MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Question: if we wish to present results to the general scientific community via some mainstream journal, Google's Nature Perspectives paper (https://www.nature.com/article…Jdd8KcUXgk308dT0C0A%3D%3D) discusses use of 4 identical calorimeters to achieve at least a 3 sigma confidence to detect a COP of at least 1.1.

I am now considering using at least three different types of calorimeters with the same "black box" next generation reactor from Mizuno. At least two of these calorimeters will be from the EU CleanHME project and perhaps two more from Asian universities (still open to collaboration with US universities if anyone knows anyone).

My question is: rather than 4 identical calorimeters, doing multiple runs are different calorimeters using differing calorimetric principles, to me, seems more robust than using 4 identical calorimeters as is suggested in the Nature Perspectives paper, since it would reduce risk of systemic errors as has been discussed ad nauseum here.

I would enjoy having a respectful and informative scientific debate here about this issue. At least two of these experimental results should be available before the end of next month.

We are estimating >100W XSH at an input of 100W, so hypothetically we should be well above 3 sigmas with a COP of >2. Those are absolute minimums.

Quote from Daniel_G

My question is: rather than 4 identical calorimeters, doing multiple runs are different calorimeters using differing calorimetric principles, to me, seems more robust than using 4 identical calorimeters as is suggested in the Nature Perspectives paper, since it would reduce risk of systemic errors

With the rather limited but academically valid experience on experimental design that I have, the increase of replications is for increasing statistical significance (otherwise known as increasing the sigma). This makes a lot of sense in research that has so many variables (like biological and agricultural fields) that you need high sample numbers to increase the chances of detecting an effect. In the University where I earned my degree and title of Agronomic engineer, we undergo two courses of experimental design and any graduation or research thesis had to get approval from the experimental design department beforehand, and this was enforced because a sound experimental design was one criteria that journals had implemented to accept or reject submissions.

That said, in the kind of experimental physics LENR involves, it makes little sense to me to increase repetitions, as you can always increase the number of samples or data points by repeating the experiments with the same set up, unless, as in the LENR case, the standard of proof is raised arbitrarily because the peers consider it unlikely to be true.

Under these circumstances, increasing the number of calorimeters of the same kind can always lead to upkeep the dismissal of proof due to a possible systematic error. Hence, in order to dispel any possible criticism, you need both increased number of the same calorimeter and different calorimetric methodologies.

I think the compromise will be multiple runs on same and different calorimeters. Google’s group did the statistical power design to detect a 1.1COP with three sigma confidence. Our estimated COP will be more than 2 and greater than 100W so we won’t need the same statistical power that Google proposed

Quote from Daniel_G

We are estimating >100W XSH at an input of 100W, so hypothetically we should be well above 3 sigmas with a COP of >2. Those are absolute minimums.

In which type of methodology is based this estimate? Air flow calorimetry? Thermometry? I recall

you commented to us of the use of closed heater ovens with thermometry for the experimental set ups, a while ago, is this the same kind of experiment?

Just asking for having enough understanding of how to better tackle the issue from the acceptance of results for publication point of view.

As a modest beginner in this way who is able to tell me what kind of calorimeter must be used in a process involving a thermal gradient as it seems for the Iwamura/Clean planet system ?

Quote from Curbina

With the rather limited but academically valid experience on experimental design that I have, the increase of replications is for increasing statistical significance (otherwise known as increasing the sigma). This makes a lot of sense in research that has so many variables (like biological and agricultural fields) that you need high sample numbers to increase the chances of detecting an effect. In the University where I earned my degree and title of Agronomic engineer, we undergo two courses of experimental design and any graduation or research thesis had to get approval from the experimental design department beforehand, and this was enforced because a sound experimental design was one criteria that journals had implemented to accept or reject submissions.

