MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I think we are reaching a point where we will have to simply agree to disagree again.


    ...


    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!

    OK. Sounds good!


    I would like to point out that we are both heading in the same direction. In particular, considerations of thermal runaway and hysteresis (hysteresis means that after runaway you can remove all input and the high temperature reaction is self sustaining). I am also in favour of looking for inflection points in the temperature time series because these are indications of incipient runaway. Early on I began to wonder why these had not been a feature of your results and mentioned it to you. You did not see the relevance at that point. I hold that they are relevant now and were relevant then too.


    So I began to construct a model. The simplest model possible consonant with the data you had released. And that is what you have seen so far -- a model based on the data you have released. Having done this, I realized last Spring that further progress (the relative importance of radiative cooling) required more data so I began asking if you would release more. You have chosen not to do that yet, which is fine. It is your decision. But to say I have not not doing my homework is wrong. My results are just deductions from the partial information you have released.


    Last thing. Do you still have confidence in the temperature/power plot you released in 2021 (which I replicate below where x-axis is input power in Watts and y-axis is temperature in degrees C)? If so, how do you account for its being so linear if radiative cooling is a major factor involved? Have I been overly influenced by the fitted straight line in the plot?



    Bruce we can’t even agree on the basic terminology. You don’t know what hysteresis means let alone understand basic thermodynamics or even freshman calculus. Hysteresis is when a function differs at the same X with a different Y value depending on which direction the value is approached from. This has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Do you just make up definitions to words as you please?


    Inflection points are not an indicator of thermal runaway.


    An inflection point is where the second derivative changes sign, ie where the rate of change of the rate of changes sign. One could easily consider a system where heat flow produced by a reactor slowly increases at a steady rate until it finally exceeds the heat flow out of the system without accelerating. Inflection points are only relevant in your utterly groundless model.


    To answer your question, no there is no a priori reason for a calibration to be linear. There are many variables at play. Conductive heat transfer,’convective and radiative heat transfer, different layers affecting the results in different ways at different temperatures and heat flows. In one system under a specific set of conditions a calibration curve may well come out where a linear regression is the best fit. In the same system at different input wattage or external conditions may produce results where a polynomial or exponential regression produces the best fit. A different system will likely act in a completely different way.


    I think the calibration curves over a broad enough range will not be linear. But over a shorter range nearly all functions degenerate into a linear approximation, kinda like the flat earthers proclaim.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Bruce we can’t even agree on the basic terminology. You don’t know what hysteresis means let alone understand basic thermodynamics or even freshman calculus. Hysteresis is when a function differs at the same X with a different Y value depending on which direction the value is approached from.

    Part of my experience and training is in dynamical systems theory and, in particular, in the mathematics of nonlinear oscillations. So I am coming from a particular tradition with its own usages. Nonetheless, I think that the way I am using the term in this case pretty much tracks with how you are using it. Some systems can possess multiple states for the same input. Which of these states is actually occupied at any time depends on the route that was taken to get there.


    I summarized my overall take on how this applies to your reactor/incubator system in a previous post on this thread (here). I have reproduced some plots from that post below. The bottom plot shows the equilibrium points expected from the system. Stable equilibria are shown by the solid line and unstable equilibria by the dashed line. If you start from room temperature and apply a moderate input power the system will eventually reach a stable equilibrium (1) point somewhere along the solid line. If the input is larger, all equilibrium points disappear and the system rises in temperature (2) experiencing thermal runaway. Now, having reached a high temperature, as shown by the red trajectory, if you shut off all inputs the system will find itself trapped in the upper left part of the plot (3) above the dashed line of unstable equilibria. It still increases in temperature being pushed ever higher by the [positive feedback between LENR activation and systems temperature. This is hysteresis. The same input, 0 Watts, yields either a stable room-temperature equilibrium or an ever increasing thermal trajectory depending on history.


    The upper plots show the nature of the heating (red) and cooling (blue) curves underlying all this. The phenomenon of hysteresis depends only on the topological relationship between the heating and cooling curves and how they cross or don't cross depending on input power. In these plots I have used a completely linear cooling curve, but you can see how the number of times that the blue and red lines cross doesn't really depend on the blue line being completely linear. It can wiggle around a little bit and all qualitative conclusions would remain the same.


