MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Bruce__H

If absolute excess heat is output-input, then wouldn't it depend on the insulation of the calorimeter too?

Thank you Bruce for finally getting my point I have been screaming out for quite some time. ERGO, COP is a meaningless number.

So when one improves the calorimeter insulation, the excess heat should occur at the usual rate but only the calorimeter recovery should improve. But the COP won’t be improved because a control Joule heat performance will also improve by the appropriate amount relative to the new insulation. The best the calorimeter can do is 100% recovery, so going from 80% to 90% is a notable change but is not going to give any giant COP boost and there isn’t much more to squeak out beyond that really.

What happens is that the gap between what might be 80% calorimeter recovery and a COP 1.2 result is closed with a 92% recovery and a COP 1.3 unless it becomes 92% recovery and COP 1.1

Quote from Paradigmnoia

So when one improves the calorimeter insulation, the excess heat should occur at the usual rate but only the calorimeter recovery should improve. But the COP won’t be improved because a control Joule heat performance will also improve by the appropriate amount relative to the new insulation. The best the calorimeter can do is 100% recovery, so going from 80% to 90% is a notable change but is not going to give any giant COP boost and there isn’t much more to squeak out beyond that really.

What happens is that the gap between what might be 80% calorimeter recovery and a COP 1.2 result is closed with a 92% recovery and a COP 1.3 unless it becomes 92% recovery and COP 1.1

That's not the way it works. There is an exponential increase in excess heat with temperature. The higher the temperature you can get with the lowered joule heat due to better insulation means that ultimately an infinite COP can be reached. COP measures output/input but the reaction is exponentially proportional to temperature not input. Improved insulation will allow a higher temperature vs. input power so, very high COPs are possible. In fact, runaway is increasingly likely as excess heat production exceeds total outward heat flow, leading to an infinite COP.

Quote from Daniel_G

That's not the way it works. There is an exponential increase in excess heat with temperature. The higher the temperature you can get with the lowered joule heat due to better insulation means that ultimately an infinite COP can be reached. COP measures output/input but the reaction is exponentially proportional to temperature not input. Improved insulation will allow a higher temperature vs. input power so, very high COPs are possible. In fact, runaway is increasingly likely as excess heat production exceeds total outward heat flow, leading to an infinite COP.

If 10% increases in calorimeter recovery result in a logarithmic heat increase then the Joule heater that heats it infinitely more effectively than insulation doing nothing should melt it instantly. I’m not talking about insulation on the reactor itself.
The heat trace would look exactly the same but just above the usual line for the same input, and quicker to steady state. The 10% heat in the box instead of outside is no different than having more input power as far as raising the inside temperature. What you are saying is that for example a 300W input unit would runaway at 400W input now. Since we know that the delta T in the old calorimeter is the factor for all heat calculations, we know that a 10 % improvement will give us a 10% increase in delta T. So a delta T of 40 C might become a deltaT of 44 C instead.

The Mizuno reactor has never been so hot ever before at it was when first put into an oven.

"If 10% increases in calorimeter recovery result in a logarithmic heat increase then the Joule heater that heats it infinitely more effectively than insulation doing nothing should melt it instantly."

I don't quite understand what this statement means. On its face this seems a bit absurd.

I think you are conflating several issues. I am focusing on our current calorimeters explained earlier in this thread. Air flow calorimeter's heat outflow = conduction + convection + radiation + (delta-T x air mass flow). Our current calorimeter removes the last term from this equation. I agree with Jed that the last term is a variable that may have caused some failed replications where too much heat removal didn't allow for the reaction to activate in a well controlled manner.

"The heat trace would look exactly the same but just above the usual line for the same input, and quicker to steady state. "

I simply don't agree with this statement. You must consider input power/temperature relationship (a function of insulation) and the Excess heat vs. temperature relationship independently.

First simply consider the temperature vs. input curve as per our calibration data sent previously in this thread. Heat recovery always reduces with increasing temperature due to the increasing proportion of T^4 radiative HX. In any case, the slope of the curve with higher insulation will be increased, right? Good.

Now move from calibration runs to a measurement run with an active reactor. That higher temperature now produces a higher excess heat with an exponential relationship between the new higher temperature and the excess heat associated with the new, higher temperature. In the old calorimeters the heat removal from the system is controlled mainly by delta-T x air mass flow plus in smaller proportions some of the other terms at least at lower temperatures. In the current calorimeter, the heat removal is a combination of conduction through the holder of the reactor, convection from the walls and eventually radiation as the entire calorimeter heats up. The equilibrium temperature reached with a given input is hence proportionally increased as insulation inhibits heat flow out of the system. We find for several reasons this system is more precise and more easily repeatable.

It should be intuitively clear that the higher temp vs. power input slope will now produce EXPONENTIALLY higher absolute excess heat, not the linear relationship you propose. Both your physics and your math are wrong.

"The 10% heat in the box instead of outside is no different than having more input power as far as raising the inside temperature. What you are saying is that for example a 300W input unit would runaway at 400W input now."

