Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    Jed,


    Please look at Figure 20 of T. Mizuno / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 25 (2017) 1–25 (ref 1 of the ICCF22 preprint). It shows the inlet and outlet T’s on a run from the same calorimeter. Two points from that Figure: (1.) The inlet temperature tracks the outlet temperature in the first (major) part of the trace, (up to a little past 7 hours) and (2) the noise levels of the two signals are slightly different but remain the same throughout the whole run. Now look at the Figure I posted. The purple curve clearly shows regions of increased noise levels that don’t track the output temperature, and the noise level of those regions is more like 0.8-0.9 degrees, nor <0.1. In fact the noise levels near the end of that run show ~.2-.3 degrees span, so they change during the run. I can see the inlet T noise in Fig. 20 might be the 0.1 degrees, but the outlet is larger. What is most important though is the loss of tracking that we see in the spreadsheet plots. That indicates an ‘external’ source of signal that causes a dip in Tin, which translates to a positive jump in Wout. One common cause of that behavior is electrical noise.


    Room temperature drift should really not be a problem. That’s why one subtracts the Tin from the Tout instead of assuming a constant Tin, to correct for drifts. But as Ruer noted, one likes the Tin to be pretty unchanging, certainly not tied to the outlet T. That is a problem. (BTW, the Ruer quote is from page 58 of ICCF22_Abstracts.pdf.)


    Does this invalidate the calorimetry? I don’t know. It is a red flag is all.


    Replication will answer all.

    • Official Post
    Quote from kirkshanahan

    Does this invalidate the calorimetry? I don’t know. It is a red flag is all.


    Replication will answer all

    At the levels reported, of course it does not invalidate the calorimetry, and your “red flag” is simply taken care of by the error margins reported in the papers.


    Mizuno is already replicating it’s own work with a 30W excess heat, which is properly measured with the same kind of calorimetry, and still completely valid.


    Your incredulity of the reality of the excess drives you to a level of overanalysis that makes you look ridiculous.


    Have you realized that this calorimeter is calibrated every time before and after experiments and it’s margin of error is measured and reported to a level that would be satisfactory for many practical purposes?


    The only thing that prevents you of accepting these results as valid is your belief in their impossibility.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    [And really, at this stage would you expect "large investments" to be pouring in? And if he did, would you expect him to reveal it?]


    . . . Jed is focussed on the presentation at Assisi..technical stuff.. not so much of the non technical


    I am focussed on that. I am writing drafts of it in English and Japanese.


    I have no knowledge of the non-technical aspects of Mizuno's work. I was not aware that he distributed reactors last year, except for the three that I was involved with. I first heard of that in Ruby's report. However, I do not have the impression that large investments are pouring in. Neither are small investments. No one has offered to reimburse the $4,500 I spent on meshes.


    I do not think there will be investors unless the effect is replicated 4 or 5 times. The Zhang replication is a good start, but it needs more work and a sustained reaction.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Vehemently disagree. You should never take down a working experimental setup if you expect it to be excruciatingly difficult to set it up again. Rather, leave the working device alone and try to make a new one that works and when you have done that, analyze it- the new one. IMO, the analysis can wait. Confirming Mizuno's startling results to a skeptical scientific and investor community that has ample resources to analyze, duplicate and exploit is can not.


    Unless you have a suitcase full of money you want to give us, or you know someone who does, I don't think your advice is useful. In other words, you are not an investor, and I don't think you can judge what investors think or what they want. There are two reasons why I disagree with you:


    We still have the R19, and it is still working. It was tested on July 18. A visitor confirmed the 4 parameters. It produced 108 W excess, which is a 5°C temperature difference compared to a calibration. The R20 250 W reaction produced an 11°C temperature difference. Do you think 11° might convince someone, but 5° would not? I think they are equally convincing. Do you suppose that person observing the 5°C temperature difference would say "I believe that, but I think your 11° claim is bogus"?


    The only way to attract investors is to have the effect replicated. Widely replicated, where "widely" means 4 or 5 good replications, I suppose. That will only happen if we continue to assist researchers. Probably, one of the best ways we can assist them is to have the super-productive mesh analyzed so that we know more about how to make one. Knowledge of the mesh is worth more to us, now, than additional tests with it. No one is lining up to see tests in any case, and Mizuno has no time to show them.

    One way to test the air flow measurements I have already described. It is changing the output tube to different diameters at the existing calibration levels. (Different lengths could also be tried, but I think the diameter tests will reveal any ‘weird’ measurement or calculation problems).

