MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Paradigmnoia

And here is the compilation of the previous lower wattage results with the recent higher wattage results.

Nice.

.

The 25 W lamp, and 2 x 25 W lamps, steps sit right right on the line with the rest.

So there is totally predictable, linear response from 25 W to 425 W.

And since multiple tungsten filament incandescent lamps were used for all steps, except the 200 W calibration, the LENR of tungsten lamps seems to be absent if not discredited.

By the way, I think I uploaded the 200 W excess graph months ago. That was the wrong data. A graph of all 8 power levels showed it did not fit. A few weeks before the presentation in India they sent me a revised version. Here is the 200 W excess result. This is what I presented.

Here are the peak power levels for the calibrations and excess heat results at 8 power levels:

Notice that in the table, the excess heat as a percent of input power does not increase. That's not a good sign. It should increase, because the reactor internal temperature is higher.

Here is the bottom graph in X-Y scatter format, which may be a little clearer:

In the last row in the table, 750 W, the calibration and excess heat tests do not match well because the calibration was actually at 700 W input, and the excess heat test at 750 W, as shown in the two graphs below. The other rows are a closer match between calibration and excess heat test.

The difference between the 700 W calibration and the 750 W test is not that important because I apply the Recovery Rate from the calibration to the Output W for the excess heat test. So, for the nominal 750 W row, the Recovery Rate is 77%, actual Output W in the excess heat column is 745 W, and Excess adjusted is:

745 W / 77% = 972 W

I do not know what caused that odd dip at 345 W. For 345 W, the input power during calibration was very close to the input power during the excess heat test.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

And since multiple tungsten filament incandescent lamps were used for all steps, except the 200 W calibration, the LENR of tungsten lamps seems to be absent if not discredited.

Is there a paper with the graph showing the lack of something happening with the tungsten lamps?

Quote from Eric Walker

Is there a paper with the graph showing the lack of something happening with the tungsten lamps?

Nice to see you back.

Parkhomov recently (past 6 months?) reported that tungsten incandescent lamps were producing around 20 to 30 % excess power compared to input. This was expected by him as evidence of his cold neutrino theory, from which calculations suggested this would be the case. (It is an old LENR meme as well). The temperature of the filament, calculated by the resistance, was associated with the excess, however the best excess temperature range was reported to be 2200 to 2500 C, which as it turns out, is the typical temperature of an W incandescent lamp filament at the normal rated voltage for the lamp. Even more surprising is that experimental set-up is extremely similar to basic lamp-heats-water calorimeter experiments performed in schools for decades, of which numerous examples can be readily found by Google searches of “calorimeter experiment”.

Jed, thanks for your input.
I would like to comment in more detail but I am pressed for time at the moment.

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Nice to see you back.

Parkhomov recently (past 6 months?) reported that tungsten incandescent lamps were producing around 20 to 30 % excess power compared to input. This was expected by him as evidence of his cold neutrino theory, from which calculations suggested this would be the case. (It is an old LENR meme as well). The temperature of the filament, calculated by the resistance, was associated with the excess, however the best excess temperature range was reported to be 2200 to 2500 C, which as it turns out, is the typical temperature of an W incandescent lamp filament at the normal rated voltage for the lamp. Even more surprising is that experimental set-up is extremely similar to basic lamp-heats-water calorimeter experiments performed in schools for decades, of which numerous examples can be readily found by Google searches of “calorimeter experiment”.

I have been conducting my polemic with Alexander Parkhomov for a long time and I strongly disagree with his theory of "neutrino participation" - there is NO this in nature - my article -

In the wake of the notes of Alexei Ivanovich Laptukhov. January 28, 2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5icV/59Li8u4k8

In the wake of the notes of Alexei Ivanovich Laptukhov. January 28, 2020 - https://drive.google.com/file/…OdOEc5Or/view?usp=sharing

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not know what caused that odd dip at 345 W. For 345 W, the input power during calibration was very close to the input power during the excess heat test.

Those types of dips were best replicated in my experiments by some sort of manipulation of the inlet thermocouple or inlet configuration.

Possibly adjusting the inlet opening cover?
Where the gas lines etc. go in, there is a little ‘door’ to make the air inlet a circle again and provide limited access to wires... so the acrylic box can be lifted over the passing through lines and wires.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Those types of dips were best replicated in my experiments by some sort of manipulation of the inlet thermocouple or inlet configuration.

Possibly adjusting the inlet opening cover?

Sorry, I have no idea. They just sent me some data, with no explanations other than what I published in the slides.

Quote from JedRothwell

Sorry, I have no idea. They just sent me some data, with no explanations other than what I published in the slides.

It makes no real difference if there are adjustments while warming up towards steady state. Artefacts like that show that the data is real.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It makes no real difference if there are adjustments while warming up towards steady state. Artefacts like that show that the data is real.

I agree. And it seems to me that the number of artefacts has gone down compared with Mizuno's earlier results. This is exactly what you would expect from a lab that is working steadily to refine its procedures. But, as this lab achieves more and more control over the system it is studying, some worrying elements are ever more evident.

First, I still don't see a secure indication that this effect is temperature-sensitive. As Jed Rothwell points out, the percent excess heat should really increase as input power (and thus reactor temperature) increases ... and yet, as seen from the table shown earlier in this thread, it doesn't. Also, if excess heat generation is temperature-dependent then one expects to see an upward inflection in the time course of the temperature or output power following an upward step in input power. The entire system should show bi-stability and hysteresis with excess heat wanting to be either "on" or "off" and seeming reluctant to adopt an intermediate state. I see nothing like this in the recent, cleaner, better controlled experimental results.

