Could someone who can read Japanese please translate the legend for the grey and red lines?
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
-
-
I don't think so. Look at Figure 10 of Mizuno and Rothwell J Cond Matt Nucl Sci 29:1-12 (2019), then equation 2 of the same paper. The equation they fit to their calibration data is fractional power capture = O/I = 0.98 - [5.0811E-4 x T] where T is "the reactor temperature"
I looked at this: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf
and figure 10 is the thermal power fractional capture number (less than 1). In figure 10 the first data point is around 25 C which is the room temperature. The capture ratio at 25 C is claimed to be .967 according to equation 2. Quoting from the paper linked:
Figure 10 shows the reactor temperature vs. the heat recovery rate. When there is no input power, and the reactor
body temperature is 25◦C, the recovery rate should be close to 1. When the reactor body temperature is 100◦C, the
recovery rate is 0.93; it is 0.82 at 300◦C, and 0.78 at 360◦C.Any constraint that looks like it is "1" at 0 C is coincidence.
-
Any constraint that looks like it is "1" at 0 C is coincidence.
I think you are correct, there is no constraint on the fit. But the point I was making remains. The steady-state heat recovery fraction at all temperatures in Fig 10 is less than 1 whereas the relationship between the grey and red traces in Mizuno's 800W output plot indicates there is a range of reactor temperatures where it is greater than 1. And I don't think that this is a small range of temperatures we are talking about. The recovery fraction must be greater than unity for reactor steady-state reactor temperatures from about room temperature up to whatever temperature was needed to (transiently) drive the measured calorimeter output up to almost 200W.
How does steady-state heat recovery manage to be more than 100% efficient over this range?
-
Could someone who can read Japanese please translate the legend for the grey and red lines?
OCR and google translate yield
元計算
熟損失補正2
Moto keisan
juku sonshitsu hosei 2
-
元計算-->original calculation
熟損失補正２(juku sonshitsu hosei 2) is not correct but 熱損失補正2(netsu sonshitsu hosei 2).
熱損失補正2(netsu sonshitsu hosei 2)-->heat loss correction 2
-
I am not completely enlightened by seeing the translated notations from Mizuno's 800W output plot, but they do seem to confirm that the red trace is supposed to be a corrected version of the grey one. And on that score, I am still puzzled by the crossing of the traces on the left. This crossing has nothing to do with transient vs steady state conditions. Corrections factors were figured out completely at steady state. Instead, based on how Mizuno and Rothwell describe their methods, the crossing has 100% to do with the apparent efficiency of heat capture by the calorimeter being above 100% at low reactor temperatures ("low" being below 200C or something like that). And it is not just a little above 100%, at some points the efficiency of heat capture seems to be grossly above 100%. For instance at about 50W uncorrected heat output (grey trace), the corrected heat output is about 120W . This implies more that 200% heat retention efficiency (at steady state!) at whatever temperature that is.
Can't be! Something has gone wrong in the calculations
-
I am not completely enlightened by seeing the translated notations from Mizuno's 800W output plot, but they do seem to confirm that the red trace is supposed to be a corrected version of the grey one. And on that score, I am still puzzled by the crossing of the traces on the left. This crossing has nothing to do with transient vs steady state conditions. Corrections factors were figured out completely at steady state. Instead, based on how Mizuno and Rothwell describe their methods, the crossing has 100% to do with the apparent efficiency of heat capture by the calorimeter being above 100% at low reactor temperatures ("low" being below 200C or something like that). And it is not just a little above 100%, at some points the efficiency of heat capture seems to be grossly above 100%. For instance at about 50W uncorrected heat output (grey trace), the corrected heat output is about 120W . This implies more that 200% heat retention efficiency (at steady state!) at whatever temperature that is.
Can't be! Something has gone wrong in the calculations
If the corrections are based on the reactor temperature, rather than the calorimeter internal air temperature, then I can see how small problems could creep in. The reactor temperature is not a single temperature, nor is it 100% coupled to the moving air temperature when the reactor is heating up. There is a delay between the internal reactor temperature, the external reactor temperature and the internal calorimeter air temperature which is related to the surface area of the device, mass, etc.
Anyways, while the reactor is warming up, it is not at steady state.
