MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

It is an interesting result to get a Delta T 50% higher, (with room to grow), at the same input as one that was already at 99% input recovery.

Quote from JedRothwell

I doubt a video can be made. Mizuno can't do it. I guess we could find a professional, but I am not interested in paying for anything more like that. I paid many thousands to provide screens and send out reactors and samples to people. I never heard back from most of them. One, I think, returned the reactor after a year or two of doing nothing. I guess people are busy.

JedRothwell A simple cell phone video would suffice. A professional video certainly isn't required. If Mizuno is willing I'm sure we could find someone to hold a camera. I have family living in Sapporo that I'm sure could be convinced to assist for free. There is just so much captured in a video that can't be captured in a write-up or requires a replicator to scan through 2300+ comments to find. magicsound and I have followed the replication documents as closely as possible without success likely due to undocumented steps, methods or techniques. If replication truly is a goal then a video of the process would be huge in helping to achieve that. Thanks for all of your hard work and help in this process so far.

This is the letterbox window version, running currently, from which I expect about a Delta T of 14.5 C at 200 W.

.

Quote from RobertBryant

detailed report published soon? interesting.

Here is a picture.

I am not sure if the "power into temperature" is 100% or has been adjusted for losses. (It is 100% power on the next slide).
.

Quote from JedRothwell

I can say that the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons, McKubre, Miles and others is beyond reproach. People have had many years to reproach it, and some have tried, but they failed.

But have you heard Bill Nye ("the science guy") debunk Fleischmann and Pons? Sorry Jed. You may want to pour yourself a drink before watching.

Quote from Shane D.

Nye is an actor, not a scientist. His opinion of LENR is worthless.

You'll have to pardon my sense of humour. What Nye said about what was wrong with the P&F experiment would have been funny if it wasn't also so painfully bad. And then to blame the journalists for not being scientifically literate enough, well that was rich.

But who am I to talk. I'm a fan of Rossi. That's pretty rich too I guess!

Δ14.0 it seems for the letterbox. Not bad. Perhaps with some seam taping another 0.5 could be possible... This design might be leaky at higher input power, but it is cool to be able see in.

It seemed quicker to match sudden inlet changes at the outlet, holding the delta, when at steady state compared to usual.

I have the full size front panel already made, but need to close off most of the bottom inlet channel of the acrylic box so it can’t huff the insulation panel’s heated air gap air, unmeasured.

With the closed front it should do a Δ15.3 which should be pretty close to maximum for 205 W.

Quote from Mark U

But have you heard Bill Nye ("the science guy") debunk Fleischmann and Pons?

He got it wrong in many ways, didn't he? Clearly, he has not read any paper about this subject. He thinks it was never replicated. He said: "They thought they had established a magnetic field . . . They had the thermometer in the wrong place on their lab equipment."

There is nothing about a magnetic field in the paper.

They did not get the thermometer in the wrong place, although in 1989 several scientists said they did. I am writing a review of some of F&P's papers. I wrote this about mixing:

Mixing Error

The first potential error widely discussed was the possibility that the electrolyte might not be mixed, so there might be temperature variations within it that look like excess heat. Assume that the electrolyte is warmer some places than others. Assume that a small temperature probe that can only detect the temperature in one limited space in the liquid is placed somewhere in the cell where the liquid happens to be warmer than average. If you compare this temperature to the calibration curve, you might mistakenly conclude there is excess heat.

This is a legitimate concern. It turned out that Fleischmann and Pons thought of this before they revealed the experiment, and they took steps to ensure there were no significant temperature variations. They responded to the critics immediately, explaining what they had done, and they later describe the steps in detail in the publications reviewed here.

Fleischmann and Pons demonstrated that there are no significant variations in the electrolyte temperature because the fluid was well mixed. They used two methods:

They made a video of a drop of red dye dropped into a cell. They used the video to measure the time it took for the dye to be stirred. [ref. 1, p. 4] The bubbles from the electrolysis rapidly mixed the dye into the rest of the electrolyte, in less than 3 seconds horizontally, and 20 seconds vertically. This was done at the lowest electrolysis power level they used. The higher the power, the faster mixing occurs.

They also addressed this issue by using an array of 5 thermistor temperature sensors (Thermometrics Ultrastable Thermoprobes). The array could be set vertically or horizontally, measuring temperature variations in either direction. They found that variations in the liquid were at most 0.005°C, except at the bottom of the cell, where they were 0.01°C.