Umm, kinda, mostly but no. We are considering a balance of several types of heat transfer. Radiative heat transfer in particular is proportional to T^4. This becomes more dominating at higher temperatures. You have way oversimplified, while ignoring basic physics which you purport to uphold. A bit ironic but I diverge from my main point. With an ideal adiabatic box with zero heat transfer to the external environment one could produce infinite temperatures with 1W input with an idealized joule heater that converted that 1W of electrical power to heat at increasingly higher temperatures as required to add heat to the box. Real world insulation has losses but there is a continuous curve from infinite heat resistance to zero resistance so try to imagine the curve as you approach infinite resistance (an ideal adiabatic calorimeter as outlined above). This thought experiment should illustrate clearly what I am talking about and why your oversimplification is just plain wrong.

"Since we know that the delta T in the old calorimeter is the factor for all heat calculations, we know that a 10 % improvement will give us a 10% increase in delta T. So a delta T of 40 C might become a deltaT of 44 C instead."

Although I have made it abundantly clear why we moved to insulated box calorimeters (Jed, please help me with the proper term. I have suggested Pseudo-Adiabatic but since a true adiabatic doesn't exist except in idealized models, not sure if that makes sense but at least it differentiates what we are doing relative to the commercial "adiabatic" calorimeters), you come back to the air flow model. But again, your above approximation is only relatively true and only at relatively low temperatures. As temperatures increase, you lose a ton more heat to T^4 yet you completely ignore this in your example.

I was going on about the old calorimeter, which is why I said old calorimeter, because it can tell you a lot before going onto new ones.

Most of what I said still stands for the oven. How efficient is the oven at insulating? If it takes 300 W to maintain a certain temperature, obviously that much leaks out every second at that temperature. And it leaks even more at higher temperatures. Radiation, convection, the cool concrete who knows. One might think that if the insulation could be improved it might take less energy to maintain the temperature.
The mass airflow calorimeter, on the other hand, blows almost all the heat out at one point.

As written above the difference between air flow and oven are the last term written in my equation. But it does not mean that the other terms can be ignored as you did. Your example approximation calculation becomes increasingly incorrect at higher temperatures. And the other three terms play relatively different portions of the total heat loss under different conditions. I agree under lower temperature conditions that air flow dominates. But as the calorimeter itself heats up the other terms play increasingly higher portions of the total HX which leads us to my claim that your supposition is incorrect and does not take into consideration the relevant variables.

Quote from Daniel_G

Thank you Bruce for finally getting my point I have been screaming out for quite some time. ERGO, COP is a meaningless number.

No. I'm afraid that I don't understand at all.

You seem to be saying that since COP can be increased by improving the insulation of the calorimeter, it is a meaningless number. But I am pointing out that absolute excess heat should increase too. So why isn't it also meaningless?

Bruce, there are two independent parameters to consider. The first is temp vs. input power. That is a function of insulation. The second independent parameter is absolute excess heat which is controlled by 1) temperature and 2) cm2 or cm3.

As I stated earlier, absolute excess heat (or more precisely absolute excess heat per cm2 or cm3) is the only figure that matters.

If I want to produce a combined heat and power genset, what engineering parameter do I need to know? I need to know the absolute excess heat per cm2 (or cm3 if you like), and the efficiency of going from thermal to mechanical energy. The efficiency is related mostly to the output temperature of the reactor. So to make a 10kWe generator I will need to size my reactor to give 30-40kW of excess heat and then I need the equipment to convert that into electricity, assuming my efficiency is a conservative 25-30%. So if Mizuno's small lab reactor gives 0.3kW/cm2 at 600C, then I have all the information I need to design the CHP unit.

40,000/0.3 is 13.3m2 of catalyst surface area. Since the specific surface area is about 25cm2/cc, we would need only about 5320cm3 to get this done. This would be something smaller than a desktop computer. That's pretty cool in my mind.

So can you explain in more detail why you think absolute excess heat is meaningless?

I wonder if you can get some engineering data like this from Brillouin or Clean Planet or any other LENR developer for that matter. All due respect to our competitors who may choose to play their cards close to their chest, perhaps for strategic commercial reasons, but again I am trying to walk the tight rope between commercial IP issues and transparency. It doesn't mean MTI is any better than them, they may possibly be way ahead of us and are currently keeping their progress secret.

I don't know what I don't know but I do try to remain transparent as possible in the spirit of Mizuno's philosophy and history.

Quote from Daniel_G

So can you explain in more detail why you think absolute excess heat is meaningless?

I don't think it is meaningless. I think it is meaningful. But I think that COP is meaningful too.

I have given you a specific design problem and showed my work and nowhere in that design did I need to use the COP figure. I needed only the absolute specific excess heat. So please explain why you think COP is relevant. For what? Certainly not for designing practical LENR CHP systems.

