MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • I do not see anything different with the website Mizunotech. Last time we talked about this in May, I checked with Mizuno's business manager, and he said they did the bare minimum on it.

    Are you saying the business manager is behind this website? Who is this business manager?


    This is the website we are talking about, right?


    https://mizunotech.com/index.html


    I suggest you tell Mizuno. He said he knows nothing about the website.

  • I am digging into this. Corresponding with him right now, and insists the website is legitimate, and that there must be some misunderstanding. It is always best to give someone the benefit of the doubt IMO while the facts are being sorted out.


    We shall see though. Everyone stand by.

  • Dear All


    Mizuno Tec. Inc is the official page. I didn't even know MTI page before. Mr. Daniel made it ahead of time, causing confusion. I also contacted Mr. Daniel and gave him a lot of attention and suggestions. Mr. D is also a page I made for me. The pager was not well managed and caused distrust and confusion to many people. I will also be careful in the future.


    Tadahiko Mizuno

  • Just baking out at 250C the sodium metasilicate cement used to seal and hold the Macor ceramic Gamma window in place. After a couple of hours at 250C I will finish the process with a one-hour soak at 500C. The first 1.5mm thick window cracked under vacuum so this is a 3mm one. When this is done I have some more brazing work on the other flange to fit in all the various feed-throughs and then I I can do another vacuum test on the fully configured system. About time!


    Lockdown and fund-raising have really cut back my lab time since mid-summer. But since my neighbours at the lab have pretty much shut down I am now alone in an industrial island so stepping up my hours again


  • Comparison of calorimeter (first run, panels pressure fit, not even fully sealed up) without the acrylic box vs with the acrylic box pretty much optimized. 200 W constant input.


    If this sounds confusing, recall that I put an R15 (roughly RSI 2.6) insulation board box around but not touching the acrylic box.

    I made a new lid so the outlet fan can attach to it (since the fan was attached to the acrylic box), and stuck the calorimeter together for a quick test of concept. The original heater and the late 100 W incandescent lamp addition have not been disturbed during this process.

    .

  • Do you think the slower rise to an eventually higher temperature is due to the greater thermal mass of the acrylic box eventually providing better thermal isolation? Or is there a better explanation?

    The effect of the high thermal mass of the acrylic was the subject of this test. It is around 10 kg of excess mass and majorly slows down the heating and cooling of the calorimeter, as can be seen in this test. Acrylic has a high specific heat. The acrylic doesn't smooth the short term variations very much, but is a drag on the long term variation.


    On the other hand, the acrylic box is almost a no-brainer to seal for possible air leaks.


    There are still four bricks inside the calorimeter I would like to get out of there, but they are a sort of fire insurance. Working on that next.

  • So, took out the bricks, made a stage with SS plate with curled edges for stiffness, supported on two ceramic "angle iron" shaped pieces.

    Fixed a slight leak at the fan inlet, reinforced the fan hold down screw bosses... And it heats up realllly quick now.

    Check it out.

    .

  • Paradigmnoia


    Nice! I am amazed at the difference that sealing leaks makes. I suppose that this is something that becomes particularly important when you have forced-air cooling.


    Now that you have lots of experience with this type of calorimetry, have you come across anything in your non-LENR system that would account for the difference between the active and inactive runs in the papers by Rothwell and Mizuno?

  • Paradigmnoia


    Nice! I am amazed at the difference that sealing leaks makes. I suppose that this is something that becomes particularly important when you have forced-air cooling.


    Now that you have lots of experience with this type of calorimetry, have you come across anything in your non-LENR system that would account for the difference between the active and inactive runs in the papers by Rothwell and Mizuno?

    I haven’t even sealed the panels yet. The small leak at the fan (just upstream of the outlet thermocouples) was probably a bigger issue for measurement than the possible leaks at panel joins which are overlapped and a convoluted way for air to sneak in (and be heated by the inside air anyways).


    Eliminating the excess mass of bricks and the heavy acrylic box has shortened the warm up time by 3 hours, and the same for cool down. It was pretty much at steady state when I remembered to put on the fan cover. I’ll test that again today, with the fan cover on from the start. It is just a box made of foam, not really sealed but enough to keep the fan heat loss to a minimum. The exposed fan heat loss is about twice what the fan consumes in power.


    There are several potential pathways to erroneous results in this method, but a method that results in getting positive errors in only the “activated” experiments is something that I cannot explain in a consistent, believable way. Most errors in the measurements or method will cause a constant offset in all tests. The air inlet area geometry and the outlet fan connection to the box are the most sensitive areas for transient errors. Since the Delta Temperature is directly proportional to the measured outlet power, getting a strong temperature : power response ratio is important to weeding out artefacts.

    The main thing is now a round trip, heat-cool cycle is shortened from 6-8 hours to 2-3 hours, meaning various things can be tested about 3 times faster. Plus I still have a separate, original Mizuno configuration to compare to.