I suppose most scientists who read these papers would be convinced that stirring was not a problem. Those who were not convinced could have confirmed these methods by doing electrolysis with ordinary electrolysis. They would not need to do cold fusion per se. They would not need to use palladium. They could have used ordinary steel electrodes in a cell of the same shape and configuration as the cold fusion experiment, at the same power levels, using the array of 5 thermistors. They would have confirmed that the bubbles from electrolysis at these power levels stir the cell enough to eliminate any significant temperature variations.

You can also confirm that the liquid was probably well mixed by reading the papers and thinking about the results. Suppose the liquid was not mixed. Putting the temperature probe in a warm spot would produce false excess heat, but it is equally likely you would put it in a cold spot and see false excess cold. This is impossible. There are no endothermic reactions with these materials. You would know that is an instrument error. Furthermore, Fleischmann and Pons would see spurious excess heat or excess cold during calibrations with platinum electrodes or with ordinary water. They said they never saw excess heat with these tests.

It was reasonable to raise these objections at first, but once they were answered, it became unreasonable to continue to raise them, especially when you could verify stirring by doing electrolysis yourself. Yet many people continue to raise these objections. In fact, this “stirring” controversy was one of the main reasons the entire experiment was dismissed early in 1989, even after Fleischmann and Pons showed the video of dye mixing on national television.

Even now this objection continues to be raised. Critics continue to assume there was a mixing problem. They could not have seen the video or listening to what Fleischmann and Pons said. They ridiculed Fleischmann and Pons, and later Robert Huggins for supposedly making this error. One recited a disparaging poem:

"Tens of millions of dollars at

stake, Dear Brother,

Because some scientist put a thermometer

At one place and not another."

(Mallove, Fire from Ice, page 144)

Quote from magicsound

I think it's more likely that the Pd rod he used has traces of Unobtanium (or Boron). We'll probably never know...

Yes, that might be an option too.
Unintended contamination that occurred in the original experiments might be the reason why replication has not been succesfull so far.

I wouldn't be suprised that this also played a role back in 1989 (Fleischmann and Pons replications).

Quote from Shane D.

Nye is an actor, not a scientist. His opinion of LENR is worthless.

He has an engineering degree. He should know better. I see he went to Cornell, so he really should know better. But he also went to Sidwell Friends high school, so what can you expect? Tisk, tisk.

Most of what he said in his programs was correct. It is conventional, textbook science. It is good that he teaches the public that. Unfortunately, in this case, he did not do his homework. It is, after all, "textbook knowledge" that cold fusion was never replicated, and that it was a mistake. That is what most mainstream sources such as Scientific American or <shudder!> Wikipedia say. I cannot fault people who take a cursory look at a few sources and reaching that conclusion. If I were taking a quick look at a claim that is what would I say. Okay, I hope I would hedge my bet:

"I haven't looked closely, and I don't know much about the subject, but mainstream sources say this claim is incorrect."

That is how I would address the COVID-19 hydroxychlorochine controversy.

Quote from JedRothwell

They did not get the thermometer in the wrong place, although in 1989 several scientists said they did. I am writing a review of some of F&P's papers. I wrote this about mixing:

Mixing Error

The first potential error widely discussed was thepossibility that the electrolyte might not be mixed, so there might betemperature variations within it that look like excess heat. Assume that the electrolyte is warmer some places than others. Fleischmann and Pons demonstrated that there are no significant variations in the electrolyte temperature because the fluid was well mixed. They used two methods: They made a video of a drop of red dye dropped into a cell. They used the video to measure the time it took for the dye to be stirred. [ref. 1, p. 4] The bubbles from the electrolysis rapidly mixed the dye into the rest of the electrolyte, in less than 3 seconds horizontally, and 20 secondsvertically. This was done at the lowest electrolysis power level they used. The higher the power, the faster mixing occurs. . . .

. . . Even now this objection continues to be raised. Critics continue to assume there was a mixing problem.

Here is more about this:

Gary Taubes took this argument to an extreme. He wrote:

". . . The video showed an effervescent cold fusion cell into which a red dye was poured. Within twenty seconds the dye had been evenly distributed throughout the flask. Fleischmann said this proved that "the argument of ineffective mixing doesn't hold water. "

The demonstration was impressive; however, it was bogus. Even if the cold fusion cell had huge temperature gradients -- say, fifty degrees hotter on one side than on the other -- the red dye would have diffused evenly within a very short time. The temperature gradient in the flasks simply had nothing to do with what could be called the red dye gradient."