Quote from Daniel_G

I wonder if you can get some engineering data like this from Brillouin or Clean Planet or any other LENR developer for that matter. All due respect to our competitors who may choose to play their cards close to their chest, perhaps for strategic commercial reasons, but again I am trying to walk the tight rope between commercial IP issues and transparency. It doesn't mean MTI is any better than them, they may possibly be way ahead of us and are currently keeping their progress secret.

I don't know what I don't know but I do try to remain transparent as possible in the spirit of Mizuno's philosophy and history.

Out from memory, both Brillouin and Clean Planet have focused solely on COP. Brillouin has worked comprehensively on reviewing and fine tuning their calorimetry and overall energy balance measuring methods to meet stringent standards, mostly because this is the aspect where skeptics still focus to dismiss the claims.

I think there’s something you have to have crystal clear within this conversation, and that is the fact that Bruce__H , at his core belief, thinks LENR doesn’t exists. So does Paradigmnoia .

Both think we are a bunch of self deluded incurable hopefuls and they are trying to cure us from that mental disease. It’s great to have people this motivated to prove one wrong because they keep us with the feet firmly attached to the ground. However, after certain point , specially if you have seen the results by yourself and achieved a total awareness of the implications,

You will find that catering to the standard of proof demanded by people that simply won’t change their minds until they see it for themselves, is fun for a while, but then becomes a waste of time.

Again, I have to say that I have the utmost respect for Paradigmnoia because he has a hands on approach that I value highly, even if we have profound disagreements in the interpretation of a big chunk of the existing evidence.

Quote from Bruce__H

But I am pointing out that absolute excess heat should increase too. So why isn't it also meaningless?

Quote from Bruce__H

I don't think it is meaningless. I think it is meaningful. But I think that COP is meaningful too.

I cannot follow your flip flops either. You seem to move the goal posts with every post.

In watching this video

I was reminded of a fleeting thought - that some claimed that oxygen might poison the reaction.

Is this an issue at this juncture?

Is the Titanium coating mentioned in the video a viable option?

Has anyone used a reaction vessel so lined for LENR experimental campaigns?

Curbina, I try to stay as respectful as possible but also am not afraid to point out hypocrisy and other logical fallacies. Real science loves criticism. I think a lot of the fake science of today shuns and tries to turn science into a realm of faith. I predicted this course of science in lectures I gave at JST's Tsukuba consortium almost 30 years ago and am a bit sad to be right about this.

Good quality critics help me see things that may have been hidden by my latent bias.

Trollish critics may get a few snide remarks from me now and then but I still try my best to dig down to their core arguments and see if we cannot present facts or data to support our hypothesis. It is a great responsibility in our hands and there are all kinds of people in the world but Mizuno really wants to see his decades of work start to benefit society.

My mission is to support his dream as best as I can.

Quote from Daniel_G

If I want to produce a combined heat and power genset, what engineering parameter do I need to know? I need to know the absolute excess heat per cm2 (or cm3 if you like), and the efficiency of going from thermal to mechanical energy. The efficiency is related mostly to the output temperature of the reactor. So to make a 10kWe generator I will need to size my reactor to give 30-40kW of excess heat and then I need the equipment to convert that into electricity, assuming my efficiency is a conservative 25-30%. So if Mizuno's small lab reactor gives 0.3kW/cm2 at 600C, then I have all the information I need to design the CHP unit.

40,000/0.3 is 13.3m2 of catalyst surface area. Since the specific surface area is about 25cm2/cc, we would need only about 5320cm3 to get this done. This would be something smaller than a desktop computer. That's pretty cool in my mind.

When you make these design calculations for a power reactor, is it not relevant to also keep track of the input power needed to reach the operating temperature? What input power per cm2 is needed to achieve 600C ?

Quote from Curbina

Out from memory, both Brillouin and Clean Planet have focused solely on COP. Brillouin has worked comprehensively on reviewing and fine tuning their calorimetry and overall energy balance measuring methods to meet stringent standards, mostly because this is the aspect where skeptics still focus to dismiss the claims.

I think there’s something you have to have crystal clear within this conversation, and that is the fact that Bruce__H , at his core belief, thinks LENR doesn’t exists. So does Paradigmnoia .

Intentional biases are not allowed in real science. A good empiricist exemplified by the likes of Richard Feynman has a skill for designing experiments to let the physics answer the questions itself without bias from the observer.

Sometimes, skeptics can be flipped into being the strongest of supporters once you give them sufficient evidence. For me or MTI, it matters not what Bruce_H or Paradigmnoia believe but it matters if we can answer their criticisms sufficiently from the standpoint of third party neutral observers.

I agree Para tends to be passionate about some things that I can't agree upon but Brucisms at least superficially shows some troll-like features such as lack of logic and internal inconsistencies. Irregardless, I still enjoyed the exchange about the sigmoids and think his concerns were addressed sufficiently (although he may not feel the same).

Such is the world we live in. This is still easier than trying to have a conversation with a flat earth proponent

Quote from Daniel_G

Such is the world we live in. This is still easier than trying to have a conversation with a flat earth proponent

Been there, done that, exhausting and fruitless. 🤣