# Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

• 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.

I guess this explains why we have different views of calorimetry. 250W is X6, measured relative to 50W input. R19 is X1.5, measured relative to 100W input. The key error sources are all geometric (fractions of total power) not additive (fixed power errors). Therefore we have 500% vs 50% excess in these two cases to compare with error bounds. If you don't understand that in this case it is ratio of power out / power in that must be compared with error bounds, not power itself, you will misunderstand what matters. There are also additive errors, but they are much smaller than the multiplicative ones, so much so that they can be ignored.

What is convincing relates to the way in which errors can be bounded for given results.

In Mizuno's case, the error is nothing to do with the resolution (or accuracy) of the temperature TC, which is generally more accurate than the other things. There is a possible error which is heat conduction to the output TC from an output bracket hotter than the cooling airflow. This is difficult to evaluate but obviously if it were an issue it would be much more than 0.1C. There is no information in the paper that allows me to check this.

The key absolute error sources are:

• input power measurement errors (if measured as you have said in some cases on input side of PSU). A shame because the exact input power is easy to measure accurately, and I suspect in many cases was measured accurately. Note that this cannot directly increase the absolute power measurement unless the power reported is adjusted with the PSU efficiency. This might be done, we would not know. If it was done the error bound needs to bound changes in efficiency with different conditions. However, positive input power measurement errors during heat loss calibration can cause heat losses to be underestimated.
• airflow errors
• variation in heat loss with changing conditions - e.g. reator size and placement (this need not be considered if the results used are absolute and ignore calorimeter heat losses. I'm not sure whether Table 1 in the second paper showing R19 excess power adjusts for estimated heat losses (paper method 3) or not (paper method 2). If it adjusts then the absolute R19 excess is only about 25% max. The paper implies these are adjusted figures, because the reactor heat loss calibration is shown before the results, but maybe not?

Obviously if we could bound each of these errors, we could multiply them to get overall bounds. My confidence would then relate to how close the lower bound was to no excess heat. I'd want at least 10% clear to account for errors in these bounds. I'd want another 20% clear to account for known sensitivity to room temperature change (unless this is also measured and bounded). My approach is to be very conservative unless I have enough information to make precise bounds.

X1.5 looks not entirely safe. (R19). A pity, because it definitely could be safe.

X2 looks safe

X6 looks very very safe (R20)

We could do much better with much more info about the experiment, how it was instrumented, from where the various calibrations come, because we can't be sure the given results use the exact same equipment as was calibrated. With checking of and care I'd expect 10% accuracy to be achievable, but we do not have that. Without the work being done by the experimenter error bounds tend to be a bit hand-wavy.

Rigorous record keeping and methodology - e.g. every recorded result specifies precise instrumentation and setup used to obtain it, and references specific calibration data similarly specified - would make me more confident, given the things we now know which indicate a conflation of raw and calculated data.

THH

• I guess this explains why we have different views of calorimetry. 250W is X6, measured relative to 50W input. R19 is X1.5, measured relative to 100W input.

No, this indicates that you know nothing about calorimetry, or electricity, or insulation. That is to say:

The X6 number is arbitrary, and can be changed by altering the insulation. It has been changed. There used to be more insulation, making the number higher. That made the calorimetry more difficult, and less accurate, for reasons that anyone who has done calorimetry will know. You seem to think it should be more accurate at X100, but that is wrong.

Input is a measurement of electricity going into a resistance heater. This can be measured to 0.03% with Mizuno's Yokogawa meter. You seem to think that all measurements have the same error margins. We can only measure the temperature to within ~0.1°C, which is to say 1 part in 110 for the R20 and one part in 50 for the R19 result. We can measure the input electricity to 1 part in 3,000 for both. In other words, the error for 50 W electric power input (R20) is not significantly different from the 216 W (R19) when your meter is good to 0.03%. The input half of your X6 ratio has the same confidence level whether ratio is 6, or 1 or 2.

With temperatures, 1 part in 50 is not significantly more difficult to measure or less reliable than 1 part in 110. Let's go over this --

The 100 W output produces a 5°C temperature difference. The 250 W output produces an 11°C difference. If you think that 5°C is harder to measure or significantly closer to the error margin than 11°C, then you do not know the first thing about thermometers, thermocouples or RTDs. All three of which have been used to confirm these temperature differences. At the same time. With multiple instruments, including ones brought by independent observers. All 5 instruments used recently all agreed on the 5°C temperature difference. Do you think they were all wrong, and the actual difference was 0°C, and they just happened to agree, by a fantastic coincidence?

My approach is to be very conservative unless I have enough information to make precise bounds.

