Anyone is welcome to take a look at the detailed methods and comment or criticize.
Where is your best summary of the methods? In what document or comment here?
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
-
-
The type of calorimeter matters.
Why?
-
Why?
[Why does the type of calorimeter matter.]
The calorimeter has to keep the sample hot with Mizuno's experiment. Some calorimeters cool too aggressively.
Other types aggressively stop the temperature from going up. That is what McKubre's isothermal flow calorimeter did. When anomalous power increased, auxiliary heater power decreased. Total output power remained the same, and presumably the temperature at the sample remained about the same. Fleischmann criticized this. He said that he recommended a heat pulse to trigger the reaction, and you cannot get a heat pulse with an isothermal calorimeter.
-
The calorimeter has to keep the sample hot with Mizuno's experiment. Some calorimeters cool too aggressively.
Doesn't seem correct in this case Jed. The air flow calorimeter as Mizuno previously used would cool the reactor more than my simple thermometry setup, with the reactor in still air. The furnace-type enclosure described by Daniel_G would probably keep the sample hotter than either of those systems.
I ran my system at a wide range of temperatures over many days of testing, looking for the "sweet spot" if one existed. No significant temperature deviation from the calibrated power steps was seen in any of my tests.
-
Sorry Jed, I was just thinking of the current tech using Ni mesh. As you say earlier iterations did use in at least one case external heat.
All of the reactors shown in the 2019 supplement are externally heated.
-
Doesn't seem correct in this case Jed. The air flow calorimeter as Mizuno previously used would cool the reactor more than my simple thermometry setup, with the reactor in still air. The furnace-type enclosure described by Daniel_G would probably keep the sample hotter than either of those systems.
I ran my system at a wide range of temperatures over many days of testing, looking for the "sweet spot" if one existed. No significant temperature deviation from the calibrated power steps was seen in any of my tests.
I agree with you Alan but these options are not mutually exclusive. The calorimeter and the reactor replication could both be an issue.
I’m still studying your calorimeter and welcome criticism on ours as well. I hope we could come to some kind of agreement to get you a working reactor which has already been measured and confirmed
-
Doesn't seem correct in this case Jed. The air flow calorimeter as Mizuno previously used would cool the reactor more than my simple thermometry setup, with the reactor in still air.
I did not mean that your calorimeter cools too aggressively. I meant that some of them do. You can make any kind cool too much, except perhaps a Seebeck. I mean, for example, with an air-flow calorimeter I think you can boost the air flow rate and maybe add cooling fans until it cools the cell so much it inhibits the reaction.
-
The emissivity problem.
The Optris IR camera emissivity setting for Lugano was set to the Total Hemispherical Emissivity (for the entire IR band), not the emissivity of the In-band Spectral sensitivity range of the camera (6.5 to 13.5 um), which is about 0.95 .If you could package up these comments in a short paper, I would like to upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I have long wondered what is going on in the Lugano paper. It seems like a positive result. Assuming you are correct, that explains why it is not. I do not like to leave loose ends in the library.
-
If you could package up these comments in a short paper, I would like to upload it to LENR-CANR.org. I have long wondered what is going on in the Lugano paper. It seems like a positive result. Assuming you are correct, that explains why it is not. I do not like to leave loose ends in the library.
You seem to have missed a bunch of things I was working on a few years ago, and posted considerable amounts on.
<I don't want to sidetrack this thread. >
Eventually I built a cylinder out of Durapot 80, the same alumina compound as used for the Lugano device. Solid, with embedded heating coil and an internal and external thermocouple. No fuel or any place to put any. I tested the true emissivity in the 7-14 um band, then used the Lugano method. At the extreme temperature limits of both the ceramic and the heating coil, a Lugano style COP of 7.2 was obtained, including all of the input from right out of the AC outlet.
I also corresponded with a Lugano Report author who also tested the emissivity of alumina after the Lugano test period was over. The results of their emissivity test, (of course, when done properly), are the same. This means that the Lugano report authors are aware of the error, but have chosen to do nothing about the misinformation presented in the report.
Edit: You may have already the paper examining the problem, written by Clarke. It is pretty good. The one by Higgins is over-complicated, and includes a minor error (extra photosensitivity steps that are not needed as the Optris does all that is calibrated for it), which results in a weak calculated excess that leaves the door open more than it should, in my opinion.
