MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from nickec

    Shall I create a new thread to speculate on Mizuno Reactors WITHOUT precious metals? An important development. I dare say.

    Yes please do so, and also you might consider combining into that thread a discussion about the new calorimeter set-up. Better two related things discussed together than split up. I would do it myself, but my forte is gossip, not the nuts and bolts of lab equipment and work.


    Once you open the new thread, I will move the appropriate posts from here to there.


    Thanks.

    Q: "Should I create a new thread to speculate on Mizuno Reactors WITHOUT precious metals?"

    Quote from Shane D.

    Yes please do so, and also you might consider combining into that thread a discussion about the new calorimeter set-up.

    Why do that? We know nothing about these reactors. The speculation would be empty handwaving. I think we should wait until Mizuno describes the reactors.


    Frankly, I do not even understand the new calorimeter setup. On that subject, I have already provided more than my share of empty hand-waving above!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Why do that? We know nothing about these reactors. The speculation would be empty handwaving. I think we should wait until Mizuno describes the reactors

    Daniel said this earlier today:


    Quote from Daniel_G

    Incubator type like I showed at ICCF24 and prof. Muto used. We are designing and building one now and this part I think we can open source and place all the details on line. The reactor will be a black box but I don’t think this would be a problem.

    The only thing about the new Mizuno style reactors that was on this thread was nickec talking about making a new thread to talk about them. That is it. The reactors that Daniel_G proposes to distribute for validation are Pd/Ni are far as I know.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Very few of the posts you moved actually deal with the newly announced Mizuno style reactors without precious metals. Virtually all of them are about the standard Mizuno Pd/Ni reactors and should remain on this thread .

    I thought it would be good to show the transition from the old to the new, by also moving some of the posts about the standard reactors as a lead-in, It blends better that way for those not willing to come back to this thread. Maybe not perfect, but there are already 189 pages on this thread so losing a few posts won't matter.


    Also, this thread is growing stale. Maybe a new start will freshen things up a bit. Good way to get rid of Ascoli too. :)

    Quote from Daniel_G

    you will have to wait

    I have waited. The calibration data you exhibit in slide 6 of your iccf presentation (the blue dots) appear to show an almost linear dependence of temperature on input power between 200W and 800W. In contrast the temperature dependence between 0W and 200W appears sharply curved (I am assuming that at 0W the steady state temperature is very near 25C).


    At a minimum, this appears to me to mean that between room temperature and 650C or so, radiative cooling is minor compared with other routes of cooling in this system. Would you agree?


    And can you account for the apparently very nonlinear behaviour of the relationship below 200W? In the past you have shown plots covering the same temperature range that were linear.

    It’s a completely different system Bruce. This one was built but a team of auto parts engineers. As scientists we identify problems or issues, we form a hypothesis that o base improvements on, we design experiments to test the hypothesis and we nudge the leading edge forward. Wash, rinse, repeat.


    I’m not quite sure what you expect. All the time we are learning the system, becoming better experimentalists and getting more data. Sometimes We move forward and sometimes the motion is backwards but the territory we cover become broader.


    In the spirit of Mizuno’s philosophy I am trying to be as transparent as possible which includes some empirical data that sometimes doesn’t fit our working model. In real science the proper response is to understand the issues, design better experiments and get more data.


    If someone is reporting data that is too perfect that can be a telltale sign that it might not be credible data. True beautiful data in actual science is always built upon a pile of ugly mistakes (otherwise known as experience)

    Quote from Bruce__H

    And can you account for the apparently very nonlinear behaviour of the relationship below 200W? In the past you have shown plots covering the same temperature range that were linear.

    I am a bit surprised at this question. This system has nowhere near the resolution required to examine in detail the range below 200W. This validator was not interested in examining the nature of the xsh output at low wattage. They designed the system to look at the higher end but materials used in their reactors were near to their upper theoretical limit. MTI is happy with the third party validation and confirmation of xsh by an independent team of engineers.