X1.5 looks not entirely safe. (R19)

X2 looks safe

X6 looks very very safe (R20)

Your approach is not conservative. You ignore everything we know about thermometers, thermocouples and RTDs, and you pretend they might all agree and yet they might all be wrong by 5°C. That is not "conservative" -- it is a violation of common sense. You do not need "precise bounds" to know that ordinary, off the shelf electronic instruments and alcohol thermometers can measure a 5°C difference with confidence, and when 5 of them agree, the chances they are all wrong are astronomically small. You also do not need precise information to know that a power meter good to 0.03% can measure 50 W of electricity with nearly as much confidence as 216 W. You are demanding meaningless precision, as an excuse to dismiss results.

• Jed, I suggest you read my post above, reflect on it, and reply to it. For example:

• X6 is clearly NOT arbitrarily chosen - it is the R20 result.
• My concern about the input power measurement has nothing to do with the instrument accuracy.
• I specifically said that the (additive) temperature measurement error was not a large contributor to the error bounds, and detail the error sources that have much larger bounds which are multiplicative. We will not communicate if you do not understand what I write.
• Quote

our 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.

No, you silly goose. You don't cook and eat the one unique specimen you have. You find a second one to do that too while the first one keeps ticking right along.

• BTW, to continue the discussion of whether so-called COP, ratio of output to input power, is of value as a figure of merit, I understand that it can be manipulated by adding or removing insulation. I admit I failed to consider that until JedRothwell made it clear. But that doesn't matter. It is still true that the combination of absolute power level and ratio of output power to input power, however you achieve the latter while maintaining the former, are numbers that indicate whether you are likely to be out of noise or in it. I don't think I have to elaborate or give examples, right?

Oh hell, why not? Is anyone saying that an experiment in which Mizuno provides an output of 250.00001 W with an input of 250.00000 W is a convincing demo? Compared to 250 W out with 50W in? OK, so that's reductio ad absurdum but so what?

• 4 matched thermocouples and a new fan.

.

.

• No, you silly goose. You don't cook and eat the one unique specimen you have. You find a second one to do that too

It is unlikely we will "find" a second one without a complete analysis of the first one. The most recent one is producing 20 or 30 W. It may increase after being loaded and deloaded, but I doubt it will reach 250 W.

Right now, at this moment, knowing how to make a super productive 250 W mesh is a secret worth a trillion dollars. Materials are the key to cold fusion, and an analysis is the key to understanding materials. The best use of this is not to impress people, but rather to advance the science. Most successful cold fusion experiment end with destructive analysis of the materials. Nowadays, non-destructive techniques have improved, so the methods are not always destructive.

As I said, a person who would be impressed by 11 deg C but would dismiss 5 deg C would be an idiot. There is no point to impressing idiots. Mizuno can reliably demonstrate the 5 deg C effect. I think. Pretty sure. It worked last month!

You also overlook the fact that what comes out of the reactor can go back, and it may well work again. Storms reports that good cathodes can be removed, put aside, and put back, and they still work. We can analyze part of one mesh, and put the rest back into the reactor. We are thinking of having someone else put it in a different reactor, with a Seebeck calorimeter. That would be a semi-independent replication.

• It is still true that the combination of absolute power level and ratio of output power to input power, however you achieve the latter while maintaining the former, are numbers that indicate whether you are likely to be out of noise or in it. I don't think I have to elaborate or give examples, right?

That is incorrect, because input power can be measured with enormous precision, so the noise level with 200 W is hardly any more than it is with 50 W. The power meter is good to 0.03%. This means you can subtract almost all of the power that goes into the resistance heater. The uncertainty after subtracting out 50 W is 15 mW. The uncertainty after subtracting 200 W is 67 mW. The difference is insignificant compared to the 108 W of excess heat from the R19.

You can subtract the input power no matter what the ratio of input to output is. Suppose you input 50 W and get out 55. That would be 5 W +/- 0.015 W. Suppose you input 200 W and get out 205 W. That's 5 W +/- 0.067 W. That's just about as certain as 5 W +/- 0.015 W. The ratios of 10:1 versus 40:1 are irrelevant. They play no part in the s/n ratios.

To take an extreme example, where input is 1 W and output is 6 W, that's 5 W +/- 0.0003 W. Which is only a little more certain than 5 W +/- 0.067 W. The ratio is 1:6 instead of 40:1, but the s/n ratio is about the same, and you can be equally confident of both measurements. The extra 199 W of input electricity hardly affects the s/n ratio, because it is not noise. Many people have been confused by this issue. Input power is not noise.

