MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Bruce it’s difficult for me to take you seriously when you say things like “ In some ways that is what models are for ... to leave out what is negligible so as to leave the simplest picture of what is important.” and then you proceed to take out the single most important heat transfer mechanism.

Do you seriously consider in your first analysis that radiative heat transfer could have been negligible? So then you in the name of “simplicity” You just decided to leave the major HX mechanism out of your model?

I’m sorry but it’s increasingly difficult for me to take you seriously. This is not meant to be an ad hominem attack I’m simply commenting on the lack of rigorous scientific logic. We are hoping to publish in a mainstream journal and release all data links at time of publication. Until then we cannot release anything so you can feel free to model all you want with that data once it’s published.

Also, in addition to your lack of normal scientific rigor, I still fail to understand your key point. Are you claiming that if your model which is not even serious, differs significantly from empirical data that then you can claim some kind of systemic error?

I’m all for receiving any kind of criticism as this helps me to refine my experimental methods, but your line of reasoning has no real destination. It’s as if you are modeling an aircraft in flight and you model pitch movement but no elevation changes. Then you make a statement like if I pull back on the yoke and my elevation doesn’t increase your airplane isn’t actually flying. It’s complete nonsense in my humble opinion. I don’t mean to be personally rude but I’m focusing on the science part and perhaps I’m lacking understanding of where you are going with this but I just don’t get your point.

Quote from Bruce__H

I have asked Daniel_G several times about this and he is absolutely definite that steady state activation in his system has an exponential dependence on temperature with no apparent hint of a separate deactivation process. No word of complications. So my observations (and my puzzlements) stand.

Bruce, this is where you are misquoting and misunderstanding. There is no separate deactivation process. There is thermodynamics. Thermal mass of the device acts as a capacitor, the type of calorimetry removes more or less heat from the system while its making its measurement. the Stefan-Boltzmann law dictates that the radiative HX is proportional to the forth power of the absolute temperature of the device. There is conductive HX within the mesh and container. Your way over-simplified model takes none of this into consideration. That's your problem. So for you to post anything here with a straight face without even bothering to mention the woeful inadequacy of your model, is just bunkum and balderdash.

The separate "deactivation process" as you call it is colored by all these well-known and well understood thermodynamic principles. Your model ignores even the most important principles, so what do you expect? Then you hyper-focus on dynamics in your completely incorrect model and zoom in on certain characteristics. Your model is a house of cards built on flowing mud. You should not expect any structures you create to stand.

You can be puzzled all you want. What you call "observations" are not in fact observations at all. Its no doubt that you are puzzled when your model is woefully incomplete. Perhaps if you refocus your effort on modeling something a little less divorced from reality and physics and then we can talk more.

Quote from Bruce__H

Not completely true, but true enough!

For a heat source that increases exponentially with temperature (e.g., the advertised LENR heat) there should be a range of input energies that result in steady-state temperatures. But put in a bit too much energy and the system, just as you say, will tip over into a regime of temperature runaway until the mechanism destroys itself. I am puzzled as to why we have heard nothing about such a regime. It should be a big source of practical trouble when operating the reactor.

Even the stable states are trouble because if the LENR mechanism activates exponentially with increasing temperature it also deactivates exponentially with decreasing temperature. This means that COP should be rather modest unless you push the system point at which thermal runaway occurs. So the whole thing is a bit of a difficult balancing act.

Bruce, all of this is simply the Dunning-Kruger effect since you don't understand what you don't understand. You left out the T^4 radiative HX. Its simple heat balance and conservation of energy. At higher temperatures, radiative heat output increases significantly. So you have two exponential equations competing for input and output. Your model doesn't even approach anything close to reality.

I have no idea what you mean by deducing that COP should be modest in your above statement. Define modest. What would be an immodest COP by your definition?

The challenge is simply to make more highly insulated calorimeters and eventually we will surely reach a point where thermal runaway occurs. As we improve insulation (reduced heat out) and improve power (increased heat in) there will most definitely be a point where active cooling becomes necessary and then we should be able to control the power output actively by setting the HX medium return temperature to the value that gives us the correct heat output.

Yes if you want infinite COP, then we must cross that point of thermal runaway which we surely will eventually, but that is not required to prove the physics. One step at a time. There is no hocus pocus involved. Simple science and thermodynamic engineering.

Our new meshes are prepared and are able to work even without Palladium pretty well. We will ship them to Alan soon after few tests.

