Ok, figure 27, directly above that image, in the same paper, shows 3 calibrations.
And if you feel like there is almost enough information to work out what is happening, but some piece seems to be missing to make sense of the data and plots... too bad. Ask for help and you may get arguments and off topic nonsense, or maybe just crickets chirping in the background, but not what you are looking for. Good luck in your search.
the last image on Jed’s 2017 post, labelled “figure 5”.
Thankyou P.. finally we get some specific communication...
now we know Fig 5.. rather than a spreadsheet.. or somewhere..
"plus you can click on the last image of the plot"
You can ask Jed about that..
as I said an O/I or COP of 2.9 is better than anything reported in MIzuno's 2017 paper
the maximum reported was 2.0
and the Fig 5 posted does not tally with this published diagram
lenr-forum.com/attachment/13613/
or this... note the position of the 120/350 point
Display MoreThankyou P.. finally we get some specific communication...
now we know Fig 5.. rather than a spreadsheet.. or somewhere..
"plus you can click on the last image of the plot"
You can ask Jed about that..
as I said an O/I or COP of 2.9 is better than anything reported in MIzuno's 2017 paper
the maximum reported was 2.0
and the Fig 5 posted does not tally with this published diagram
lenr-forum.com/attachment/13613/
or this... note the position of the 120/350 point
Which is why I prefer 100% non-loss-corrected plots. It would be easy to compare the input calibration, the excess at the same as calibration input, and an excess-level input without pretending the calorimeter can capture 100% of the heat.
You can ask Jed about that..
Paradigmnoia has managed to cherry pick.
dead cherries.
If one reads the actual post
Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results
it is self evident that it is a preliminary diagram
a speculative diagram from Jed that was posted on Sept 2 of 2017
among other diagrams
to initiate someone into checking the results
which I did.
Jed had some difficulty in changing the Lotus spreadsheet to googlesheets
There was subsequent analysis by both Jed and I that confirmed that the O/I ratio was ~1.5,,, not 2.91
If one reads the actual thread ... one will discover this... if one can understand context.
which is why the published 2017 paper never had such a plot
and had peak power of 205W,, not 350W.
I cannot understand P's posts because the context is often unclear.
I am uncertain whether Paradigmnoia can understand context.
If P cannot understand why dead cherries are irrelevant to any further discussion I cannot help him
btw..Paradigmnoia ..I do not appreciate "the zoo"
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
I am not a child
i have given a warning to others.. do not feed fingers to fools.... they might bite them
without pretending the calorimeter can capture 100% of the heat.
This is RUBBISH
No one is pretending the calorimeter can capture 100% of heat.
Just a note to members, please refrain from using memes of any kind in the discussion, it lowers the level of the debate. We are not a forum for teenagers.
Display MoreThe amount of escape from radiation and convection
is not corrected in Figure 20 or Figure 26..
the corrected power will depend on the calibration factor..
which depends on assumptions
The corrected power for the active reactor
depends on the actual calibration factor
which is not stated in the 2017 paper
... this is a rough way of calculating it.
by using ( Temp-time) areas in yellow
the spreadsheet method used by MizunoSan is more accurate
but it needs the numerical data
the uncorrected heat can be calculated roughly by using
delta H(J) = delta T (K) x flowrate ( m3/ s) x time(s) x density(kg/m3) x Cp(J/kg.K)
=deltaTemp x time (ks,deg) x flowrate x density x Cp
The power P can be calculated by dividing by TIME 85 ks/82 ks .... from the graph..
there is an averaging error..(time/TIME ) which underestimates both uncorrected powers.
there is also the use of average air densities.
in addition there is an error due to the fact that the active reactor
is hotter than the inactive reactor , despite equal 100W inputs,
which increases the heat escape.,, so the 1.27 factor is too small..
However the uncorrected power for the active reactor will
be much more than the input electrical power of 100W.
In addition the uncorrected output of the active reactor
is much more than the inactive reactor.
Comparing the ( TEMP-time)areas makes this obvious..
590 versus 335. is equivalent to 73% more
The Fig 29 .. derived by spreadsheet anlysis
gives a corrected output for the 100W
case of approximately 74% more (74W) for the active reactor
corrected power.
Here is the loss-corrected 120 W plus excess plot.
.
Display More警告
It is not advisable to feed fingers to Paradigmnoia.
Or natto
Btw where in P's world did this graph come from
It's not in my world?? did P manufacture it..
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
この120W入力で350W近くに達する過剰熱データーは私は知りません。風量測定を始めた2017年からのデーターを全て再確認しましたが、有りません。私のデーターでは無いと思う。
I don't know the excess heat data reaching 350W with this 120W input. I reconfirmed all the data from 2017, when I started measuring the air volume, but there are none. I don't think it's my data.
Display MoreThe amount of escape from radiation and convection
is not corrected in Figure 20 or Figure 26..
the corrected power will depend on the calibration factor..
which depends on assumptions
The corrected power for the active reactor
depends on the actual calibration factor
which is not stated in the 2017 paper
... this is a rough way of calculating it.
by using ( Temp-time) areas in yellow
the spreadsheet method used by MizunoSan is more accurate
but it needs the numerical data
the uncorrected heat can be calculated roughly by using
delta H(J) = delta T (K) x flowrate ( m3/ s) x time(s) x density(kg/m3) x Cp(J/kg.K)
=deltaTemp x time (ks,deg) x flowrate x density x Cp
The power P can be calculated by dividing by TIME 85 ks/82 ks .... from the graph..
there is an averaging error..(time/TIME ) which underestimates both uncorrected powers.
there is also the use of average air densities.
in addition there is an error due to the fact that the active reactor
is hotter than the inactive reactor , despite equal 100W inputs,
which increases the heat escape.,, so the 1.27 factor is too small..
