I know but 300 Pascal should be reached at 300C not at 20C!
How do you know this? Perhaps I misunderstood the brief instructions in Jed's document:
Heat production
1. Valve off the vacuum pumps and set deuterium pressure to 0.75 - 2.25 Torr (100-300 Pa).
Do not exceed 45 Torr (6000 Pa). Record pressure history.
2. Raise the temperature 100°C with the sheath heater. This should generate some excess
heat.
3. If there is no excess heat, raise the temperature higher
Reduction in pressure for MR4 run #2 is far less than in run #1
MR4.2 update:
The same protocol as in 4.1 is being used for this test. The cell was pumped out overnight at 190°C and after cooling reached 1.5E-6 Torr. Deuterium was added to 298 Pa. The heater was set to 40 watts for overnight dwell at just over 100°C. After 20 hours, the TC2 temperature was seen to match calibration within 1°C. RGA analysis showed none of the water and CO2 signals seen in 4.1. Heater power will now be increased to 100 watts.
The live stream continues at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlHSU69m-6M
I am pretty sure I heard that Mizuno is operating at just a few Mb. And that varying the pressure a little will provide a burst of heat. But that is only anecdotal.
The same protocol as in 4.1 is being used for this test. The cell was pumped out overnight at 190°C and after cooling reached 1.5E-6 Torr. Deuterium was added to 298 Pa.
What I heard is that the effects starts at low pressure (some Pascal) and the optimal working point was - after activation 300Pa.
I'm pretty sure that most stuff JED wrote is simple cheating to detract people! Holmlid shows that H*/D* forms at or below 0.01 Pascal and D* is essentially needed to start the reaction.
The only way to get D* at higher pressure is high loading of Pd/Ni and to use the out-gazing to form a thin surface layer of D*.
In their recent book chapter, Rothwell and Mizuno display a graphic (Fig 43) indicating that excess power is almost independent of pressure over a range 0-5000 Pa. This appears to be for steady state heat production rather than start up. The greatest pressure dependence is at temperatures from 150-250 degC where 300 Pa does seem optimal -- but not by much -- changing pressure by 100s Pa only makes 10-20% difference in heating power.
The first goal of the current work is to test with some precision the protocol supplied about 18 months ago by Mizuno (through Jed). I can say that the current series of tests is doing just that, despite the lack of air-flow calorimetry. The work leading to this point has revealed quite a bit of additional information, such as the presence and dissociation of calcite deposits to CO2, demonstrating the need for additional de-gassing cycle(s) of the cell.
After four hours at 100 watts, the cell has stabilized at about 3°C above calibration temperature. This is encouraging but not enough to draw any conclusion. After some additional hours, the power will be increased again, which in theory should increase the temperature rise above calibration.
MR4.2 Update:
The RGA sample shows a drop of D2 (mass 4), replaced by mass 3, which is probably HD. There's also substantial mass 2, which could be mono D, but more likely H2. I found in November testing of an empty cell that 304 stainless has substantial hydrogen in the metal, and that the gas is released when the cell is heated above 200°C. I expect that will increase when the power is now raised to 150 watts.
MR4.2 Update:
After six hours at 150 watts, the cell is spot on calibration temperature. Pressure continues to rise, probably from out-gassing of the metal cell body and the mesh. It will be left overnight to see if the rate of pressure rise diminishes.
Thank you for keeping us updated
I'm pretty sure that most stuff JED wrote is simple cheating to detract people!
I think you mean "distract." What would be the point of that? If Mizuno did not want people to replicate, he would not reveal anything. * Why would he hand out the wrong information to prevent replications? That would only frustrate people and hurt his reputation.
* It is entirely his decision. I never reveal information without the author's permission. I know of many experiments that have not been revealed. Mostly because the authors are not satisfied with the work, or because they are dead.
The Mizuno Technologies website states that the power output of its device is "exponentially related to operating temperature". They must mean something like 'exponentially related to the intended range of operating temperatures' because the reaction must, in reality, deviate from exponentiality and approach some maximal limiting rate as temperatures increase. Nonetheless, the papers by Mizuno and Rothwell show experimental evidence that the rate of excess heat production increases exponentially over a range of temperatures from 20-400 degC.
This has consequences for how a Mizuno-type reactor should behave. It also has implications for safe operation. The LENR community should think about what is expected if excess heat generation truly does rise exponentially with increasing temperature. It should also ponder why such consequences have not been clearly seen yet.
Broadly speaking, if excess heat rises with temperature in Mizuno's device a positive feedback cycle is established. If you heat the device externally, not only should its temperature rise, some extra LENR heating will be generated as well that will increase the device's temperature a little bit more. But that little bit more should evoke exponentially more LENR heating that will increase temperature even more, which evokes more heating and yet more temperature increase ... and so on. A positive feedback cycle between device temperature and LENR activation.
Over a small range of temperatures, right at the foot of the temperature dependence curve, where LENR activation is weak, the positive feedback is weak too and cooling might be able to balance the overall increase in temperature that occurs when the unit is heated externally. But at some point the mathematics says that there will be a threshold. This is a temperature beyond which external heating is no longer a factor and where the positive feedback takes over. If external heating pushes the device beyond the threshold, temperature control is lost, and the entire device should shoot up to a state of near maximal heat generation. According to the data of Mizuno and Rothwell, the units they have studied are nowhere near such maximal activation (because it is still in the exponential phase) and so there is still a lot to go. We are talking about runaway temperature excursions here. And potential danger for anyone operating the units.