They can load Hydrogen even faster than meshes with Pd.

On the other hand Palladium coating is more problematic there because of so big surface area.

Quote from Daniel_G

Bruce, this is where you are misquoting and misunderstanding. There is no separate deactivation process.

I understood you perfectly. When I said to Alan that you see ".... no hint of a separate deactivation process" in your system, what I meant was that I thought that you saw no hint of a separate deactivation process. That is why I said it. There is no misquoting or misunderstanding. There is no deactivation of any sort in the model I am using.

My findings of thermal escape, hysteresis, and inflection points all stem from the topological relationship between LENR heating and standard thermodynamic cooling. I continue to think that radiative cooling is a small effect relative to Newtonian cooling at the temperatures you have been saying the excess heat activates. The calibration data you showed when first describing your results on this thread certainly suggest this (see Feb 2021 incubator calibration curve). And as I mentioned, adding a radiative term to the model does not change the topological relationship between the heating and cooling curves or the qualitative results.

My findings seem to be what you intuitively expect to see anyway. You say you expect to see thermal runaway. Would you not like to understand at what input power that runaway point is expected to occur? With a sufficiently refined thermodynamic model I think this could be done. Then, if you do not actually see runaway in that zone, I think it would mean that there is something wrong with your claim of exponential activation of excess heat.

As an alternative, I once again suggest that you use your incubator/reactor system as its own model of itself. You say that the incubator heater is fully programmable. Take a system without an active mesh and program the heater to supply extra heat with the sort of exponential dependence on system temperature that your think the LENR process supplies. I would expect that you would then get thermal runaway, hysteresis, etc. If the behaviour you see is different from what you see with your active-mesh tests then it must be the proposed LENR excess heating that is mischaracterized.

Mizuno type reactor has no deactivation process other than manual pressure intervention. It is very predictable actually.

Excess heat is directly related to temperature. No other magic involved.

Quote from Bruce__H

I understood you perfectly. When I said to Alan that you see ".... no hint of a separate deactivation process" in your system, what I meant was that I thought that you saw no hint of a separate deactivation process. That is why I said it. There is no misquoting or misunderstanding. There is no deactivation of any sort in the model I am using.

My findings of thermal escape, hysteresis, and inflection points all stem from the topological relationship between LENR heating and standard thermodynamic cooling. I continue to think that radiative cooling is a small effect relative to Newtonian cooling at the temperatures you have been saying the excess heat activates. The calibration data you showed when first describing your results on this thread certainly suggest this (see Feb 2021 incubator calibration curve). And as I mentioned, adding a radiative term to the model does not change the topological relationship between the heating and cooling curves or the qualitative results.

My findings seem to be what you intuitively expect to see anyway. You say you expect to see thermal runaway. Would you not like to understand at what input power that runaway point is expected to occur? With a sufficiently refined thermodynamic model I think this could be done. Then, if you do not actually see runaway in that zone, I think it would mean that there is something wrong with your claim of exponential activation of excess heat.

As an alternative, I once again suggest that you use your incubator/reactor system as its own model of itself. You say that the incubator heater is fully programmable. Take a system without an active mesh and program the heater to supply extra heat with the sort of exponential dependence on system temperature that your think the LENR process supplies. I would expect that you would then get thermal runaway, hysteresis, etc. If the behaviour you see is different from what you see with your active-mesh tests then it must be the proposed LENR excess heating that is mischaracterized.

Display More

Bruce again you misunderstood what I wrote. There is no deactivation process but there are thermodynamic processes at play which was the main point of my claim and you conveniently ignored.

I see now you are trying to claim systemic error. I simply don’t agree that your suggested method will be of any value. I have other ways of adding randomness to the experimental design. If I had unlimited time and resources I would have no problem doing what you suggested but I don’t so I have to make a decision.

I have a suspicion that you are calculating the radiative heat transfer wrong. Perhaps you are focusing on the radiative output of the reactor only. But the proper energy balance has to consider the incubator. Even at 0.5m2 and emissivity of 0.9 and 80C the incubator will radiate more than 400W, much more than the excess heat.

It’s most certainly a major component of the energy balance. You see the more we dig into your model and what it teaches us, the more we discover how woefully inadequate your model is to be of any use.

Are you claiming that world class scientists from credible institutions don’t know how to do calorimetry and that two disparate labs and systems are going to show the same systemic errors even when randomizing inputs?

