MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Tritium-powered betavoltaic batteries prove my point. Plutonium is actually regarded as a waste product from U235 fission in our nuclear reactors but is then made to be really expensive (on the international arms market) only because it can be made into nuclear bombs! If there were only peaceful applications i.e. for our LEN infinite energy program, the price would become irrelevant. We are at a crossroads now with the Russian invasion of the democratic republic of Ukraine, whether or not Putin decides to go for a nuclear Third World War.

    Betavoltaic without heavy elements already exists.


    Quote from Dr Richard*

    Tritium-powered betavoltaic batteries prove my point. Plutonium is actually regarded as a waste product from U235 fission in our nuclear reactors but is then made to be really expensive (on the international arms market) only because it can be made into nuclear bombs! If there were only peaceful applications i.e. for our LEN infinite energy program, the price would become irrelevant. We are at a crossroads now with the Russian invasion of the democratic republic of Ukraine, whether or not Putin decides to go for a nuclear Third World War.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I am going to be posting some background data on the calorimeters we use.

    Daniel,, do you have any masses areas thicknesses available for

    1.the boiler manufacturer calorimeter

    2. the calorimeter "we" use


    There was some modeliing based on Stefan's Law etc,,and limited data... 2.5 yrs ago..

    calorimetry is not so complicated as SO(4) or SM physics,,

    but it does require a few details as a basis

    Post
    RE: Mizuno reports increased excess heat
    This is my model with assumptions.
    box wall temp =41.
    Airflow splits into 1/10 to around the reactor, 9/10 around the box.
    average air temp around reactor = 80c.... box air flow ave temp = 30.
    versus box T=41C reactor T=380C...
    these two flows unite to give 35C outlet.

    losses from box to ambient
    radiative = 0.03 x2x sigma x{ 41/23.,K,4th delta} = 7W
    convective = 2x2x 41/30 delta =72W

    input =50+250w from reactor.
    radiative HT from reactor to box =0.1215x 0.2x{…
    RobertBryant


    9138-zuntitled-png

    You also recommended at that time some improvements


    "This product (https://www.turvac.eu/0/Products/WhatisVIP.aspx) gives extremely low thermal conductivity (3~10x the product Mizuno used) (3,5mW/mK), with just 20 mm thickness, U value less than 0,22 W/(m2K) can be reached. This would allow more precise calibrations at higher temperatures and more capture of the reactor heat in the air flow."

    2) for replicators with sufficient funding a mass flow meter such as this (https://www.sierrainstruments.com/products/oem-probes.html) would help put to bed about 70% of the discussions here. This device provides 1% accuracy in air mass flow and 0.2% in repeatability. This slight modification would leave zero doubt about velocity profiles and turbulent flow, etc. since it measures mass flow not velocity. Also the turndown rate is 1000:1 and dynamic range is 0 to 20,000 SFPM so this device should allow replicators to measure a higher power level at higher temperatures accurately all the way up to 3000W.

    If someone is successful replicating exactly as in the paper, if it were me, I would improve the air mass flow measurements and improve insulation with VIP technology and run the experiment again.


    Did Mizuno manage to upgrade his airflow calorimeter?

    That looks about right.

    The temperature of the outside of the cylinder is dependent on its size.

    Since that time we have moved on to adiabatic calorimeter as there are far fewer variables to control. I would conjecture that a fair part of the “failed” replications are related to uncontrolled variables related to air flow calorimetry. I’m not sure how much Mizuno would agree with me but we are now focused on adiabatic methods.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    ... With airflow calorimeters, I think that's simply the wrong tool to look an effect that is dependent upon temperature. I am convinced that removing variable amounts of heat from the system and not having any control system was the cause for not being able to find the Esh signature in many replications. Most certainly this is not purposeful fake by Mizuno as some nonsense people suggested.


    I wonder how many replicators would find a positive result by simply changing to this method.

    Magicsound has prepared and characterized the behaviour of a Mizuno-style reactor (reported here). He has not seen unexpected temperatures or radiation. One of the big differences between his system and the one described by Mizuno and Rothwell is the lack of forced-air cooling. His reactor simply sits inside an enclosure (so far he he is not attempting any calorimetry). I had thought that the lack of temperature control might account for his lack of success, but the results you have recently been been posting would seem to say otherwise.


    Magicsound is a careful investigator. Have you followed his work? Do you know of any reason why his reactor does not produce excess heat but the ones you are working with do?

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I changed the link above to a built in PNG file. Maybe that fixed it. Here is the data from a random calibration run. It looks like it took about 10 hours to get close to equilibrium. Maybe they over did it a bit with a total 30+ hour run but anyway lots of data from doing statistics.



