I see what you mean but that is stemming from your (very understandable) insecurity about the nature of the reaction. I have been where you are so I totally understand. Hopefully you will see eventually what I am seeing and then you will understand why I am no longer worried...We would love to find a way to work with you and get you convinced as we are. PM me if you want to chat more.
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
-
-
A meltdown would be a splendid thing actually, lol.
I have made exactly the same point before. A reactor design that reproducibly leads to melt-down while unplugged and releases way more energy than can be accounted for by chemistry, is one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence for the reality of LENR that I can think of. Skeptics would be mightily impressed and funding bodies would beat a path to your door! I would be impressed!
I encourage your group to find the parameter space that produces this result. I have advocated the same to Jed Rothwell and Alan Smith before and met with resistance. Resistance that I don't understand. I find it strange that a really persuasive line of evidence would be so carefully avoided. Pons and Fleischmann are said to have had one of their beakers explode at one point and people still talk about it to this day as strong evidence of the reality of their claims. But it is unreplicated. Think of the reaction of the world if it could be done reliably.
-
Mizuno also had an explosion if you recall
-
Mizuno also had an explosion if you recall
No. If I knew I had forgotten.
Make it repeatable!
-
We prefer continuous cpntrolled reactions to explosions…
-
We prefer continuous cpntrolled reactions to explosions…
Same response as from Jed and Alan. I don't think it is thought through very well.
-
Pons and Fleischmann are said to have had one of their beakers explode at one point and people still talk about it
If I recall correctly
A P & F cell that melted through a concrete lab bench (or floor) was of more interest than the exploding cell. Didn't one exploding cell tragically kill someone? An explosion could be from gas, melting through concrete on the other hand is harder to dismiss as chemical in nature.
JedRothwell Can you clarify this history? With links to instances of such bursts in energetics?
-
A real demonstrable COP of 1.1 is world changing.
Brillouin is at 2.7....World does not change...who here is silly?
-
Brillouin is at 2.7....World does not change...who here is silly?
Maybe if they spent some effort to demonstrate it without a convoluted measurement protocol they might get some traction.
Melt some ice faster, something.
-
If I recall correctly
A P & F cell that melted through a concrete lab bench (or floor) was of more interest than the exploding cell.
Melt down is just fine. Repeatable and replicated unplugged runaway generating much more heat than can be accounted for by chemical processes would be tremendously impressive.
-
A P & F cell that melted through a concrete lab bench (or floor) was of more interest than the exploding cell.
It did not generate much interest because it was not well documented. See p. 104:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf#page=107
See also:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPunexplaine.pdf
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedy.pdf#page=81
Didn't one exploding cell tragically kill someone
That was a chemical explosion.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IkegamiHthirdinter.pdf#page=147
-
The Arrhenius function -- the one Mizuno uses to characterize the temperature dependence of reaction rate -- is sigmoidal.
Just like the one I use in my model."The Arrhenius function -- -- is sigmoidal."
The Arrhenius plot is linear,,NOT sigmoidal,
Rate versus temperature is exponential, NOT sigmoidal;
There is no Brucian sigmoid.
Maybe Bruce is using a gut or colonic model?
time to jettison the sigmoid.?well overdue
-
Brillouin is at 2.7....World does not change...who here is silly?
COP with how many watts input and how many watts output? What is the overhead? How long can they sustain it? CP has announced COP of 25 or 100 if you can count nanowatts. I don't want to kick a dead horse but COP means nothing.
Absolute excess heat production is the only parameter that matters. As I have said before I can easily hack the COP but since so many people don't understand this I am going to purposely make a high COP experiment. Once I do it, you are going to either say, anyone can do it, or you will say you knew it all along...smh.
What worries some people, myself among them, is the essentially perfect dependence of excess heat watts on the primary heat watts. It is not even a simple temperature dependence. Maybe that is the way it works. One day we might find out.
Yes as I said I have been here but I have personally come to terms with this. I have said this many times before but we use electrical input for physics experiments because electrical power is easy to measure. We could easily remove only the excess heat with modern control systems and essentially make the experiment self-sustaining and the COP infinite.
-
We just need a COP 2 machine that can be connected in series with more.
-
COP is completely irrelevant in MTI’s CF. For tokamak hot fusion you need huge amounts of electrical energy to run the vacuum pumps, chillers, electromagnets etc. Mizuno reactors need only temperature control. I use joule heating fed by electricity for our physics experiments but there is no reason to use this method in a commercial setting. For Brillioun which depends on electrical pulses this concept doesn’t work. For MTI it does. What everyone fails to understand is that all COP are not created equal. Since the definition of COP for chillers, heat pumps, for Brillioun and for MTI all have different meanings it’s meaningless to compare them.
-
What everyone fails to understand is that all COP are not created equal.
"Everyone"
on a released energy per gm basis
1 D2 to 20 Mev is pretty large,,
in comparison to an input energy of much less 1000 ev or so
the ratio of output to intput is much more than 20,000
the difficulty is to keep the other required " catalytic" entities
in near proximity to the deuterium fuel and
prevent them from being consumed/dissipated
the problem being that 'everyone' doesn't know what they are
-
We could easily remove only the excess heat with modern control systems and essentially make the experiment self-sustaining and the COP infinite.
This is the sort of statement that is almost meaningless unless it is in the past tense.
If achieved, however, this is the other scenario (other than a melt down that is) that I think would be enormously impressive even to a sceptic like me.
-
Bruce if I told you you could control a heat exchanger by measuring the cooling fluid in and out temps, and vary the flow rate with a VFD, you wouldn’t be surprised or even skeptical.
But what I am describing to you is not different at all. Why would you expect anything different?
However my latest hobby is converting skeptics so I’m not giving up on you.
-
COP is completely irrelevant in MTI’s CF. For tokamak hot fusion you need huge amounts of electrical energy to run the vacuum pumps, chillers, electromagnets etc. Mizuno reactors need only temperature control. I use joule heating fed by electricity for our physics experiments but there is no reason to use this method in a commercial setting. For Brillioun which depends on electrical pulses this concept doesn’t work. For MTI it does. What everyone fails to understand is that all COP are not created equal. Since the definition of COP for chillers, heat pumps, for Brillioun and for MTI all have different meanings it’s meaningless to compare them.
This brings up an interesting point. The new oven experiments have the reactor in a very different environment, one that has the outside of the reactor much hotter (oven temperature) than inside an airflow calorimeter, where the outside of the reactor is cooled to something like 120 C or thereabouts. The reactor was controlled by Joule heat whenin the calorimeter (even though the airflow threatened to take it away almost as fast as being applied with external wrapped heat).
So, in the oven experiments the entire reactor gets much hotter, and the output power therefore might be expected to be commensurate with the high external heat. In fact, the reactor must be substantially hotter (20C +) than the oven in order to add heat to the oven directly. When the reactor is heated to 500 C in an oven, one might expect that it should make something like thousands of watts based on earlier results. -
Mizuno reactors need only temperature control.
So Mizuno's glow discharge is made by good.... ( I would use a Peltier generator)
The COP is well defined as (energy out) / (energy in) . Every child can get this.
ITER has a negative COP as everything that wastes energy is (-).