Your physics is wrong and your math is wrong so when you have that part ready for prime time we can talk again.

If you question my thermodynamics please consider that the last data I posted showed an XSH of 170W and the incubator emits more than that radiatively even at 30C. Yet you claim it’s irrelevant! If you don’t add Stefan Boltzmann your model is a joke.

I guess we will see when it is demonstrated.

Quote from Daniel_G

Bruce again you misunderstood what I wrote. There is no deactivation process but there are thermodynamic processes at play which was the main point of my claim and you conveniently ignored.

I understand that there is no deactivation process in your system. The only reason I brought it up on this thread is because, in 2018, Alan Smith described an LENR behaviour (spontaneous thermal bursting) that I thought at the time indicated a deactivation process. You see me remarking to him that you say that your system has no such thing. That is it. That is all I said. I didn't misunderstand you. So don't worry about deactivation. It is not in the model I am using and never was.

Quote from Daniel_G

I have a suspicion that you are calculating the radiative heat transfer wrong. Perhaps you are focusing on the radiative output of the reactor only. But the proper energy balance has to consider the incubator. Even at 0.5m2 and emissivity of 0.9 and 80C the incubator will radiate more than 400W, much more than the excess heat.

I am modeling the reactor and incubator as a lumped system. In other words, I assume that the temperature gradients inside the incubator and reactor are small (i.e., the Biot number is less than 1). I think that this is a worthwhile starting point, particularly as the air inside the incubator is mixed by fans. So I model radiative transfer as from the incubator to the surrounds. Your information about an emissivity of 0.9 is important. I have been using an emissivity of 1 because I didn't know otherwise.

My primary consideration when I first started considering how to model all this was the temperature-power plots you posted in 2021. They appear linear (with little hint of a T^4 dependence) and this is the mark of Newtonian cooling. While I realize that there is substantial radiation out of a system even at room temperature, there is also absorption from the room-temperature surroundings back into the system. I had assumed that this partly explained the linearity of the observed calibration curve near 20C with T^4 dependence only really making itself felt substantially above 20C. Perhaps I was wrong. Do you know why your 2021 temperature-power plots are so linear?

Quote from Daniel_G

Hello THH

What you are describing is simply correct statistical experimental design although it is stated in an unusual or unorthodox way.

Yes we do uncertainty budgets in every reading and we calculate the statistical power required to falsify the null hypothesis at a given confidence level and a hypothetical effect size.

That’s exactly what Google proposed in their Nature Perspectives paper and exactly what we intend to do. That’s just normal science how everyone is trained to do it.

Blinding can have its utility in biological experiments where placebo effect is something real that has to be considered. If I’m dealing with measurements logged to a real time data logger, it’s rather meaningless in my opinion.

As for input measurement error it’s typically less than 1W. Output is calculated based in a delta T measurement (errors add) and a mass flow reading in flow calorimeters which can be in turn based on velocity profile, diameter and density measurements. The two labs we intend to cooperate with use either airflow or water flow calorimeters. Uncertainly in any of these specific measurements or assumptions add up and the more measurements you have the higher the uncertainty.

Each lab is highly experienced and credible in calorimetry using different methods, instrumentation and personnel. Of our total uncertainty is plus or minus 5W at 3 sigmas and we detect a 100W effect, I don’t think any peer reviewer is going to be able to claim systemic error, especially with multiple calibration runs and multiple active runs chosen randomly and repeated 4-6 times.

The same randomization method (choosing calibration or active reactor) over 4-6 runs on at least two different calorimeters will likely bring us over 5 sigmas of statistical significance.

The reason I also choose the incubator method is simply due to its simplicity and single measurement reduces any chances for error. The only error could be from PTD resistance or thermocouple voltage or from insufficient mixing. Since we are using class A thermocouples maximum error is 5K at 1000K or 0.5%. Mixing can be confirmed by multiple probes at different physical locations in the incubator.

If 200W calibration input gives us 1000K and we can achieve 1000K with only 100W input then the maximum input can be 101W and at maximum error in the temperature can become 995K then you still would claim systemic error? Alternatively one could fix the input power and measure the equilibrium temperature with and without an active reactor.

After all the above is said and done, I’m not sure how any serious reviewer could claim systemic error. The incubator calorimeter was specifically designed to eliminate all types of errors to the extent possible.