    This is real R and D not the Hollywood or the fairytale version. I appreciate your criticism and hope eventually we will make our harshest critics convinced but that will take time.

    Daniel_G


    What data are you using for your claim that the activation of excess heating in this system is exponential? Could you please display your data for this claim? I ask this presupposing that these data come from come experiments undertaken before the advent of the non-precious-metals technology and so are not part of your protected IP.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I am a bit surprised at this question. This system has nowhere near the resolution required to examine in detail the range below 200W. This validator was not interested in examining the nature of the xsh output at low wattage.

    Don't be surprised. Just look at the data (slide 6 of your iccf-24 presentation). Start with a point that is not explicitly in the plot -- 0W and about 25C (let me know if you object to this or find it dubious). Now look at the data points in any temperature/input power region that you have confidence has produced reliable data. Draw your best line through the data in which you have confidence. You will find that the line (which is very nearly linear) lands nowhere near the 0W/25C point. Hence my observation that the low end is nonlinear. Hence my asking why this might be so. Do you question that there is a solid data point at 0W and 25C (or whatever ambient was in the measurement location)?


    Really, my attention here is on the high temperature region. I previously asked whether you agree with me that the contribution of radiative cooling here is minor over the range of temperatures shown. Do you?

    Daniel_G said


    Dummy reactors are not necessary. Why would they be? The interior is 100% turbulent flow. TC values varied by less than 1C. We are not searching for mW here. We will be searching for kW. Our calorimeters give the same results no matter what is or is not placed inside. It’s not a real calorimeter otherwise.


    I do understand. The intention is that this system acts as a good calorimeter and, if it does, then anything you put inside that is neither exo- nor endo-thermic will change only the time constant to steady state and not the steady state itself (because for this type of incubator system the steady state is determined by the balance between input power and cooling losses through the incubator). I had not understood, however, that for these incubator experiments you no longer use a dummy reactor at all. Are the calibration data points you have reported on this thread in the past, and those in your iccf-24 presentation, therefore measured using an empty incubator?

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Different experiments use different calibrations so without specifics on which data you are referring to, I can’t comment. The calibration data on our iccf24 data used dummy reactors.

    OK. Thank you. I see that conditions vary because you haver a rapidly developing R&D program. That is understandable.


    I would like to try and understand the best evidence you have for a temperature-sensitive heat source in your incubator series of experiments. I am hoping that you can settle on and post here a set of calibration and active-reactor measurements covering input powers from 0 up to whatever you think shows unambiguous excess heating with an exponential dependence on temperature. I note that the only time you have released such data (in your iccf-24 presentation) they do not support your claim of exponential activation, and also you do not seem to have confidence in the results shown below 300C or so.


    I am asking all this on this thread, the old "Mizuno replication and materials only" to make it plain that I am not asking you to reveal IP that you wish to protect. I am hoping you will take this opportunity to make a clear case and that this will aid any validation efforts to come.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Bruce_H, I am hoping to publish a paper for ICCF24 with this data. I am waiting to hear if they accept our work.



    Quote from Bruce__H

    OK. To be clear, I was hoping to see the input power vs temperature plot only for the calibration case. I wasn't asking you to reveal such data for the active mesh. I am really just interested to know whether the calibration plot is only gently curved between 200C and 500C, or whether is really very strongly curved.


    Quote from Daniel_G

    you will have to wait


    I would now like to know more about the input power vs temperature relationship you used for calibration in your studies involving the incubator-style calorimeter. The exchanges above are from April 28 of this year. You asked me to wait for the ICCF meeting, but the data you presented there were not very informative on this point and you have said you are not very satisfied with them. Can you now release a more informative plot? One which you used to establish the findings you talked about earlier on this thread?

    I’m not sure what you are asking for. You are asking for the individual time vs temp curves for each input power? Yes I don’t mind to publish those data here but it’s a ton of data. Let’s ask Jed if we can upload to LENR-canr and post a link here.

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.