    Having understood that your steady state calibration plots are often almost linear makes me think now that this analysis is highly relevant whatever the detailed picture of radiation, conduction etc, might be.



    Bruce, having a conversation with you is annoying due to one huge issue: you can’t admit when you are wrong.


    I’ve thoroughly made my case why your model is wrong. You don’t even understand that the system has to be modeled as a series of barriers with specific internal, and external temperatures and heat flow characteristics and the dynamics are further smeared out due to thermal mass yet you stand upon your woefully inadequate models like they are the supreme law of the land.


    You don’t stick around to argue a point. It’s just one drive by shooting after another. I told how mathematically you don’t need a sign change in the second derivative to get thermal runaway yet next comment you completely ignore where you were proven wrong.


    You make wild ass claims, you argue that you are a system dynamics expert and yet you just simply ignore the part where you were proven wrong in your own field of expertise. We have already established that your models are completely divorced from reality so why do you regurgitate what has already been proven irrelevant?

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Does anyone know what Alan means by this?

    For a normal scientist the meaning is blatantly obvious. Seriously a system dynamics “expert” needs to ask this? If a heart surgeon asked what the difference is between a right ventricle and a left ventricle was, would you continue the conversation?

    Thank you me356 for your input but that’s not what BH’s question was. The linearity was in regards to calibration curves.


    What Alan was mentioning was related some some theoretical expectations of symmetry of output curves around its peak. His point was that results are smeared in one direction due to thermal mass induced lags.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Thank you me356 for your input but that’s not what BH’s question was. The linearity was in regards to calibration curves.


    What Alan was mentioning was related some some theoretical expectations of symmetry of output curves around its peak. His point was that results are smeared in one direction due to thermal mass induced lags.

    Thank you for explanation. Regarding theoretical explanation I would rather not add anything. For me all theoretical stuff is useless. No debate is needed if using more methods of measurement and all are giving similar results.

    Calibration that is made preferably with the same piece of unprocessed fuel should be simply valid in all cases without a doubt.

    Ah. I see. My confusion regarding Alan's comment stems from my terminology in the post a little before his. I called the red and blue lines there "heating (red) and cooling (blue) curves", and I thought he was referring to these. Now it makes sense.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    You don’t even understand that the system has to be modeled as a series of barriers with specific internal, and external temperatures and heat flow characteristics and the dynamics are further smeared out due to thermal mass ....

    I do understand that the system can, accurately, be modelled this way. I just don't think that those details are significant for understanding the qualitative behaviour of the reactor such as presence or absence of inflection points, thermal escape, and hysteresis. A lumped model seems OK to me because I think that thermal inhomogeneities are small compared with the natural time and space scales of the system.


    If the LENR activates exponentially with temperature, as you advocate, I continue to believe that thermal escape will always be preceded by an inflection point in the temperature time course ( if by "thermal escape" one means a situation where the reactor generates long-term heat even when all input power is switched off). Nothing you have said is any sort of "proof" otherwise.


    I can see that we are just going back and forth on this. I'll tell you what. I am going to temporarily put all this down to allow things to cool off. I'll do that until you post more data. I'll give you the last word here and not respond to your reply, if you have one, unless you specifically ask me to respond..

    as promised this is the second draft design drawings of our new calorimeter that is aiming to reach infinite COP.


    The inner shell is ceramic board insulation, surrounded by a vacuum insulated panel made from titanium and an outer layer of ceramic wool insulation.


    The top hinged cover will have two ceramic bearing titanium tubes that will attach to a shaft to spin the circulation fans to make sure that the internal environment is highly turbulent with no hot or cold spots.


    The principle of operation will be as I presented in our iccf24 talk. There will be multiple calibrated sensors place inside the hot portion to measure the temperature.


    Calibration will record equilibrium temperatures at various power inputs. These calibrations should all give the same temperatures at the same heater power regardless whether it’s empty or a dummy reactor is inside.


    Active runs will include our heat amplifier reactor and xsh will be recorded as the power output to reach the final equilibrium temperature vs. control calibration.


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.