If I programmed the system to choose any random input, equilibrate, measure and the. Randomly choose a new input, and we could detect such random input within a few Watts, would you suddenly feel that we could not properly detect additional heat when the active reactor is placed in the system?

Would not the suddenly doubling of input power be enough to convince you in such a system?

Display More

Daniel, that sounds all good - but the problems reviewers would have, if they exist, can come from details not include there. So what you said could all be true and the results not safe.

If the calorimetry method is bomb-proof - and I agree it could quiet easily be made that - I'd look for unexpected things like chemical contamination of RTDs, or unexpected oxidation of H2, or electrical interference, or XXXX. All of these things can be eliminated, but a lot of detail is needed to do the elimination - or even know what needs to be eliminated.

The point is that these are not included in the calorimetry error budget - they are what experienced experimenters will be on the lookout for and check. Make sure that the checking gets done in your case. For that, multiple people doing their own independent checking is very helpful.

Best wishes, Tom

Quote from Bruce__H

I understand that there is no deactivation process in your system. The only reason I brought it up on this thread is because, in 2018, Alan Smith described an LENR behaviour (spontaneous thermal bursting) that I thought at the time indicated a deactivation process. You see me remarking to him that you say that your system has no such thing. That is it. That is all I said. I didn't misunderstand you. So don't worry about deactivation. It is not in the model I am using and never was.

I am modeling the reactor and incubator as a lumped system. In other words, I assume that the temperature gradients inside the incubator and reactor are small (i.e., the Biot number is less than 1). I think that this is a worthwhile starting point, particularly as the air inside the incubator is mixed by fans. So I model radiative transfer as from the incubator to the surrounds. Your information about an emissivity of 0.9 is important. I have been using an emissivity of 1 because I didn't know otherwise.

My primary consideration when I first started considering how to model all this was the temperature-power plots you posted in 2021. They appear linear (with little hint of a T^4 dependence) and this is the mark of Newtonian cooling. While I realize that there is substantial radiation out of a system even at room temperature, there is also absorption from the room-temperature surroundings back into the system. I had assumed that this partly explained the linearity of the observed calibration curve near 20C with T^4 dependence only really making itself felt substantially above 20C. Perhaps I was wrong. Do you know why your 2021 temperature-power plots are so linear?

radiative transfer gives a natural:

$K(T1^4 - T0^4)$ curve where T1 and T0 are the inner and outer (or object and background) surface temperatures. (I am ignoring different emissivities, also ignoring change in emissivity with temperature which could be significant e.g. for alumina).

T1 & T2 are measured in Kelvin.

Although asymptotically for T1 >> T2 this scales as T^4, and it will look close to that for even 1.5X temperature, since 1.5^4 = 5, 1.5X is a temperature of 150C above room temp.

at a 50C uplift we have ratio of only 2 between the two powers and things will look a bit nonlinear, but nowhere near T^4 nonlinear.

Quote from Daniel_G

I posted showed an XSH of 170W and the incubator emits more than that radiatively even at 30C

I am not sure I understand this. At 30C, close to room temp, the radiative emission from the incubator will be almost exactly balanced by opposite emission from its surroundings (e.g. the absorption of the incibator), so that the heat emitted as calculated from Boltzmann is not the point.

I'd expect you are taking this into account, but it sounds a bit here as though you are not considering the absorption as well as the emission!

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I am not sure I understand this. At 30C, close to room temp, the radiative emission from the incubator will be almost exactly balanced by opposite emission from its surroundings (e.g. the absorption of the incibator), so that the heat emitted as calculated from Boltzmann is not the point.

I'd expect you are taking this into account, but it sounds a bit here as though you are not considering the absorption as well as the emission!

THH

It depends on the absolute temperature difference between the radiating and receiving bodies and the receiving and emitting surface areas. RT is normally considered 20C. Heat must always flow from higher to lower temperature. An ice block cannot heat a room despite being above absolute zero. I purposely chose an extreme case even with 10C heating of the incubator surface.

Bruce was claiming that radiative HX is so low that he can leave it out of his model which is an absolutely ridiculous assumption. He also assumed that there should be thermal runaway. The purpose of my example calculations was to show how difficult it is to get a thermal runaway with the current system and I think I sufficiently proved my point.

Once we get above 300-400W and insulation is good enough so that the incubator external wall doesn’t get above 30C then we will certainly see thermal runaway unless we do active cooling. There is no mystery here at all. Just thermodynamics.