-
it's hard to know why the red trace off by that much in the start up of the run. It's only the first 30 minutes of a 5 hour run that you are referring to. I could speculate but I don't think it is too important because no one is using that data to claim over unity. It could be a simple offeset time error when the data was put into the spreadsheet (cut and paste of data at the wrong time stamp) or smoothing average functions in the spread sheet causing problems. It's a curiousity to bring attention to and ask that it be investigated but it isn't anything near a show stopper.
-
There is often in my experiments a “pulsing” effect during warm up where the control heater warms up, then backs off a bit, then advances again as the air cools off the outside and the temperature of the device evens out.
-
If the corrections are based on the reactor temperature, rather than the calorimeter internal air temperature, then I can see how small problems could creep in. The reactor temperature is not a single temperature, nor is it 100% coupled to the moving air temperature when the reactor is heating up. There is a delay between the internal reactor temperature, the external reactor temperature and the internal calorimeter air temperature which is related to the surface area of the device, mass, etc.
Anyways, while the reactor is warming up, it is not at steady state.
The correction factor is 100% calculated from steady-state data. Whatever this problem is, it has nothing to do with the reactor warming up.
-
it's hard to know why the red trace off by that much in the start up of the run. It's only the first 30 minutes of a 5 hour run that you are referring to. I could speculate but I don't think it is too important because no one is using that data to claim over unity. It could be a simple offeset time error when the data was put into the spreadsheet (cut and paste of data at the wrong time stamp) or smoothing average functions in the spread sheet causing problems. It's a curiousity to bring attention to and ask that it be investigated but it isn't anything near a show stopper.
You could be correct. On the other hand, I would like to point out that the 0-200W range of output powers that this strange miscorrection applies to covers the entire range of output powers used in most experiments from Mizuno's and Rothwells' first 2019 paper.
The problem with this sort of thing is that it may reflect a mistaken spreadsheet coefficient or calculation that affects calculations at all temperatures. Everyone seems hypnotized by the discrepancy being most obvious at the beginning of the experiment, but the calculation of the correction factor has nothing whatsoever to do with the timecourse of reactor events during the experiment. The formula used for corrections is derived solely from steady-state data.
-
Mind you, there is no crossing of the red and grey traces during cool down. So how come one correction is used early on and a different correction is used later at what must be very similar reactor temperatures?
-
Is that correction method better than just adding a simple factor that aligns the steady state part to the input power, and then applied to the whole curve, whether or not it is ideal for the warm up phase?
-
Is that correction method better than just adding a simple factor that aligns the steady state part to the input power or applicable calibration, and then applied to the whole curve, whether or not it is ideal for the warm up phase?
-
Sorry phone edits not playing nice
-
it's hard to know why the red trace off by that much in the start up of the run.
Why should it be so hard to know?
The graph with the red and gray traces was brought to the attentions of the L-F readers by its author mizunotadahiko 10 days ago (1). Within hours, Paradigmnoia noticed that "the grey power trace extends out beyond the red trace at the beginning" (2). The inconsistency was further pointed out by Bruce__H (3): "One trace (the red one) is supposed to be just the other trace multiplied by a temperature-appropriate correction factor that is always greater than 1."
What does prevent the author of the graph from providing an explanation of this oddity?
(1) MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
-
Is that correction method better than just adding a simple factor that aligns the steady state part to the input power, and then applied to the whole curve, whether or not it is ideal for the warm up phase?
I don't understand the question.
-
What does prevent the author of the graph from providing an explanation of this oddity?
Good point.
Dr. Mizuno, do you know why the corrected output power is smaller that the initially measured output power at the beginning of the experiment shown below?
-
Dr. Mizuno, do you know why the corrected output power is smaller that the initially measured output power at the beginning of the experiment shown below?
Maybe I misunderstand the question but . . .
Output heat is always smaller than input power for a while. There is a lag. It takes time for the objects in the insulated box to heat up and reach terminal temperatures. The heater is inside a large steel reactor with significant thermal mass. The heat will not all be removed by the flow of air until the reactor reaches terminal temperature and begins radiating as much heat from the surface as there is being generated inside it.
-
Maybe I misunderstand the question but . . .
Output heat is always smaller than input power for a while.
look at the gray line (no correction for heat loss) in the graph and see that it is higher than the red line (output, corrected for heat loss, I assume) for the first 30 minutes of the 5 hour run. At one point in that first 30 minutes, the uncorrected value (gray line) is about 130 watts while the corrected value (red line) is 50 watts. It is a little weird - but seems to be a tempest in a teapot. I'm sure there is a simple explanation.
