MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Curbina

Much thanks to mizunotadahiko for sharing these results with us. As far as they are self explanatory they show active runs with a COP of 1,5 and control runs with COP close to 0,99, so it can be inferred that excess heat is being produced in the active cells. We really hope you can get the patents and then we will be able to know more about how you achieve this and see if others can obtain the same results as consistently as you. This is, IMHO, very good news and have greatly lightened my weekend.

Emphasis added.

Robert, your online behaviour is a disgrace, in my opinion.

Why a disgrace ? COP 0,99 is something familiar to you, it was what you have also found about your own Rossi's studies.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Emphasis added.

Robert, your online behaviour is a disgrace, in my opinion.

Let's stick to science (and have less unnecessary noise) so that people stay in this group and contribute and share important knowledge!

No, I have the right to disagree!

i'm polite, i don't do farm science .. so i remind Para of his own conclusions, his own former studies.

Also, I don't see why Mizuno would be the current best seller ?

Is it enough to be less arrogant than Rossi, to have been helped by a compassionate earthquake to have grace in your eyes ?

Probably you already are in "business" with him ??

Quote from j9381

Let's stick to science (and have less unnecessary noise) so that people stay in this group and contribute and share important knowledge!

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If one compares all output energy measured from start to finish, comparing a control to an experiment device, then the masses, surface area, etc. of both devices must be the same.

Nope. Not true at all. The devices can be very different, but you will not see any difference in the data. You will not be able to tell them apart.

Mizuno and I spent months looking at the data from these calorimeters, and that is what we found. Unless you have some data from another calorimeter showing a measurable difference, you have no business contradicting us.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Do you think a 100 g ceramic device will behave identically, from start to finish, to a 20 kg stainless steel device at the same constant input power level in a mass air flow calorimeter?

That would be a bit extreme. We have not tried that. The control cells were all steel, with heaters inside them. You cannot tell the difference between them.

I don't know what would happen with that, and I will not speculate about hypothetical results from tests we have not done. I only discuss data from actual tests.

Unless you have data from actual tests to prove your point, I think you should not speculate.

Paradigmnoia

I think that your work with the non-active Mizuno mock up is a valuable contribution. Can you summarize here what you found out and how it applies to the interpretation of Mizuno's results?

Quote from RobertBryant

I find this opinion disgraceful..

"Mizuno’s data leads to wildly variable air flow rates, usually nothing like the reported air flow."

I find it confusing. How can the data lead to this? The data from Mizuno shows no problem. It shows the flow rate across the orifice was uniform. I think Paradigmnoia believes Mizuno's instrument leads to wildly variable air flow rates, because his instrument does.

Paradigmnoia made an instrument that does not work right. He then assumed that Mizuno's instrument also does not work right, despite the graph showing that it does work. I do not know what the differences are between the two instruments, so I cannot help him fix the problem, but there must be a problem somewhere. Mizuno is not lying about the uniform air flow rate. I know some people who independently confirmed it with their own instruments.

It is a peculiar mindset to think: "if I can't do it, no one else can either; that other fellow must be making a mistake." It is arrogant.

The graph showing Wex/g against the temperature (1/T) Is that power produced per gram of reactant (Ni mesh+Pa or D2)?

Thanks Robert , when you say "quotient =20.maybe 10" Is that equivalent to COP? And the graph shown comes from reasonable guess(extrapolation), or from real results?

Sorry, I was confuse, I thought that were the results from actual experiments,not from the calibration of the calorimeter...

Do you know if Mizuno has changed the temperature's parameters that he described in his paper with Jed Rothwell,does the range of LENR heat production appear between room temperature to about 100C?

Quote from Cydonia

Why a disgrace ? COP 0,99 is something familiar to you, it was what you have also found about your own Rossi's studies.

The measured COP of the control for the graphs submitted is undoubtedly less than 0.99. Properly done, a correction to COP of 1.0 to the control tests to make up for steady state losses that are consistent is perfectly fine. I have zero problem with that, (except if it is not explained). There will be a correction factor specific to each heat level, based on experiments. (I don’t know how it can be applied to the whole warm up phase, but with some work it might be feasible.)

The measured COP of the control at 800 W input power is probably between 0.5 and 0.8 at steady state. It is just a fact of life with the mass airflow calorimeter. There is always room for improvement but at some point good enough is good enough.

The measured COP of the control at 500 W will almost certainly be better than at 800 W, at steady state, with the Mizuno type mass air flow calorimeter. How much better depends on a lot of things.

So, in my opinion, comparing the measured active reactor output to both the measured control results at both the same input power and at the input power required to reach the active reactor power, is the best and simplest comparison.

Why people are getting bent out of shape over this I have no idea.

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. Not true at all. The devices can be very different, but you will not see any difference in the data. You will not be able to tell them apart.

Mizuno and I spent months looking at the data from these calorimeters, and that is what we found. Unless you have some data from another calorimeter showing a measurable difference, you have no business contradicting us.

That would be a bit extreme. We have not tried that. The control cells were all steel, with heaters inside them. You cannot tell the difference between them.

I don't know what would happen with that, and I will not speculate about hypothetical results from tests we have not done. I only discuss data from actual tests.

Unless you have data from actual tests to prove your point, I think you should not speculate.

Display More

You won’t see any difference at steady state from different shapes, sizes, emissivity etc. at the same input power level.

There sure is a difference when not at steady state. Nothing could be more not-steady-state than two totally different devices heating up at different rates towards steady state.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

You won’t see any difference at steady state from different shapes, sizes, emissivity etc. at the same input power level.

You won't see any difference at all, in any state, with any of the shapes, sizes, emissivity etc. tested by Mizuno. You cannot distinguish between them, period. Except, of course, things like the surface temperature of the test reactor.

It is possible a person might accidentally come up with control reactors that do produce different results. Those would be invalid control reactors, and Mizuno would not use them. He makes sure there are no detectable differences before employing a control reactor. That is the whole point of testing and calibrating.

I am not saying what you describe is impossible. I am saying:

1. It did not happen. Not yet, anyway.

2. If it does happen, it will be readily apparent. He won't just ignore it and keep going.

You are saying that something hypothetical might happen, so therefore it did happen, so therefore there must be a mistake. You are letting your imagination run away with you.

JedRothwell ,

My imagination hasn’t run hardly anywhere.

It is hypothetical. Forget about it.

Let’s go back to the other point.

One of the new graphs shows a grey trace and a red trace. Input W (black, 500).

At first I thought and please forgive me that was the Control (grey) and Experiment (red) lines.

Now I think it is the W Measured (grey) and W Hypothetical 100% Recovery (red) lines.

So that implies certain things about the heat measured and that which is not measured but has-to-be-there, colloquially known as the COP of the calorimeter (which is wrong, and mean).