    The Mizuno reaction can fairly be characterized as one of temperature-dependent heat production. A reactor equipped with such a process should have particular characteristics. For instance, one expects to see an inflection point in the heating curve marking the transition from a purely passive temperature response to the external heater (with one or more exponential time constants) to a regime where heat starts to emanate from the activated mesh. If this excess heating is strong enough, the system should pass through a threshold where the mesh goes straight up to its maximum activation. This part of the heating curve will be concave up, hence the inflection point. Once the maximal heat production is achieve the system will resume heating according to a normal exponential (concave down) trajectory but, of course, to a higher temperature than for the inactive calibration system.


    I see nothing like this in the plots you show. Of course it may be buried down in the short times and low temperature part of your plot and hence not very visible. Or the large thermal capacitance of your reactor system might smooth out any quick transients so as to make them hard to see. Nonetheless, these phenomena really should be there. Have you ever seen anything like what I am describing?

    Bruce__H


    You are assuming that the system heater has a simple 'on-off' switch circuit. The use of proportional–integral–derivative heater control with a suitably adjusted hysteresis function could make any inflection almost disappear at the scale of that graph. The hysteresis adjustment is 'self learnt' by these systems, which can after a few cycles anticipate the arrival of additional heat from either chemical or nuclear reactions.

    I am an empiricist. With 100% reproducibility we can get excess heat in the exact same amounts in a different lab with different calorimetry. We can argue until the cows come home about how you think the data "should" look. I don't know if that is a productive line of thought. The inflection point may or may not exist and I don't think it really matters. I can get 100s of watts of excess heat at will and soon will be kilowatts and beyond. I don't really get why you think there should be some shape of the data. What does it mean to you if there is no inflection point? If it takes me another 400W of input power to get to 593C from 563C during calibration and the reactor does reach a final temperature of 593 with the reactors and only 563 without them inside then how would you explain the results?


    Most certainly whatever heat we are looking at, the time scale resolution is very smoothed out as JR pointed out, but I don't think that matters in this case. The results are most certainly not some unknown systematic error. Standard deviations of temperature data are consistently around 0.1-0.2C and deviation in input power is a fraction of a watt. The excess heat matched nearly perfectly what Mizuno got with the same reactors in his lab with a different type of calorimetry.


    We are a commercial operation in the business of developing a new power source. I think the results of this validation are pretty spectacular. As we move up in scale, we may see different barriers to to commercialization but I don't think my board of scientific advisors would approve spending limited resources on experiments to find your purported inflection curves. The excess heat effect could very well be taking place at room temperature, so no inflection point would be required mathematically. Mizuno's own higher resolution data fit to an exponential curve with an R^2 of something like 0.9998. Frankly I don't think your alleged inflection point exists and I also don't think it matters.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Magicsound has prepared and characterized the behaviour of a Mizuno-style reactor (reported here). He has not seen unexpected temperatures or radiation. One of the big differences between his system and the one described by Mizuno and Rothwell is the lack of forced-air cooling. His reactor simply sits inside an enclosure (so far he he is not attempting any calorimetry). I had thought that the lack of temperature control might account for his lack of success, but the results you have recently been been posting would seem to say otherwise.


    Magicsound is a careful investigator. Have you followed his work? Do you know of any reason why his reactor does not produce excess heat but the ones you are working with do?

    I had a few brief conversations with Magicsound but I don't agree with his methodology. How do you find excess heat without doing calorimetry? We changed the type of calorimetry we are doing and used external validation labs and still find the excess heat. As far as I am concerned it could be a problem with his reactor, which might not be producing excess heat, or it could be producing excess heat but not in the way he expects with his thermal scanning. Nobody else that I know of could pick up the heat signature with thermal scanning. I told Magicsound at the time if he started doing calorimetry, I would work with him or perhaps even send him a known working reactor to validate in his own calorimeter but never heard back from him.


    There are a lot of things one can think of to do in case of a negative result. If I sent him a known working reactor which is confirmed in two different labs with different types of calorimeters then we could be pretty confident that his thermal scanning cannot pick up the signature for whatever reason. On the other hand if he sent us his reactor, and we can't pick up excess heat in our own calorimeters then, we could be pretty confident that the problem is with his reactor.


    In any case, we are moving on and scaling up now.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Bruce__H


    You are assuming that the system heater has a simple 'on-off' switch circuit. The use of proportional–integral–derivative heater control with a suitably adjusted hysteresis function could make any inflection almost disappear at the scale of that graph. The hysteresis adjustment is 'self learnt' by these systems, which can after a few cycles anticipate the arrival of additional heat from either chemical or nuclear reactions.

    Hi Alan, in this particular case we used constant power inputs without PID control. We tried the other way around by using PID and then measuring the power difference to reach a certain temperature but the data was way too noisy, too much thermal mass and too much overshoot etc to find the excess heat. When we switched to constant input power and equilibrium temperature readings, the data became very smooth and we could easily pick up the signal.


    As I mentioned earlier I am not designing my own adiabatic calorimeter with good insulation and low thermal mass that should be a lot easier to work with. We may consider working with outside researchers on this new project. Anyone interested is welcome to contact me.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.