MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Here is a spreadsheet containing a model of a lumped thermal mass heated by an external (temperature-independent) source as well as an internal (LENR hence temperature-dependent) source. I have rewritten things so that this time you are seeing in the main plot the temperature response of the system to a step input of the external heating. Both the response of LENR and of the nonLENR-equipped reactors are shown.

This time I have used an Arrhenius function to model the temperature dependence of LENR activation. The function, Aexp(-Ea/kT), is parameterized by its activation energy Ea, and the pre-exponential constant, A. T is in degrees Kelvin and k is the Boltzman gas constant (8.62E-5 eV/K/atom). Mizuno, in a 2017 paper empirically found Ea = 0.165 eV/K/atom so that is the value I have used although its value can be adjusted if desired.

The Arrhenius preexponential factor, A, is not speccified in Mizuno's work but I recall that Daniel_G mentioned that the same external power that produced a settling temperature of ~90C for his calibration reactor produced 160C in the active one. I have therefore looked for values of external heating ("Ext") and A that replicate this. Those vlaues are Ext = 75 and A = 5500. There are no units here because I don't know the thermal capacitance of Daniel's reactor, the concentration of the reactants, and so on. Time is therefore best thought of as expressed in heating time constants and power as Joules per time constant.

The time course of the heating curve with the starting parameters shown in the spreadsheet looks exponential but it isn't. It is slower ... particularly as it approaches the final settling temperature. At this point it is instructive to change the value of A to 6500 and see what happens. There is a huge inflection in the heating curve! Temperatures soar to near 4500C which is set by where the Arrhenius function tops out.

Playing with the parameters will build insight. There is much more I can describe and clarify if asked.

Temperature-dependent LENR usng Arrhenius rates.zip

RobertBryant

You are thinking of exp(x). This is exp(-1/x).

Try plotting it. Or look more closely at the Wikipedia page you linked to.

I do see the points of these arguments. I hope we can keep any disagreements respectful.

Our Exh calculations are purely exponential up to the melting point of the materials used so I would not expect any sigmoid and even if they were there, I don't expect existing equipment to be able to pick it up.

I am focusing on scaling up and hopefully making some steam in our next phase. The phase of bench top lab experiments is coming to a close.

Let's not beat a dead horse. its apparent that many are still skeptical of our data. That's ok and understandable. One battle at a time.

We are not flogging a dead horse as you seem to think this is what the Mizuno LENR reactor is. It is not. The confusion arises because cold nuclear fusion begins at absolute zero on the Kelvin scale. With superconductors, and I am thinking Brian Josephson would agree, we can never actually achieve absolute zero, but only get very close to it! Theoretically, you see, as we approach absolute zero, hydrogen enters its 'metallic' or ultra-dense state! Leif Holmlid has shown there is another way of achieving the UDH state by using Fe (K)O2 transient catalysis. At ambient or moderate temperatures, and bombardment with appropriate wavelength (Yag or 532nm) laser light! So we can achieve CF in the temperature range from 0 Kelvin and above! At the end of the day we can simply write for such a CF system that Eout/Ein becomes infinite as we approach n=0 in the Einstein relativity equation E=mc^n. All we are doing is essentially replacing the gravitational field of our Sun, which holds the fusion reactions in place, with sophisticated catalysis.

All I have done is combined into a single model what is thought to be known about the temperature-dependence of the Mizuno process and a rudimentary picture of how a thermal mass reacts to heating. Now we get to explore how those things interact.

I note that the modeled LENR process is active at room temperature (20C in my model). Mizuno measured a value of Ea = 0.165 eV/K/atom for the Arrhenius activation energy. This implies that heat is produced at room temperature even without any external heating. If one sets external heating to zero in my model, you can see that the residual LENR heating drives the reactor up to 32C. I wonder if this has ever been noticed. It may just be an artefact of using the Arrhenius formula.

Quote from Bruce__H

. It may just be an artefact of using the Arrhenius formula.

As often happens when one insists on using a model to describe reality without real understanding of the underlying phenomena.

Quote from Curbina

As often happens when one insists on using a model to describe reality without real understanding of the underlying phenomena.