That said, in the kind of experimental physics LENR involves, it makes little sense to me to increase repetitions, as you can always increase the number of samples or data points by repeating the experiments with the same set up, unless, as in the LENR case, the standard of proof is raised arbitrarily because the peers consider it unlikely to be true.

Under these circumstances, increasing the number of calorimeters of the same kind can always lead to upkeep the dismissal of proof due to a possible systematic error. Hence, in order to dispel any possible criticism, you need both increased number of the same calorimeter and different calorimetric methodologies.

Quote from Daniel_G

... Rather than 4 identical calorimeters, doing multiple runs are different calorimeters using differing calorimetric principles, to me, seems more robust than using 4 identical calorimeters as is suggested in the Nature Perspectives paper, since it would reduce risk of systemic errors as has been discussed ad nauseum here. ...

I suggest finding a way to do both. Even 4X4. If 16 violates the budget, do 8.

Other than for Scientific reasons. *Instead to mute critiques.*

Can I count? I mean: Do indentical and other than identical.

Quote from Cydonia

As a modest beginner in this way who is able to tell me what kind of calorimeter must be used in a process involving a thermal gradient as it seems for the Iwamura/Clean planet system ?

That kind of system is a challenge for a proper calorimetry hence the need for thermometry and calibration, which can be debated endelessly. Here a big box like it has been mentioned more than once by JedRothwell for measuring heat emissions from humans could be a general approach for calorimetry of this kind of complex system.

Quote from nickec

I suggest finding a way to do both. Even 4X4. If 16 violates the budget, do 8.

Other than for Scientific reasons. *Instead to mute critiques.*

Can I count? I mean: Do indentical and other than identical.

If possible, by all means. But we are normally subject to shoestring budgets so is a catch 22: you need to raise your standard of proof to get more funding but for that you need more funding. 😢

A couple of years ago I attempted a design for a series of ultrasound jewel cleaner kind of experiments. Y was going to have 10 simultaneous baths and look for transmutations. With a control with only stirring and heating with the same power input. It would have been very sound from the statistical point of view, but the number of samples to analyze was staggering.

Quote from Curbina

Here a big box like it has been mentioned more than once by JedRothwell for measuring heat emissions from humans could be a general approach for calorimetry of this kind of complex system.

They actually have entire rooms for humans! You would think that is too big, with too much thermal mass, but they are reportedly high-definition.

Promethion High-Definition Room Calorimetry System

www.sablesys.com

Promethion High-Definition Room Calorimetry System

• System analyzers designed specifically for metabolic measurement, as compared to repurposed industrial gas analyzers used by other systems
• Versatile system can quickly be modified for use with mask or canopy configurations for specialized measurements
• Highly integrated, temperature-stabilized design provides robust and reliable operation
• Pull mode design simplifies converting existing room into a calorimetry chamber
• Direct water vapor measurement and compensation using Dalton’s Law – no failure-prone water vapor scrubbers
• Monitors input and output air streams for precise gas analysis
• Background baselining provides uninterrupted data acquisition
• System validation can be performed using either methanol, ethanol, butane, propane-burn or nitrogen dilution

Quote from JedRothwell

They actually have entire rooms for humans! You would think that is too big, with too much thermal mass, but they are reportedly high-definition.

https://www.sablesys.com/produ…-room-calorimetry-system/

Promethion High-Definition Room Calorimetry System

• System analyzers designed specifically for metabolic measurement, as compared to repurposed industrial gas analyzers used by other systems
• Versatile system can quickly be modified for use with mask or canopy configurations for specialized measurements
• Highly integrated, temperature-stabilized design provides robust and reliable operation
• Pull mode design simplifies converting existing room into a calorimetry chamber
• Direct water vapor measurement and compensation using Dalton’s Law – no failure-prone water vapor scrubbers
• Monitors input and output air streams for precise gas analysis
• Background baselining provides uninterrupted data acquisition
• System validation can be performed using either methanol, ethanol, butane, propane-burn or nitrogen dilution

Display More

Of note is that this is an indirect whole room calorimeter, so it would not fit our purposes, but direct whole room calorimeters are also known.