I also agree that Runaway is not possible with LENR when comparing to Fission Reactors in the same meaning. If you consider Runaway as melting reactor body then yes, this could happen if body has lower melting point than used fuel.

But as soon as gas will leak it will stop the reaction shortly.

For Mizuno type reactors fuel - mesh can operate at temperature under its melting point. Above this temp it will irreversibly damage it. So no bangs

Quote from THHuxleynew

If the calorimetry method is bomb-proof - and I agree it could quiet easily be made that - I'd look for unexpected things like chemical contamination of RTDs, or unexpected oxidation of H2, or electrical interference, or XXXX. All of these things can be eliminated, but a lot of detail is needed to do the elimination - or even know what needs to be eliminated.

THH, these are apples and oranges. The measurement uncertainty is calculated via traceable calibrations at each step of the measurement process. Issues such as RTD contamination can be easily controlled by its-90 primary standard based calibrations such as the triple point of water and melting point of antimony.

Other issues such as designing the experiment to eliminate all other possible chemical sources of heat consist of simply finding the most exothermic reaction, calculating the maximum possible heat output given the devices mass and then running the experiment so that the total energy output of far beyond that level.

Quote from me356

I also agree that Runaway is not possible with LENR when comparing to Fission Reactors in the same meaning. If you consider Runaway as melting reactor body then yes, this could happen if body has lower melting point than used fuel.

But as soon as gas will leak it will stop the reaction shortly.

For Mizuno type reactors fuel - mesh can operate at temperature under its melting point. Above this temp it will irreversibly damage it. So no bangs

Yes it’s not possible to have a core meltdown such as occurs in fission reactors. I agree.

What I meant here by “runaway” means a self heating reaction creating more heat than is emitted so that external energy is not required and COP goes to infinity. I’m absolutely certain we can do that.

I’m now constructing an incubator type calorimeter using an evacuated panel sandwiched between two layers of ceramic insulation with an overall worst case theoretical total heat transfer of 134W at 800C internal and 20C external. We feel quite confident that for the first time ever this will represent a system with the ability to go to infinite COP, i. e. Zero input. This data should be available by the end of 2023.

The risk is that the assumptions used in my simplified calculations are wrong, or that we can’t scale up our reactors sufficiently, but I feel these risks are minimal and fairly well understood.

Quote from Daniel_G

What I meant here by “runaway” means a self heating reaction creating more heat than is emitted so that external energy is not required and COP goes to infinity.

Yes. This is exactly the sense in which I have been using the term. It isn't LENR specific. It equates to the concept of ignition for ordinary materials.

Quote from Daniel_G

Bruce was claiming that radiative HX is so low that he can leave it out of his model ...

I continue to think that radiative cooling is a minor player at the temperatures over which you say the LENR process activates. How else do you explain how nearly linear your steady-state temperature/power plots are?

You give a surface area of 0.5 m^2 and an emissivity of 0.9, but I think that these must be for the reactor part of your system. The model I have been developing is thermally lumped and considers the inside of the incubator as isothermal. This means that the relevant surface area and temperature for the radiation calculation is about 8 m^2 (for the Yamamoto oven you were using early on) and whatever the temperature of the outside skin of the incubator is when in operation. I really have no idea that skin temperature is (unless it is the 80C that you mentioned?). Is the emissivity of 0.9 the figure for the outside of the incubator?.

Quote from Daniel_G

The purpose of my example calculations was to show how difficult it is to get a thermal runaway with the current system and I think I sufficiently proved my point.

Don't forget that you are proposing that LENR output has an exponential dependence on temperature. That beats out T^4 dependence very quickly.

Bruce you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own maths. I ran the calculations for you and gave you my assumptions which are more than sufficient to about for an outward heat flow more than the excess heat.

I think we are reaching a point where we will have to simply agree to disagree again. On my side I have real empirical data and close to correct theoretical models. On your side you seem to be making random assumptions which I wouldn’t even begin to agree with. Even basic thermodynamics such as reactor wall vs. incubator walls you seem not to understand the basic concepts. Of course the line has to drawn at the incubator surface not the reactor surface.

Each successive layer has to be modeled until you reach the outside of the incubator. I don’t want to sound arrogant or condescending but any sane scientist with this salt should see this in the same way.

Our new model incubator models all of these effects and we designed the insulation according to standard heat flow models. Now we just have to build the stuff that is now designed on paper. As mentioned before I will post the incubator design here so people can critique but please be kind to me and do your homework first!