Other than modelling and seeing what “sticks”, what do you suggest?
Iterating blindly only gets one so far

There are other intriguing questions, such as: why does it even turn off?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Other than modelling and seeing what “sticks”, what do you suggest?
Iterating blindly only gets one so far

I do have a lot of respect of your opinion because you are the kind of person that wants to see things for yourself, thus you went on and built a calorimeter to test if what Jed Rothwell helped Mizuno to publish “held water” from a practical point of view, and as far as I can tell from your reports, it seems that what was reported by Mizuno - Rothwell was plausible to have been measured. Experimentalists rank high in my list of people.
That said, I know your starting hypothesis is that is impossible to see excess heat and if the error is not in the calorimetry, or at least it can’t be entirely traced to the calorimetry, it’s elsewhere.

What I suggest is to continue do experiments and recording data. Some have achieved results, they need to keep going and gathering more data until we get enough to begin understanding what is going on, and then try to make a model to explore it theoretically.

On looking back at the paper in which Mizuno used an Arrhenius plot to estimate the LENR activation energy, Ea, I see that he made observations all the way down to almost room temperature (see Figure 40 from his paper where room temperature of 20C corresponds to 1/Tr = 0.0034).

I therefore revise my earlier opinion. This is not an artefact of extrapolation of the Arrhenius function.

Note: Mizuno estimated the Arrhenius activation energy, Ea, by fitting a straight line to the observations above and finding its slope.

Quote from Curbina

I do have a lot of respect of your opinion because you are the kind of person that wants to see things for yourself, thus you went on and built a calorimeter to test if what Jed Rothwell helped Mizuno to publish “held water” from a practical point of view, and as far as I can tell from your reports, it seems that what was reported by Mizuno - Rothwell was plausible to have been measured. Experimentalists rank high in my list of people.
That said, I know your starting hypothesis is that is impossible to see excess heat and if the error is not in the calorimetry, or at least it can’t be entirely traced to the calorimetry, it’s elsewhere.

What I suggest is to continue do experiments and recording data. Some have achieved results, they need to keep going and gathering more data until we get enough to begin understanding what is going on, and then try to make a model to explore it theoretically.

Thanks.

In this instance, we are discussing a group which has claimed a repeatable, working device. I’m not worrying about replications or attempts elsewhere.

A reaction that responds to temperature as a control of some sort should have certain characteristics.

One is that insulating it should increase the excess vs input power, because the input power will make a higher temperature at the same input, but the excess should respond to the increased temperature as if it was being powered at a higher input.

I don’t mean wrapping it up so tight that it just melts (although as Bruce says this could be a proof of itself). I mean wrapping it up a little bit, at least at first. 1 cm of some sort of fireproof wrap should do. More can be added later as results indicate what is prudent.

A reaction that instead depends on input power, rather than temperature, seems to be an odd beast.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

A reaction that responds to temperature as a control of some sort should have certain characteristics.

I think that by calling it “reaction” A lot is being assumed, perhaps because the mind always try to approach new phenomena from a known point of view. From what I have gathered since I started studying this and up to this very day, I think this is an entirely different phenomena than a “reaction”, thus expecting a behavior based on known reactions will get you no where.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

A reaction that instead depends on input power, rather than temperature, seems to be an odd beast.

Again, thinking of this as a reaction leads nowhere. The electromagnetic aspect of LENR is key to its success, leaving it out of the picture is self defeating.

Quote from Curbina

The insistence of trying to make observations fit a preconceived model and not letting them guide your thinking towards a higher level of understanding has always struck me as a kind of self defeating intellectual arrogance.

You can’t force nature to fit your limited understanding of it, you have to observe nature and try to understand what it does.

I don't really understand your attitude. Suppose that sunlight is hitting a roof and warming it. If I want to know how the temperature of the roof should change during the day I can model some of the physical properties of the roof but just treat the sun as a source of radiation without worrying about how it makes that radiation. Is that an act of intellectual arrogance?

Quote from Curbina

I think that by calling it “reaction” A lot is being assumed, perhaps because the mind always try to approach new phenomena from a known point of view. From what I have gathered since I started studying this and up to this very day, I think this is an entirely different phenomena than a “reaction”, thus expecting a behavior based on known reactions will get you no where.

Again, thinking of this as a reaction leads nowhere. The electromagnetic aspect of LENR is key to its success, leaving it out of the picture is self defeating.

Please don’t redefine ‘reaction’.

The word does not specify what action or response, only that it happens again when the same action is applied.

Quote from Curbina

The electromagnetic aspect of LENR is key to its success, leaving it out of the picture is self defeating.

But this is a big assumption too isn't it? You can't get away from the process of conjecture and refutation ... that is just science. It isn't intellectual arrogance.