ENERGY REQUIREMENT

TOM BRODY, in Nutritional Biochemistry (Second Edition), 1999

DIRECT CALORIMETRY

The energy expenditure of an animal or human may also be determined by the method of direct calorimetry. Direct calorimetry requires the use of an insulated room, chamber, or suit for the human or animal. The enclosure contains a water jacket. The water passes from one end of the jacket to the other, maintaining the room, chamber, or suit at a constant temperature. The temperature of the water leaving the jacket is used to calculate the energy expended by the subject. The principles behind the use of the chamber are identical to those behind the use of the bomb calorimeter. The major difference is that in bomb calorimetry combustion is catalyzed by a small spark. In addition, in the bomb calorimeter oxygen is present at a high pressure to facilitate combustion. With direct calorimetry, combustion is catalyzed by enzymes. This combustion proceeds more slowly than that catalyzed by a spark, and the temperature of the subject does not increase much over the normal resting body temperature with the various activities.

Figure 5.20 illustrates the general principles behind direct calorimetry. The subject (an animal or human subject) resides in the calorimeter and engages in a number of activities, such as sleeping, resting, and exercising. The rise in temperature in the surrounding water jacket during a given period is used to calculate the energy discharged (fuel oxidized) during that period, as in direct calorimetry. Sign in to download full-size image

FIGURE 5.20. Direct calorimetry. The cartoon depicts an empty calorimeter, one containing a sleeping rat, and one containing an exercising rat. Data from temperature measurements can be used to calculate the energy requirement per unit of time during any sort of physical activity. In actual practice, the temperature of the calorimeter is maintained at a fairly constant temperature by water flowing through the insulating jacket. The rate of rise in temperature of the outflow water is measured and used to calculate the energy discharged per unit of time.

The methods of indirect and direct calorimetry may not always result in the same values for energy expenditure. Indirect calorimetry is a measure of the heat produced by oxidative processes. Direct calorimetry measures the rate of dissipation of heat from the body. An increase in the rate of heat production, as with exercise, may not always result in an immediate, measurable increase in heat released by the body (from the skin). Instead, the increase in heat production may result in a rise in body temperature. That part of the energy requirement used to raise the body temperature over its initial, resting temperature can be detected by indirect calorimetry, but not by direct calorimetry. To obtain an accurate value for energy expenditure with exercise using the method of direct calorimetry, one would have to continue measuring heat output until the body reached its original resting temperature (Jequier, 1987). When the body temperatures immediately prior to and after the interval of interest are identical, the methods of indirect and direct calorimetry should yield nearly identical values.

Right now we are considering three calorimeter designs: 1) is the incubator type I presented at ICCF24, 2) is a hybrid of the incubator type with the incubator being placed inside of an airflow calorimeter so the heat escaping from the inner incubator can be measured with air flow calorimetry, and 3) a concept similar to 2) except instead of airflow calorimetry we use water flow to measure the escaped heat from the central incubator core. Multiple runs with these three calorimeters is what we think is best

Quote from Curbina

With the rather limited but academically valid experience on experimental design that I have, the increase of replications is for increasing statistical significance (otherwise known as increasing the sigma). This makes a lot of sense in research that has so many variables (like biological and agricultural fields) that you need high sample numbers to increase the chances of detecting an effect. In the University where I earned my degree and title of Agronomic engineer, we undergo two courses of experimental design and any graduation or research thesis had to get approval from the experimental design department beforehand, and this was enforced because a sound experimental design was one criteria that journals had implemented to accept or reject submissions.

That said, in the kind of experimental physics LENR involves, it makes little sense to me to increase repetitions, as you can always increase the number of samples or data points by repeating the experiments with the same set up, unless, as in the LENR case, the standard of proof is raised arbitrarily because the peers consider it unlikely to be true.