    The different outlet tube diameters will result in different velocities but the same volume of air will (should) be exiting (until an outlet restriction diameter is reached). The resultant heat content from each diameter outlet pipe should all be the same at each heat input calibration level, within the uncertainties that are expected.


    One such uncertainty source could be the angle of the anemometer opening relative to the primary air flow direction (for example) when doing the outlet traverses.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    One way to test the air flow measurements I have already described. It is changing the output tube to different diameters at the existing calibration levels. (Different lengths could also be tried, but I think the diameter tests will reveal any ‘weird’ measurement or calculation problems).

    That seems like a complicated way to go about it. Why not just turn up the power to the blower? (Or turn it down, but not too far.)


    Whatever you end up doing, you can be sure that in a calibration the heat captured in the air will be:


    Mass of air * Specific heat of air * Degrees K


    Minus losses.


    That's all there is to it. The same as water or any other fluid. If you don't get that answer, it isn't working for some reason. You will have to find out why. If you do get that answer, it is working, and you don't need to futz around with different sized tubes or anything else. You are good to go.

    Changing the blower speed affects the amount of heat from the blower going into the outlet air (and possibly the nearby RTDs), the blower efficiency, and the air flow rate within the calorimeter. In addition to the outlet air velocity.


    That is a lot of potential changes.


    So, one uses one size outlet tube, does the calibration, and determines the recovery.

    Then, do it again with a mildly bigger outlet tube, do the calibration and determine the recovery.

    If the calculated output heat and recovery for each tube size agrees, then you are good to go (and a hundred or two questions on the Internet are avoided).

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Then, do it again with a mildly bigger outlet tube, do the calibration and determine the recovery.


    If the recovery rate is high, excess heat can be detected even without taking into account heat losses. In that case you don't need to worry much about losses. You should measure the losses, and confirm that the system loses the same at 100 W today as it did yesterday, but you don't need to go the trouble of testing different outlet tubes and so on. Frankly, I think changing the system that much is likely to introduce problems and variation. When you put back the original tube, I expect it will give a slightly different answer. Mizuno, Miles, Storms and many others report that every time you open a calorimeter, change something, and close it up again, the calibration constant changes a little. So don't open it. Don't move anything. Calibrate, do the test, and calibrate again.


    The reason I suggested changing the air flow rate by changing the input power to the blower is because you can do that without moving anything. And you can go right back to a previous power level. There is no way the equipment can be affected by doing that. This is what is shown in Fig. 4, the traverse test. Whereas removing a tube and putting it back may affect things.


    Do not make things more complicated than they need to be. Do not do tests or calibrations that cause more problems than they solve. When you prove it is working right, by multiplying mass * specific heat * temperature change, that's all the proof you need. Naturally, you need to test a range of input power, but other methods are not called for. That's first principle proof. Do not go beating around the bush looking for more exotic proof. Do not change physical parameters such as the tube diameter. Do not swap out the blower. The flow might go from turbulent to laminar, or something like that. If a skeptic is not convinced by first principles, mass * specific heat * temperature change, nothing else will convince him. He is a lost cause.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If the recovery rate is high, excess heat can be detected even without taking into account heat losses. In that case you don't need to worry much about losses. You should measure the losses, and confirm that the system loses the same at 100 W today as it did yesterday, but you don't need to go the trouble of testing different outlet tubes and so on. Frankly, I think changing the system that much is likely to introduce problems and variation. When you put back the original tube, I expect it will give a slightly different answer. Mizuno, Miles, Storms and many others report that every time you open a calorimeter, change something, and close it up again, the calibration constant changes a little. So don't open it. Don't move anything. Calibrate, do the test, and calibrate again.


    The reason I suggested changing the air flow rate by changing the input power to the blower is because you can do that without moving anything. And you can go right back to a previous power level. There is no way the equipment can be affected by doing that. This is what is shown in Fig. 4, the traverse test. Whereas removing a tube and putting it back may affect things.


    Do not make things more complicated than they need to be. Do not do tests or calibrations that cause more problems than they solve. When you prove it is working right, by multiplying mass * specific heat * temperature change, that's all the proof you need. Naturally, you need to test a range of input power, but other methods are not called for. That's first principle proof. Do not go beating around the bush looking for more exotic proof. Do not change physical parameters such as the tube diameter. Do not swap out the blower. The flow might go from turbulent to laminar, or something like that. If a skeptic is not convinced by first principles, mass * specific heat * temperature change, nothing else will convince him. He is a lost cause.