Second, it continues to be weird, weird, weird that output power during excess heat runs pretty much exactly matches input power. Given that the output power in calibration runs lies substantially below input power there must definitely be unaccounted-for heat radiating from the calorimeter box and this certainly needs to be compensated mathematically when calculating total output power. But why should the uncompensated heat captured by the airflow in the calorimeter so closely match total input power all the time? It must be a coincidence. But what an annoying coincidence! It means that very nearly all of the claimed excess heat is appears due to a mathematical adjustment introduced after all measurements are done. .

Quote from Shane D.

Latest on Mizuno replications, is that 2 weeks ago Muto was reporting 1kW in/3 kW out using incubator style calorimetry. Just today he is seeing 2.4 COP.

Mizuno's wife is seeking experimetal cancer treatment outside Japan...made much more difficult by travel restrictions, which understandably has made it difficult for he and his business manager to keep the LENR community informed. Their apologies.

By "incubator style calorimetry" do you mean the same insulated-box-with-flowing-air calorimetry as used by Mizuno?

If so then for Muto it cannot be true that the uncompensated output power equals the input power as I complained about with Mizuno's system. Not with an O/I power ratio of 2.4 to 3. As far as I can see, no compensation factor can produce an I/O ratio of more than 2. So Muto's uncompensated output power must be greater than the input power. I wonder if this is actually so.

Quote from Bruce__H

I agree. And it seems to me that the number of artefacts has gone down compared with Mizuno's earlier results. This is exactly what you would expect from a lab that is working steadily to refine its procedures. But, as this lab achieves more and more control over the system it is studying, some worrying elements are ever more evident.

First, I still don't see a secure indication that this effect is temperature-sensitive. As Jed Rothwell points out, the percent excess heat should really increase as input power (and thus reactor temperature) increases ... and yet, as seen from the table shown earlier in this thread, it doesn't. Also, if excess heat generation is temperature-dependent then one expects to see an upward inflection in the time course of the temperature or output power following an upward step in input power. The entire system should show bi-stability and hysteresis with excess heat wanting to be either "on" or "off" and seeming reluctant to adopt an intermediate state. I see nothing like this in the recent, cleaner, better controlled experimental results.

Second, it continues to be weird, weird, weird that output power during excess heat runs pretty much exactly matches input power. Given that the output power in calibration runs lies substantially below input power there must definitely be unaccounted-for heat radiating from the calorimeter box and this certainly needs to be compensated mathematically when calculating total output power. But why should the uncompensated heat captured by the airflow in the calorimeter so closely match total input power all the time? It must be a coincidence. But what an annoying coincidence! It means that very nearly all of the claimed excess heat is appears due to a mathematical adjustment introduced after all measurements are done. .

Rather than improve the calorimeter, it is lossy as can be, and has a massive thermal sink in the box itself.

As shown, a box made instead of (interior) 1 inch, foil covered, polyiso board and 2 inch rigid foam insulation board (exterior) is about 1/10 the mass and has a R value of 15 leading to nearly 98% recovery from 25 to 425 W, and a reduction of the settling period to 95%+ of the final steady state temperature in as little as half an hour, depending of course on the mass and speed of the test object heating rate.

Which means that the coincidence that the excess heat values resemble the input values can be easily remedied by a layer of foam to push the losses back into the box, raising the delta T, and therefore the reported output power values will numerically increase.

(Or perhaps the subsequent calibrations will run over 100% recovery, requiring adjustments to the air mass calculations.)

I had something like 88% recovery in a “TV” style, pink 2” rigid foam box that could be easily lowered over the acrylic box (with a 2 cm gap all around), and had a ‘window’ of air(!) -no foam- the full ~70 cm width and 40 cm high, to look into the acrylic box.

Standardizing the air intake, with a dedicated inlet pipe larger than the outlet and extending at least 3 cm beyond the calorimeter envelope, smoothed the quasi-cyclical temperature pulsating and eliminated the dreaded inlet thermocouple back eddy sandbagging effect.

Quote from Bruce__H

Second, it continues to be weird, weird, weird that output power during excess heat runs pretty much exactly matches input power.

I discussed this in the Indian presentation. It gives me the willies. Muto and Mizuno had no comment about it.

It seems to be a coincidence. There is no question that output power adjusted for losses is considerably higher than input power. The losses are easily estimated during calibrations. The estimates may not be very precise, but you can be sure there are substantial losses with such a large box. Even though it is well insulated it has to be radiating a lot of heat.

The data I showed was from years ago. I have not seen the more recent data. I do not know what an "incubator style" calorimeter means.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Rather than improve the calorimeter, it is lossy as can be, and has a massive thermal sink in the box itself

Mizuno's system is improved in the sense that when you compare recently collected temperature or power time-time to those from older data sets you will see that the older ones wriggled around all over the place whether it was activated mesh runs or calibrations. Now things are much tighter and more reproducible. I am sure that you are correct about the presence of systemic biases and errors but they are now at least there all the time in the same way.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Which means that the coincidence that the excess heat values resemble the input values can be easily remedied by a layer of foam to push the losses back into the box, raising the delta T, and therefore the reported output power values will numerically increase.

(Or perhaps the subsequent calibrations will run over 100% recovery, requiring adjustments to the air mass calculations.)

I see what you mean ... I just don't see how the sort of problems you describe would differentially affect the calibration and activated-mesh runs. If measured excess heat is artefacutal here, it must have something to do with how these two types of runs are set up. That is where to look for problems. So far I don't see any.