Under these circumstances, increasing the number of calorimeters of the same kind can always lead to upkeep the dismissal of proof due to a possible systematic error. Hence, in order to dispel any possible criticism, you need both increased number of the same calorimeter and different calorimetric methodologies.

Yes I agree with everything you say. I think multiple experimental runs with 2-3 different calorimeters will give us enough statistical power for these initial experiments.

I

Quote from Daniel_G

I think multiple experimental runs with 2-3 different calorimeters will give us enough statistical power for these initial experiments.

Just curious, but do you think it possible that multiple calorimeters may just give the skeptics "multiple" reasons to attack, and eventually dismiss, the results? If I have learned anything here in my time as a layman, it is that everyone, and I mean everyone, says their calorimeter is better than all those before them. That the results will be infallible. Yet, somehow, it never seems to work out that way.

So will this new shotgun approach be any different?

I avoid saying such things about the calorimeters I build.

I think that different research groups are culminating on similar calorimetry concepts. Air Flow vs. Water flow is a typical engineering compromise. Air flow has larger delta-Ts which improves resolution and accuracy but comes with reduced accuracy of measuring compressible flow of a relatively low density fluid. Water mass flow is relatively more simple to measure but the compromise here is that you need increased accuracy with the water temperature measurement. Finally the incubator type system I presented at ICCF24 does away with any mass flow measurement and also the requirements for high precision delta-T measurements. The physics and thermodynamics of each system is different. I think that having these three different calorimetric systems, different teams, different instrumentation, each with its own strong and weak points precisely measured and calibrated, then we can manage any possible issues. For publishing a LENR result in a mainstream publication, the Nature Perspectives article is a reasonable guide I believe.

Measuring heat flow in large industrial systems is something one of my other startup companies does better than any competitor (<0.005C uncertainty in Temperature measurements)that is calibrated to ITS-90 primary standards and the final product is ISO17025 certified. We are working with the leading experts in the field trying to attract collaborators from various highly credible institutions around the world.

Are you talking about retired you know ? ahahaha

Quote from RobertBryant

resting human power output 100W at 37C.

Daniel_G

I think you might do well to ask Ed Storms about Seebeck calorimetry. Ed has had a huge amount of experience building and using these devices. This link is to an early paper of his on building a simple system, but if you go to Jed's LENR-canr library and search 'Seebeck Calorimeter' you will find a great deal more information.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtomakea.pdf

Quote from Daniel_G

Right now we are considering three calorimeter designs:

Does this mean that you still can't replicate the Mizuno claims?

For kw energies you "need" no calorimeter....

Quote from Daniel_G

I think that different research groups are culminating on similar calorimetry concepts. Air Flow vs. Water flow is a typical engineering compromise. Air flow has larger delta-Ts which improves resolution and accuracy but comes with reduced accuracy of measuring compressible flow of a relatively low density fluid. Water mass flow is relatively more simple to measure but the compromise here is that you need increased accuracy with the water temperature measurement. Finally the incubator type system I presented at ICCF24 does away with any mass flow measurement and also the requirements for high precision delta-T measurements. The physics and thermodynamics of each system is different. I think that having these three different calorimetric systems, different teams, different instrumentation, each with its own strong and weak points precisely measured and calibrated, then we can manage any possible issues. For publishing a LENR result in a mainstream publication, the Nature Perspectives article is a reasonable guide I believe.

Measuring heat flow in large industrial systems is something one of my other startup companies does better than any competitor (<0.005C uncertainty in Temperature measurements)that is calibrated to ITS-90 primary standards and the final product is ISO17025 certified. We are working with the leading experts in the field trying to attract collaborators from various highly credible institutions around the world.

If you know well your temperature range and power levels, you can build your calorimeter to make the delta T range that is most favourable for measurements, to any delta T per x Watts recovery, by adjusting and optimizing the volume of “coolant” and flow rate.