    That cannot be true. Relative measurements (heat excess relative to control) are usually more convincing than absolute: for example with R19. That is because the absolute analysis depends on every part of the system being quantified accurately. The calibrated analysis depends on conditions being the same between control and active, usually easier to establish.


    In the case of R20 there is no issue - you do not need complex calorimetry to prove X6 or more heat production.

    Quote

    Changing the blower speed affects the amount of heat from the blower going into the outlet air (and possibly the nearby RTDs), the blower efficiency, and the air flow rate within the calorimeter. In addition to the outlet air velocity.

    That is a lot of potential changes.

    I do not understand why this is necessary when the output power is 250W for 50W in. A few percent of heat lost to measurement by calorimetry could not possibly make a difference in the validity of the finding that a lot of excess heat is being generated. Instead of dissecting the calorimetry minutiae, I'd like to see replication, even by Mizuno himself, and longer runs. I would also like to see independent scientists, for example from a research and development company, repeat Mizuno's measurements with their own equipment in Mizuno's lab and with Mizuno's help. If there is an error large enough to account for the results, it should be discovered by an independent team of qualified people inside Mizuno's own lab.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I do not understand why this is necessary when the output power is 250W for 50W in. A few percent of heat lost to measurement by calorimetry could not possibly make a difference in the validity of the finding that a lot of excess heat is being generated. Instead of dissecting the calorimetry minutiae, I'd like to see replication, even by Mizuno himself, and longer runs. I would also like to see independent scientists, for example from a research and development company, repeat Mizuno's measurements with their own equipment in Mizuno's lab and with Mizuno's help. If there is an error large enough to account for the results, it should be discovered by an independent team of qualified people inside Mizuno's own lab.


    SOT - it is not.


    However, in case you have missed it, for reasons that are still not entirely clear the easy to test independently and obviously important R20 is no longer working. I've not heard whether the next best R19 is still working. Results from any of these things, with good calorimetry and independent testing, would be extraordinary.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    If the recovery rate is high, excess heat can be detected even without taking into account heat losses. In that case you don't need to worry much about losses. You should measure the losses, and confirm that the system loses the same at 100 W today as it did yesterday, but you don't need to go the trouble of testing different outlet tubes and so on. Frankly, I think changing the system that much is likely to introduce problems and variation. When you put back the original tube, I expect it will give a slightly different answer. Mizuno, Miles, Storms and many others report that every time you open a calorimeter, change something, and close it up again, the calibration constant changes a little. So don't open it. Don't move anything. Calibrate, do the test, and calibrate again.


    The reason I suggested changing the air flow rate by changing the input power to the blower is because you can do that without moving anything. And you can go right back to a previous power level. There is no way the equipment can be affected by doing that. This is what is shown in Fig. 4, the traverse test. Whereas removing a tube and putting it back may affect things.


    Do not make things more complicated than they need to be. Do not do tests or calibrations that cause more problems than they solve. When you prove it is working right, by multiplying mass * specific heat * temperature change, that's all the proof you need. Naturally, you need to test a range of input power, but other methods are not called for. That's first principle proof. Do not go beating around the bush looking for more exotic proof. Do not change physical parameters such as the tube diameter. Do not swap out the blower. The flow might go from turbulent to laminar, or something like that. If a skeptic is not convinced by first principles, mass * specific heat * temperature change, nothing else will convince him. He is a lost cause.

    Jed, in one report (ICCF 21) you claimed the recovery of the calorimeter was apparently 99%, and that seemed impossible. What I am saying is that could be a minor measurement error in the output characteristics. A 1 mm error in the outlet diameter measurements could change that 99% to 97%. Without changing anything but the outlet tube, the output can be tested with a different tube. If the recovery is still 99% with the different tube then that is very probably what the recovery actually is. I am not talking about finding some error that discounts reported excess heat. I am talking about a way to constrain the overall uncertainty of the output measurements so that the excess can be safely claimed to be outside those uncertainties. You said yourself that 5% excess was close to the margin of error. What is the margin of error? If we can find that probably it is 1% at the input level where 5% excess appears, that makes those 5% excess runs more solid.


    If only one tube is used, does it’s diameter get checked more than once, or is it measured once and that value used for every calculation from then on? If two different sizes are used, and the calculations don’t agree closely, then perhaps there may be a reason to double-check the diameters and make sure the first measurement was good. I have done enough quality control work to know that simple things like this are needed to test where a single measurement becomes a constant that affects the results of every following calculation but may in fact not be the correct constant to use. Maybe the difference is insignificant, but that should be shown, not just assumed.