-
I recall all the issues about the IR thermometry were discussed ad nauseam back on the day, even the MFMP delved into this and found basic errors that negated or at least diminished greatly any COP calculation. They even got an Optris which was very expensive. We all agree that thermometry with IR requires much more care and calibration against other methods to be able to be worth of confidence.
-
If we can all agree that COP would depend on insulation of the calorimeter then it also follows that COPs are meaningless. Some people still are not serious about understanding the gravity of this statement. Absolute excess heat is the only parameter that matters.
In the phrase "absolute excess heat", doesn't defining some heat as being "excess" require COP to be meaningful?
-
I recall all the issues about the IR thermometry were discussed ad nauseam back on the day, even the MFMP delved into this and found basic errors that negated or at least diminished greatly any COP calculation. They even got an Optris which was very expensive. We all agree that thermometry with IR requires much more care and calibration against other methods to be able to be worth of confidence.
Actually, it works really well. I was easily getting 98% of input back, in radiant-convective calculations, for the runs using the real emissivity. I was surprised how well. The 6.5 to 14 um band emissivity band (often used for optical pyrometers) of alumina changes very little from room temperature to 1200 C. The range is 0.92 to 0.96, and a 0.95 setting for emissivity (as the camera is supplied) would be quite accurate over most of the range. Obviously using an emissivity setting that is half of the real figure will introduce giant errors.
-
Actually, it works really well. I was easily getting 98% of input back, in radiant-convective calculations, for the runs using the real emissivity. I was surprised how well. The 6.5 to 14 um band emissivity band (often used for optical pyrometers) of alumina changes very little from room temperature to 1200 C. The range is 0.92 to 0.96, and a 0.95 setting for emissivity (as the camera is supplied) would be quite accurate over most of the range. Obviously using an emissivity setting that is half of the real figure will introduce giant errors.
Never implied it can't be accurate enough and/or really helpful, Just that it can be manipulated easily to support agendas and thus can't be taken at face value without a thorough analysis, as it was done back in the day for the Lugano results.
-
You seem to have missed a bunch of things I was working on a few years ago, and posted considerable amounts on.
For LENR-CANR.org I need a paper with everything relevant to this in one place, and not much irrelevant. The title should indicate it is about an error in the Lugano paper. It should be signed by you with your real name and affiliation, not Paradigmnia. Normally I only upload papers published elsewhere, such as JCMNS, but since the Lugano paper is a stand-alone publication, I can add your paper as a critique of it, with whatever publisher you like. If there is no publisher, I usually make the publisher "LENR-CANR.org." (I have to have a publisher name for the index system to work. It cannot be blank.)
-
For LENR-CANR.org I need a paper with everything relevant to this in one place, and not much irrelevant. The title should indicate it is about an error in the Lugano paper. It should be signed by you with your real name and affiliation, not Paradigmnia. Normally I only upload papers published elsewhere, such as JCMNS, but since the Lugano paper is a stand-alone publication, I can add your paper as a critique of it, with whatever publisher you like. If there is no publisher, I usually make the publisher "LENR-CANR.org." (I have to have a publisher name for the index system to work. It cannot be blank.)
Actually I have been working on one for years, in fits and starts. I will make a nice, apolitical and dispassionate summary available at some point. Maybe by summer.
-
Never implied it can't be accurate enough and/or really helpful, Just that it can be manipulated easily to support agendas and thus can't be taken at face value without a thorough analysis, as it was done back in the day for the Lugano results.
It is no more error prone than misplacement of thermocouples, varying air passages, erratic phase changes, or misapplication of normal physics laws.
-
apolitical and dispassionate
and hopefully more coherent and focussed than the occasional pepperspray
-
In the phrase "absolute excess heat", doesn't defining some heat as being "excess" require COP to be meaningful?
Nope. Absolute excess heat is a subtraction, output-input. COP is a division. Output/input.
-
COP is a division
Takahashi et al do not use.. COP..
From Wex Its possible to calculate an xs heat output rate of something like 1 W/cc...
with COP only... its not possible
Akito Takahashi reports on the MHE: bigger composite samples and bigger heat – COLD FUSION NOW!
-
If we can all agree that COP would depend on insulation of the calorimeter then it also follows that COPs are meaningless. Some people still are not serious about understanding the gravity of this statement. Absolute excess heat is the only parameter that matters.
If absolute excess heat is output-input, then wouldn't it depend on the insulation of the calorimeter too?
