Approaching thermal runaway on this point, is Mizuno Tech an Illusion or very dangerous?
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
-
-
Scientists and engineers do, indeed, undertake potentially dangerous research after first instituting safety precautions.
Okay, so what safety precautions are needed? What, exactly, should he do, not knowing the physical mechanism.
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?
I know nothing about this Mizuno Technologies website or the people behind it. I have not discussed it with Mizuno. The other day it had an image taken without permission from another website. I somehow got in touch the person behind the website who described this as a tempest in a teapot. He then removed the image. I do not think it was a tempest in a teapot, and I think he is a nutcase.
I have no idea whether or how this company is "pushing" the technology to investors, or to which investors, or what they tell the investors. Any investor who reads the papers Mizuno and I have written will see that the reaction is not yet under control and cannot be safely scaled up.
Why has there been no hint in Mizuno's experiments of the type of temperature instability expected?
Because he has not experienced instability recently. He doesn't want to risk it. He did experience an explosion years ago. The university did not allow him to do any more experiments after that. He did not resume the research until after he retired. See:
-
So you would advocate going ahead and experimenting on a fission reactor without control rods? That is where your logic goes.
It is the only thing we can do at present. We do not have the knowledge to proceed any other way. We resemble the Curies in the early stage of research into fission, when they did not even realize how dangerous it was, and they ended up with notebooks and lab equipment that is far too radioactive to work with today. The only thing we can do is proceed as carefully as possible.
I think that experimenting in a large fireproof space (or even outside in the open) with lots of coolant handy would be fine.
A large fireproof place . . . Another helpful suggestion! Would you like to provide a suitcase full of money? Because otherwise he is stuck in the small, earthquake-damaged space in the building with broken windows that is leaning over and falling to pieces, and would be condemned if the Japanese took building codes a little more seriously.
So many people have offered so many expensive suggestions! The problem is, Mizuno has no money. I cannot imagine how he even pays the rent, although I guess the landlord would have a chutzpah to charge much for that dump.
Having said that, let me again thank the people who contributed to the GoFundMe effort that let him fix much of his equipment and get back on his feet after the earthquake. The SEM was too expensive to fix but the other stuff is working about as well as it was before. Much of it is 1980s equipment held together with chewing gum and bailing wire. There is a voltmeter from the 1950s. Mizuno himself is from the 1950s. As he says, "I am an analog person in a digital world."
-
Approaching thermal runaway on this point, is Mizuno Tech an Illusion or very dangerous?
I haven't the slightest idea.
-
MR4.2 Finis:
During 19 hours at 248°C substantial out gassing continued as expected. RGA analysis showed similar composition to what was found in MR4.1. The cell will be pumped out at the same temperature, in preparation for MR4.3.
-
The Mizuno Technology Inc. website currently shows the following information on a page accessed through the "Contact us!" link provided at the bottom of the main page.
"We are currently seeking investors to financially and logistically help us to engineer a safe and mass-market ready reactor version.
If you have any questions and are further interested in our product and development, we welcome you to contact us via email!"
An email link leads to the following address: [email protected].
I seem to recall that Mizuno has said that the website is genuinely associated with him.
-
Where can I find the commentary by Storms
Let's see . . . He talks about it in discussions . . .
He has shown this graph several times, p. 89, discussion p. 91:
-
I haven't the slightest idea.
Nor has Bruce-H it seems.
-
Lamps and Heaters...
.
.
-
Lamps and Heaters...
That is nice data if I understand the second graph correctly. Was this a tungsten lamp or quartz metal halide type?
Do you have a 100 watt purely resistive heater calibration for comparison?
-
That is nice data if I understand the second graph correctly. Was this a tungsten lamp or quartz metal halide type?
Do you have a 100 watt purely resistive heater calibration for comparison?
The lamp is a Sylvania 100 W, 120 V standard incandescent, and the heater is a 12.5 ohm Kanthal coil wrapped around a ceramic thermocouple protection tube (that has been used for years). It currently has a dedicated 50.0 V DC supply.
It seems like one or the other isn’t quite what it should be for power. Probably the lamp is underperforming slightly. The AC voltage tends to be closer to 117 V on average than the 120 V it is supposed to be.
Also on this run, the lamp DT at steady state was a bit lower than the 7.3 -7.4 C it managed the last two times. The calorimeter hasn’t been opened or changed for about a week.
I have nearly completed a four lamp test fixture, with four independent lamp switches for many possible combinations of lamp powers. -
It seems like one or the other isn’t quite what it should be for power. Probably the lamp is underperforming slightly. The AC voltage tends to be closer to 117 V on average than the 120 V it is supposed to be.