However the uncorrected power for the active reactor will
be much more than the input electrical power of 100W.
In addition the uncorrected output of the active reactor
is much more than the inactive reactor.
Comparing the ( TEMP-time)areas makes this obvious..
590 versus 335. is equivalent to 73% more
The Fig 29 .. derived by spreadsheet anlysis
gives a corrected output for the 100W
case of approximately 74% more (74W) for the active reactor
corrected power.
この校正データーは今では使用しない。前に書いたように校正試験はいつもアップデートしてるので、注意して欲しい。水野忠彦
This calibration data is no longer used. As I said before, the calibration test is always updated, so please be careful. Mizuno Tadahiko
The man says 'this is not my data -please be careful' In other words, a few words from the cook are more useful than many words from the dish-washer..
This is RUBBISH
No one is pretending the calorimeter can capture 100% of heat.
The hypothetical 100% recovery AKA calorimeter efficiency correction AKA loss-correction does just that.
.
.
The hypothetical 100% recovery AKA calorimeter efficiency correction AKA loss-correction does just that.
This is a matter of semantics isn't it? By "recovered" heat I assume that Mizuno and Rothwell mean heat emanating from the reactor that ends up being measured by the calorimeter. Their correction factor adjusts for the heat that they think is not so recovered. Any correction factor greater than 1, therefore, automatically means that they regard the calorimeter efficiency as less than 100%.
I think that you are using "recovery" in a different sense to mean the calculated total of measured heat and heat that it is supposed must be around but wasn't actually measured.
Hopefully there will be less looking for demon heads now than three years ago...
If what Paradigmnoia is doing is looking for demon heads then I hope to see more of it, not less. Everyone here should hope the same. The search for possible errors in remarkable claims is the most scientific part of science.
In Mizuno experiments, the power supply of the heater is DC or AC? and which voltage?
An update from replicator Desireless
and a question for DR Mizuno.
Desireless8 hours ago edited
New reactor module is giving COP 1.36 at 50W. When deuterium is introduced excess heat is coming from a different reactor part, not originating from the heater. If there is too much deuterium introduced then excess heat lasts only for hour or so and is decreasing slowly. It is being loaded by the mesh. It seems good pressure is needed in order to not load deuterium. Instead balance between absorption and degassing is the key.
2
−
Can you ask Prof. Mizuno if he is using DC or AC power supply?
What will happen if he will connect positive electrode from power supply to the reactor shell? Has it impact at excess heat?
Robert Bryant frequently makes posts with solid content but made difficult to read because of the insertion of unneeded material. So that you and others can read his posts more easily, I have produced a shortened version of his most recent post by taking out excess material and leaving just the part that just gets down to brass tacks. I don't think I have changed any meanings. Elisions are indicated by a series of 3 dots in brackets.
This graph [...] is from Rothwell September 2. 2017.Speculative data. Paradigmnoia can ask Jed [...] about it.
or read this post again
[...]
Paradigmnoia
The source for this graph
is the same one as Fig 5
which has already been established on this forum here as not being Mizuno's work here.
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
This graph has the same font as Figure 5 ... please compare.
Lets me make this clear.. this is not Mizuno's work.
Please compare Mizuno' work with Mizuno's work, if you must
and please do so with proper context
This preoccupation with Jed's Post on September 2 2017 has no place in the current discussion
and the posting of these graph's without context is misleading
It is a distraction..
and if you continue to do this I will consider it vexatious
and not enquiry
This is a matter of semantics isn't it? By "recovered" heat I assume that Mizuno and Rothwell mean heat emanating from the reactor that ends up being measured by the calorimeter. Their correction factor adjusts for the heat that they think is not so recovered. Any correction factor greater than 1, therefore, automatically means that they regard the calorimeter efficiency as less than 100%.
I think that you are using "recovery" in a different sense to mean the calculated total of measured heat and heat that it is supposed must be around but wasn't actually measured.
By calorimeter “recovery”, I mean whatever is actually measured/calculated from the outlet measurements and the delta T, as a fraction of a hypothetical 100% measurement (if all heat were measured at the outlet, ignoring other losses that cannot be captured at the outlet, such as radiant or convection loss from the outside of the calorimeter, etc., and including these as part of the hypothetical outlet heat).
If I say 100% recovery, that means all Input heat, as if It was measured at the outlet.
If there are better terms that are more common and less confusing to most people I will gladly switch to those.
Display MoreParadigmnoia
The source for this graph
is the same one as Fig 5
which has already been established on this forum here as not being Mizuno's work here.
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
This graph has the same font as Figure 5 ... please compare.
Lets me make this clear.. this is not Mizuno's work.
Please compare Mizuno' work with Mizuno's work, if you must
and please do so with proper context
This preoccupation with Jed's Post on September 2 2017 has no place in the current discussion
and the posting of these graph's without context is misleading
It is a distraction..
and if you continue to do this I will consider it vexatious
and not enquiry
It came from Jed, who was acting as a conduit for Mizuno’s work. If it is no good for some reason, let’s mark it so, at the source, and perhaps the real data will take its rightful place in its stead.
So I hereby retract any inference that the old calorimeter was quite stable based on this data.
So I hereby retract any inference that the old calorimeter was quite stable based on this data.
Thankyou Paradigmnoia
So you were inferring... based on data that is not Mizuno's data
Please learn to read context properly
This series of graphs has been posted too many times on this thread
They have been a distraction
If Paradigmnoia has any 500W input data from his own experiments
that are relevant to the discussion of the recent Mizuno 500W/800W results
I would be interested to see them.