I haven't heard anything about runaway, or even regimes in which temperature control is difficult, in the Mizuno technology. But, if their claims are true, why not? Even below threshold, the kinetics of heating and cooling should be massively affected by the positive feedback with temperature excursions slowing more and more as the responses to external heating become more and more affected by internal LENR processes in the nickel rather than the simple heat-capacitance properties of the reactor body. I have looked at the data and sometimes I think I see such effects but then sometimes such things appear in controls runs too. So the situation is equivocal. I gather that Mizuno's control over his setup is getting better and better so I am hoping for cleaner data.
I encourage Mizuno to attempt push his system into runaway. It could be a hugely convincing demonstration of the reality of his claims and I really don't understand why there is no hint of such a thing so far. It shouldn't be something you have to work hard to achieve.
The Mizuno Technologies website states that the power output of its device is "exponentially related to operating temperature". They must mean something like 'exponentially related to the intended range of operating temperatures' because the reaction must, in reality, deviate from exponentiality and approach some maximal limiting rate as temperatures increase.
Correct. The ultimate limit would be the melting point of the metal, but perhaps there is some other limit below that.
As far as I know, all cold fusion reactions increase exponentially with temperature. Ed Storms has recently pointed this out and elaborated on it.
I encourage Mizuno to attempt push his system into runaway.
Really? You do realize I hope, that if this works it could be dangerous. Would you volunteer to man the equipment when this is done? I sure wouldn't want to be in the room.
I would not do this just to generate "convincing data." People are going to have to be convinced with experiments that are not dangerous.
Really? You do realize I hope, that if this works it could be dangerous. Would you volunteer to man the equipment when this is done? I sure wouldn't want to be in the room.
I would not do this just to generate "convincing data." People are going to have to be convinced with experiments that are not dangerous.
Yes really. I definitely encourage doing this to generate convincing data. I am actually a little surprised at you Jed. I don't think that you have thought this one through.
Scientists and engineers worldwide undertake research with inherent dangers all the time. It is just a matter of taking precautions. If you have a fundamental objection to such research then you should write to Elon Musk forthwith and tell him to lay off the experiments with new rocket engines, or to governments worldwide to tell them to stop working with potentially dangerous viruses, and so on.
Do you really think that Mizuno is not engineer enough to put in place safety mechanisms?
On the other hand, I would heavily suggest that knowing whether this system might go into runaway if you inch the external heat up too much is something that potential investors might want to know. The investors that the Mizuno Technologies website is seeking right now. I wouldn't want this heater n my house if such research hadn't been done.
Do you really think that Mizuno is not engineer enough to put in place safety mechanisms?
I do not see how you can put in safety mechanisms if you do not know the physical mechanism of the reaction. It would be like a fission reactor with no control rods, since you don't know what rods to use. The only safety mechanisms I can think of would be to rapidly cool the metal if the temperature starts to rise rapidly, by admitting air and dousing it with cold water. That would wreck the experiment before it produced convincing data.
Scientists and engineers worldwide undertake research with inherent dangers all the time.
Many pilots also do stupid, dangerous things. As they say: there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.
Correct. The ultimate limit would be the melting point of the metal, but perhaps there is some other limit below that.
As far as I know, all cold fusion reactions increase exponentially with temperature. Ed Storms has recently pointed this out and elaborated on it.
You are correct, the ultimate limit doesn't have to be meltdown, it can just be the temperature attained when the LENR mechanism is fully turned on and this should scale with the density of the reactants.
Where can I find the commentary by Storms? One has to watch how one talks about "exponential". The Arrhenius relation depends exponentially on 1/T so it looks like e^T at low T but is actually sigmoidal and asymptotes at high T
Many pilots also do stupid, dangerous things. As they say: there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.
That doesn't address my point. Scientists and engineers do, indeed, undertake potentially dangerous research after first instituting safety precautions. And for a very good reason.
Do you really think that Mizuno Technologies should push this technology to investors when a simple consideration of the claimed exponential dependence of power on temperature indicates that the system could actually be very dangerous?
Why has there been no hint in Mizuno's experiments of the type of temperature instability expected?
I do not see how you can put in safety mechanisms if you do not know the physical mechanism of the reaction. It would be like a fission reactor with no control rods, since you don't know what rods to use. The only safety mechanisms I can think of would be to rapidly cool the metal if the temperature starts to rise rapidly, by admitting air and dousing it with cold water. That would wreck the experiment before it produced convincing data.
So you would advocate going ahead and experimenting on a fission reactor without control rods? That is where your logic goes.
I think that experimenting in a large fireproof space (or even outside in the open) with lots of coolant handy would be fine. I see something like this as inevitable ... after all, how do you know where the threshold for loss of temperature control is? Mizuno hasn't encountered it yet (I don't know why) but all that has to happen is that the reaction materials are particularly concentrated, even in one part of the mesh, and the threshold could easily be crossed. The temperature threshold for loss of control scales with the concentration of reactants ... it isn't some set temperature that is always in the same place.