Some years ago one of my friends worked for Thorn electrical's incandescent lamp division in the UK. He told me that because of manufacturing tolerances bulbs were considered 'good' at plus or minus 10% of their rated wattage. As for the grid, it is often 'all over the place'.
-
Nor has Bruce-H it seems.
Well that is rather the point ... isn't it.
Everyone who is careful and not prejudging the situation should be in exactly the same state as me. On the one hand, Mizuno and Rothwell have reported a nice series of investigations with a clear difference in behaviour between active and control meshes. On the other hand their results have not been successfully replicated. Moreover some predicted consequences of the properties Mizuno and Rothwell observe are not seen in the behaviour of their reactors. So what is going on?
Most people here are incurious. Par for the course I'm afraid.
-
Let's see . . . He talks about it in discussions . . .
He has shown this graph several times, p. 89, discussion p. 91:
Got it. Thanks. Storms is not particularly advocating an exponential dependence of excess heat production on temperature, he is simply saying that it generally increases somehow over moderate temperatures (0-80 degC).
-
Storms is not particularly advocating an exponential dependence of excess heat production on temperature,
The exponent is small, but I think most data shows it is there. Excess power increases faster as temperature increases.
-
Взаимодействие с другими людьми
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.
Many pilots also do stupid, dangerous things. As they say: there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.
You have very sane reasoning ... What Mizuno and the other physicists don't know ...? The danger lies in the fact that a network of free electrons - a magnetic cluster, can freely migrate through the structure of any substance under favorable conditions, which are that an external magnetic field is able to pull this NETWORK through the structure of the substance and there is no destruction of the NUCLEAR the structure of matter and the CLUSTER of free electrons also retains its structure and ability for long-term "living" ... several hours and even days ... Why is that? A condition for the long-term existence of these formations is the absence of a source of "energetic" ultraviolet photons capable of destroying such clusters ... What else is important? Since such a GRID is closed on itself, the re-emission of electrons in
this grid remains in this structure, maintaining free electrons in a "pumped" state - this is their significant magnetic potential, which allows them to magnetically to each other, while having discontinuities - geometric distances between electrons, into which the nuclei of matter calmly float in and out, through which, as it were, sifts this plasmoid - a cluster of electrons ... Getting into the air, it can embed oxygen molecules into its composition, since an oxygen molecule is a mini magnet, or mini "iron" ...
-
Tried out the 4-Lamp system yesterday. All standard tungsten incandescent lamps, arranged as 25 W, 100 W, 50 W and 25 W, individually switchable. Results as follows:
.
-
MR4 Update 30 Dec.
The cell was pumped out to 5E-6 Pa at 245C. The pump valve was closed and heat left at 150 watts. The out-gassing continued, resulting in 60 Pa after three days. RGA analysis showed HD (mass 3), N2 (mass 28) and CO2 (mass 44), all in equal amounts. Smaller fractions of H2 or D (mass 2) and H2O or OD+ (mass 18) were also seen.
The vacuum pump was then restarted. After two days at 200°C and 12 hours at ~245°C, the cell reached 5E-6, and after cooling 1.6E-6 Torr, the base vacuum for the system. Deuterium was added at 14:30 and test MR4.3 started. The live stream is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NXCxsrwHOE
-
Can we review where we stand with Paradigmnoia's experiment and the traverse test? As I recall ---
The air speed kept coming out differently at different points on the orifice. Whereas Mizuno saw uniform air speeds. As far as I could tell, the two tubes looked about the same, so it is a mystery why they did not work the same way. The problem was finally fixed with a "muffler." The air speed at different points is now about as uniform as Mizuno's.
I am thinking about mentioning this in an upcoming lecture discussing replication attempts. I will say about as much as I just wrote here.
-
Display More
Can we review where we stand with Paradigmnoia's experiment and the traverse test? As I recall ---
The air speed kept coming out differently at different points on the orifice. Whereas Mizuno saw uniform air speeds. As far as I could tell, the two tubes looked about the same, so it is a mystery why they did not work the same way. The problem was finally fixed with a "muffler." The air speed at different points is now about as uniform as Mizuno's.
I am thinking about mentioning this in an upcoming lecture discussing replication attempts. I will say about as much as I just wrote here.
The blower fan speed at whatever constant set voltage will be same, for all intents and purposes, so the outlet air velocity will be the same at a constant set outlet configuration. Except for high heat loads requiring increased airflow to keep the delta temperature in a safe zone, there is no reason to mess with the fan speed during a set of experiments. Under normal circumstances the overall (average) outlet velocity is effectively constant, whatever it is.