    Although changing the blower speed seems to be simple to do and non-invasive, because it changes the air flow rate within the calorimeter box, it is very invasive. It will change the forced convection efficiency. Changing the air flow rate inside the calorimeter is a much bigger variable than changing the outlet tube and airflow rate outside the calorimeter. Yes, one would have to recalibrate every time the tube is changed. But once the general output uncertainty is tested, one outlet tube can be left on and stay that way.

    Quote

    However, in case you have missed it, for reasons that are still not entirely clear the easy to test independently and obviously important R20 is no longer working. I've not heard whether the next best R19 is still working. Results from any of these things, with good calorimetry and independent testing, would be extraordinary.

    Thanks for reminding me that R20 with it's allegedly spectacular, world shaking abilities, has been dismantled. This act was unconscionable and/or incredibly dumb prior to independent confirmation of the working R20.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That cannot be true. Relative measurements (heat excess relative to control) are usually more convincing than absolute: for example with R19. That is because the absolute analysis depends on every part of the system being quantified accurately.


    You may find them more convincing, but most people I know say that first principle proof is more convincing. For example, Fleischmann thought a boil off or other phase change is more convincing than a calibrated response. I agree. However, you must always do both. You must always calibrate even when the method is first principle. Everyone always does. All flow calorimeters are first principle, but they are always calibrated.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    In the case of R20 there is no issue - you do not need complex calorimetry to prove X6 or more heat production.


    As I have pointed out several times, the X6 is an arbitrary and meaningless number. We can change the insulation and make any number you like: X1, X20, X100.


    What is convincing is the absolute power, which is 250 W with the R20, and 108 W with the R19. Why do you find 250 W convincing but not 108 W? Apparently you have set some boundary here, somewhere below 250 W and above 108 W, where the reaction becomes unconvincing. Where is the boundary? Why is it unconvincing? To put it another way, the 250 W reaction produced a temperature difference 11°C warmer than the calibration. The 108 W reaction was 5°C warmer than the calibration. Why do you find 11° convincing, but not 5°C? Do you seriously think there is more likely to be error measuring 5° than 11°? These instruments can measure 0.1°C with confidence.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Instead of dissecting the calorimetry minutiae, I'd like to see replication, even by Mizuno himself, and longer runs. I would also like to see independent scientists, for example from a research and development company, repeat Mizuno's measurements with their own equipment in Mizuno's lab and with Mizuno's help. If there is an error large enough to account for the results, it should be discovered by an independent team of qualified people inside Mizuno's own lab.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Thanks for reminding me that R20 with it's allegedly spectacular, world shaking abilities, has been dismantled. This act was unconscionable and/or incredibly dumb prior to independent confirmation of the working R20.


    Your statements are contradictory. You want to have your cake and eat it too. The only way we can have independent replications -- and indeed, the only way Mizuno himself can replicate -- is by learning more about the materials. Leaving the material in the cell will teach us nothing about it. We cannot replicate it without a complete analysis with mass spectroscopy and other techniques.


    Which do you want to see? Which is more important? Replications, or a repeat of the 250 W test? You cannot have both. Mizuno and I think that replications and progress are more important.


    The R20 is still intact, and it was used to demonstrate the effect to visitor on July 18, when it produced 108 W. As I pointed out above, the 250 W reaction produces an 11°C temperature difference, and the R19 108 W reaction produced a 5°C temperature elevation. Are you saying that 11°C is convincing, but 5°C is meaningless, and should be disregarded? That makes no sense. A person who is not convinced by 5°C will not be convinced by 11°C or any other temperature.


    You have to remember that a person watching the experiment sees only numbers on the screen. You cannot tell the difference between 250 W and 108 W except by doing the arithmetic. You can confirm the numbers with your own instruments, which an observer did on July 18, and which I did previously. But having confirmed them, you still have to understand the physics. You still have to know that heat = mass of air * specific heat * degrees K. That's all you have to work with. You can't see or feel the difference between 0 W, 108 W, and 250 W.


