’t suppose the spreadsheet described for this is available?

"This" meaning the Igarashi experiment? That paper is all I have.

I asked Mizuno to clarify who did what, and whether the students prepared the mesh, or he did.

It is pretty good for undergraduates.

Quote from JedRothwell

"This" meaning the Igarashi experiment? That paper is all I have.

I asked Mizuno to clarify who did what, and whether the students prepared the mesh, or he did.

It is pretty good for undergraduates.

I think Mizuno was a large influence with this work. The formulas described are about the same as in the 2017 Mizuno 120 W input plus excess spreadsheet. The factors for the voltage dividers, (or whatever) that scale the input voltage look the same, and they almost certainly used a 3 ohm sense resistor for the blower fan. They students do seem to have made their own box and custom outlet tube.

Okay, Mizuno told me that he did most of the work on this project. It was his reactor. He prepared the reactant, he recommended the air flow technique and data analysis. The students basically watched and learned during the setup phase. They did the observations and analysis. "They watched it like hawks, which was a big help." I think they and their advisor professor improved the calorimetry. Their lab is much better than his, with better equipment and environmental controls.

So, as I said before, it was a verification, not a replication. More independent than the previous verification in his lab. A step in the right direction. It is less likely the result is a calorimetric error.

He enjoyed working with undergrads again, and he hopes they continue to do cold fusion as grad students.

magicsound is retired, motivated, available time, very competent, both he seems to have money and an excellent laboratory.

JedRothwell you are an excellent translator, facilitator about Lenr cause.

Why don't you bring Alan Goldwater up to mizuno's laboratory directly so that he will give him all subtleties from his work which he wants to share with mankind ?

Does anyone have a copy of the 2017 Mizuno 120 W calibration spreadsheet?

Quote from Cydonia

Why don't you bring Alan Goldwater up to mizuno's laboratory directly so that he will give him all subtleties from his work which he wants to share with mankind ?

Alan can ask Mizuno if he can visit. However, at present, he cannot go. Americans are banned from entering Japan. See the bottom of this page:

https://covid19japan.com/

Actually, I could go, because I am married to a Japanese citizen, * but I am not going anywhere for the time being. Not even Pennsylvania. Heck, I only go to the grocery store once a week.

If Alan does go, he should hire a local interpreter. Which I am not. I can translate, but that's a different skill.

Generally speaking, I think e-mail is the best way to discuss technical problems in a foreign language.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Does anyone have a copy of the 2017 Mizuno 120 W calibration spreadsheet?

I must have it somewhere. I never throw away data.

* Ah, maybe I cannot go. "In principle" I cannot, according to this opaque document written in translated governmentese:

http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001316999.pdf

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Does anyone have a copy of the 2017 Mizuno 120 W calibration spreadsheet?

This must be it: "BCD60520 2 120 W calibration Jed version.xlsx"

I named this after myself, which means I translated the headings and graphs. However, I cannot upload it here. It says "The file extension is invalid." It will only take bmg, gif . . . rar, txt, zip.

I guess I should upload it somewhere else, or as a Google Graph . . .

Okay, I put it here:

https://lenr-canr.org/Collecti…_2_120_W_calibration.xlsx

This downloads when you click on it.

Quote from JedRothwell

This must be it: "BCD60520 2 120 W calibration Jed version.xlsx"

I named this after myself, which means I translated the headings and graphs. However, I cannot upload it here. It says "The file extension is invalid." It will only take bmg, gif . . . rar, txt, zip.

I guess I should upload it somewhere else, or as a Google Graph . . .

It was in a Google doc folder, but the old web link is now broken.

It might upload if the xlsx extension is changed to txt (then change it back when downloaded), or if it is zipped (Send to Zipped Folder).

Looking at the 120 W + excess sheet, it looks like the COP could have been almost 2, if the inlet temperature hadn’t been so affected by the calorimeter. Depending on what the inlet temperature looks like in the calibration, anyways.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Looking at the 120 W + excess sheet, it looks like the COP could have been almost 2, if the inlet temperature hadn’t been so affected by the calorimeter.

What makes you think the inlet is affected by the calorimeter? Affected in what way? It agrees with the ambient temperature, always. We keep a close eye on that, with several thermometers around the room.

Quote from JedRothwell

What makes you think the inlet is affected by the calorimeter? Affected in what way? It agrees with the ambient temperature, always. We keep a close eye on that, with several thermometers around the room.

Just make a graph showing only the inlet and outlet temperature using the 120 + excess spreadsheet.

The inlet temperature climbs almost 2.5 C from starting ambient temperature, then almost returns to the starting ambient temperature as the calorimeter finally cools down. If the inlet temperature was not affected by the calorimeter it should have remained nearly flat for the duration of the experiment.