- G. Taubes, Bad Science, p. 271

This is mind boggling nonsense. How can the temperature be different if the water is mixed? Does Taubes think that Maxwells’ demon is rushing around inside the fluid pushing energetic molecules from one side to the other? Furthermore, when there is a temperature difference in water, it is never as large as 50°C. It is a fraction of a degree at most. It is never horizontal, “from one side to the other” but vertical, because of stagnant thermal layers. When the liquid is stirred so that dye spreads throughout it in 20 seconds, such layers cannot exist. Here is what Taubes apparently thinks might happen:

You stir a cup of coffee, so that it is completely mixed in 20 seconds. You pick it up and take a sip. You find it is hot. You put the cup down, turn it around, pick it up again and take a sip from the other side of the cup. You find it is at room temperature, 50°C cooler.

The ideas offered by Taubes and other extremists not only violate elementary laws of physics, they violate common sense in ways that a five-year-old child would understand . . .

Taubes is one of the most stupid people I have ever encountered. I described this in my paper about the Titanic:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf

"Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity. He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, 'say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.' This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot."

He really did say that. I went back and copied the whole paragraph, above. He said countless other idiotic things in the book.

I concluded:

"Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. . . ."

This was in the pre-internet era. Nowadays, alas, it is even easier to spread nonsense, stupidity and outright lies. As they say, "error will run half over the world while truth is putting on his boots to pursue her . . ." The "whole world" is literally true, with the internet.

My gut feeling is that the misinformation about cold fusion spread by Bill Nye and people like him is not caused by animosity. They do not have it in for cold fusion. They are misinformed. They did not do their homework. Perhaps they simply recalled events in 1989 without bothering to do a Google search. Or perhaps they believed the Scientific American or some other authoritative source was correct. This is sloppy, but understandable. I don't go fact checking every assertion I make.

In the case of Gary Taubes, we do not need to speculate about his motives. He was open about them. He told Ed Storms, "I don't give a shit whether cold fusion is real or not. I am writing this book to make money."

I managed a Δ15.4 with R16 (total) insulation over the acrylic box, with 200 W input.

Before Jed complains that this is a waste of time, the air velocity (the fan power unchanged for months) is now at the point where it is too fast if the delta T climbs any more, because the output power calculations will result in excess power. The maximum air velocity is now being constrained independently of the velocity measurements.

And the box cover parts are not yet seam-sealed, so a further increase in ΔT is likely.

The improved foam calorimeter box cover is working nicely.

Δ 15.8 right now. I think that is all I can get at 200 W input.

I am really starting to wonder about the outlet temperature constantly cycling about 0.6 C (That is why the outlet and ΔT temperature traces look so wide and irregular, Mizuno’s too). The hot air inside the box must not mix as good as it could. I may try a tiny (1 to 2 W) blower fan inside the box to see if it helps. If I hook it up in parallel with outlet blower fan, I can use the same voltage and current measurements without any modification.

Edit: tickling Δ 16 now.

Also the power is quiet enough that I can read the tach signal on the blower fan again.

Solidly (otherwise) between 3189 and 3198 RPM.

Magicsound. I'm curious as to your next steps and tests with your setup.

I scrounged up a 12V, 0.1 A brushless fan about 4 x 4 cm, and not knowing where best to put it, installed it in the intake pipe, blowing in. Hooked to the outlet fan power supply, the fan uses less than 1 W. The outlet fan only increased in speed 10 RPM, so the outlet velocity is barely affected.

Anyways after some tests, pointing the intake fan downwards into the calorimeter box at a 45 degree angle reduces the cycling outlet temperature from +/- 0.4 C to +/- 0.15 C

Quote from Alan Smith

Paradigmnoia

A few years ago I read an old book about wind-tunnel design, written in the 1930's when they were just beginning to get to grips with the technology for wind speeds speeds of !00 mph+. It struck me at the time that it is amazingly complicated and very prone to producing artefacts which the designers (and perhaps you?) often found to be counter-intuitive and thus hard to understand.

It occurs to me reading the above, that I should get out more!

It seems as though there is cyclical detachment of the hot air stream coming off of the heater. The typical outlet temperature cycle (without modification) is about 2 minutes long. With the tiny inlet fan blowing in the best position found so far, the sinusoidal temperature cycles are reduced to about 15 seconds long. It seems odd to me that the hot air blobs can even hang together at all inside the box with the inlet air rushing in. I tried incense smoke to see what goes on inside, but it is not thick enough and dissipates too quickly. I am not too enthusiastic about home made smoke formulas (I know a few) being used inside. If I can scrounge up enough pipe to vent outside I will probably try the recipe that uses sugar.

.