    The other thing you fail to appreciate is that people are not lining up to see Mizuno's lab or any demonstration. Because all they would see are numbers on the screen. On a 1980s computer in a crowded, dilapidated room, in a building on the point of collapse. It is not impressive unless you understand the physics. If you do understand the physics, you don't need to see another demonstration of 250 W. You just need to confirm the calorimeter is working correctly, which you can do as easily with a 108 W reaction as a 250 W one. Or for that matter, you can do it just as easily with a 50 W calibration and 0 W excess. You bring your own instruments. You measure the input power, the inlet and outlet temperatures, and the air flow rate, and Bob's your uncle. Nothing to it. Many visitors have done this, and they have always found that it is working. Unless you do not believe heat = mass of air * specific heat * degrees K, you will be convinced. (Some people say they don't believe that. Just as some people say the world is flat. Obviously, THH and Shananhan do not believe it -- they invent reasons to dismiss it.)


    We know what investors want. They are not shy about telling us. They want independent replications. So do we. So do you, but you fail to understand how to bring about those replications. You fail to see that another demonstration of 250 W will just be more numbers in a spreadsheet, and it will not add any more credibility or make things more convincing that the present spreadsheets do.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    If two different sizes are used, and the calculations don’t agree closely, then perhaps there may be a reason to double-check the diameters and make sure the first measurement was good.


    No, if the calculations don't agree closely, all you have do is a first principle calculation, mass * specific heat * degrees K. You will see which of the two is closer to the correct answer. Or you will see they are both wrong.


    If one is close to correct answer, then you should toss out the other tube, stop farting around with inconclusive and meaningless calibration techniques, and get on with the experiment. In other words, you should do this the way the textbooks describe, and the way people who have experience with flow calorimetry say you should do it. Watch some videos of HVAC engineers at training institutes.



    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Jed, in one report (ICCF 21) you claimed the recovery of the calorimeter was apparently 99%, and that seemed impossible.


    It is impossible. This calorimeter is lossy. We discovered the reasons for this too-high recovery rate. They are described in the ICCF21 report.



    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    What I am saying is that could be a minor measurement error in the output characteristics. A 1 mm error in the outlet diameter measurements could change that 99% to 97%.


    We discovered several errors. We know what they are. I do not think there is a 1 mm error in diameter measurements. I think we would have discovered that by now, by conventional means. With a ruler, that is.


    Last year, when Mizuno was putting in 100 W and getting out 112, I was worried about things like the 99% recovery rate, which I knew was wrong. Which anyone can see is wrong. It is a little too high. I was a lot more worried about the noisy background, which makes steady heat look like it is fluctuating by ~2 W. (A 0.1°C change in ambient temperature with this calorimeter translates into a 2 W error.) Now that he is getting much higher excess heat, I worry about these things less. I do not dismiss them, but having checked for them, I give it a rest. I worry about the next one-thousand items on the agenda instead. I do not see the point to obsessing about small errors when:

    1. We know what causes them.
    2. We know they cannot be fixed, with this equipment and this budget.
    3. They are far too small to affect the conclusions.

    When you do research, or develop programs, or remodel a house, you cannot aim for perfection. You have to draw the line and say, "good enough; let's go to the next step." You cannot keep obsessing about the calorimetry when there are dozens or hundreds of very difficult problems with the materials, with assisting other people replicate, with documenting and explaining results (in two languages!) and much else. Do the best you can. Find the causes of noise and inaccuracy. Be sure the results agree with first principle estimates based on mass * specific heat * degrees K. When I say "agree" I do not mean they must agree to within 0.005%. I mean the agreement must be good enough that there is no question the results are real, and the numbers are statistically significant. Draw the line, get the job done, and get on with the next steps.


    If you are thinking you might convince the likes of THH or Shanahan by tracking down a 1 mm error in the diameter of the outlet orifice, you are engaged in fool's errand. First, they will not believe any calibration or result, even if it were within 0.005% of the first principle answer, and even if the recovery rate were 99% (which some calorimeters can accomplish). THH just told us that a calibrated result is better than a first-principle one. If we give him a calibrated one, he will demand a first-principle result instead. Second, even if you showed the diameter is correct to the nearest millimeter, they would demand you show it is correct to 0.1 mm, and then a micrometer, and then a nanometer -- all of which they would dismiss. They will never be satisfied with any measurement, no matter how precise, no matter how many times it is repeated, no matter how expensive the equipment is. That is why they dismiss McKubre, whose equipment is something like 3 orders of magnitude better than Mizuno's. You could add another 8 orders of magnitude. You could add 10,000 more calibrations. They would dismiss it just the same. You should not fall into their mindset, which is grounded in the rejection of logic, science, and common sense.

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.