The output side of the ratio is much noisier, and the precision of the measurement is much smaller. So, more absolute power on the output side increases the s/n ratio a great deal. Adding 10 W to output increases the signal much more than reducing input electricity by 10 W would. The precision with which you can measure electricity is probably ~100 times greater than output thermal power, with this calorimeter. With a Seebeck, the two are closer together.

Mizuno's thermal output uncertainty is around 2 W. In other words, in all three cases above, with 200 W input, 50 W input, or 1 W input, the answer would be 5 W +/- 1 W. Which is terrible! Very uncertain. That additional uncertainty introduced by the electricity hardly counts.

Oh hell, why not? Is anyone saying that an experiment in which Mizuno provides an output of 250.00001 W with an input of 250.00000 W is a convincing demo? Compared to 250 W out with 50W in? OK, so that's reductio ad absurdum but so what?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I assume you mean 250 W input, 250 W excess heat, total 500 W. Versus 50 W in, 250 W out, 300 W total.

If you mean input 250 W and anomalous heat only 0.00001 W, of course that would be less convincing! 0.00001 W thermal would be impossible to measure with any conventional calorimeter. Obviously, it is harder to measure 0.00001 W than 250 W, but I do not think that is the point you are trying to make. I believe you are saying the 250 W of input electricity would interfere with the measurement or cause more noise, compared to 50 W. That is incorrect.

The uncertainty with 250.00000 input electricity is 75 mW (250 W/3333). You can be 100% sure that all 250 W of input are correctly accounted for and removed. Leaving 250 W thermal. Right? With 50 W input the uncertainty is 15 mW. You can be equally sure the 50 W is removed, and equally certain that the excess remaining is 250 W.

As I said, that is because electricity can be measured with enormous precision.

If you were trying to measure the difference between 250 W thermal and 251 W thermal, you would see nothing. It would be lost in the noise.

If you were trying to subtract the electricity going into electrolysis at 250 W, instead of a resistance heater, the uncertainty would be greater than 75 mW. Electrolysis is not as stable as resistance heating. It is a little harder to measure, and less precise.

• Quote

You also overlook the fact that what comes out of the reactor can go back, and it may well work again.

I didn't overlook it. It's a great idea. Pls do it.

Quote

If you were trying to measure the difference between 250 W thermal and 251 W thermal, you would see nothing. It would be lost in the noise.

Like I said it was a reductio ad absurdum to various past claims by various people that low power levels with low power ratios are convincing.

• Like I said it was a reductio ad absurdum to various past claims by various people that low power levels with low power ratios are convincing.

The issue has nothing to do with the ratios. The problem you describe is caused by the absolute power of the output being low. The ratio is irrelevant, as I showed, because electric power input is not noise. Thus, for example:

200 W input, 210 W output, 10 W excess can be measured with higher confidence than:

10 W input, 12 W output, 2 W excess

The extra noise added by the 200 W input compared to the 10 W input is far too small to measure with this instrument. It is 0.060 W compared to 0.003. Whereas with this calorimeter, the noise introduced by the output thermal measurement would make these two:

10 W +/- 1 W

2 W +/- 1 W

With 500 W input, 520 W output, the answer is 20 W +/- 1 W, which is much better than either of those two. The extra 500 W of electricity contributes only 0.150 W of extra noise (making it 20 W +/- 1.07).

For that matter, if there was no input power at all, and 1 W of output, the result would be:

1 W +/- 1 W, which is meaningless noise. 1000 W input, 1005 W output would be more convincing.

Low power levels with low or high ratios of input power are more convincing that Mizuno's results when the calorimeters are much better. McKubre sometimes measured 10 W input, 15 W output, 5 W excess. His calorimeter is so much better than Mizuno's that the s/n ratio exceeded Mizuno's 250 W result. It is more convincing. Again, the input power level has nothing to do with it. If McKubre measured 100 W input, 105 W output, that would still be better than Mizuno's 250 W. Although the uncertainty is higher with electrolysis than with resistance heating.

• Right now, at this moment, knowing how to make a super productive 250 W mesh is a secret worth a trillion dollars. Materials are the key to cold fusion, and an analysis is the key to understanding materials. The best use of this is not to impress people, but rather to advance the science. Most successful cold fusion experiment end with destructive analysis of the materials. Nowadays, non-destructive techniques have improved, so the methods are not always destructive.

Having those R20 results independently and competently tested (e.g. by NASA etc not LENR guys) is worth \$1M development money from Gates etc or much much more with commercial strings attached. If Mizuno is not resource constrained, that would not be an issue - go cut up and eat the goose in the hope that its taste will allow more to be manufactured.

Otherwise that independent testing is worth a lot of development, would not take long, and the device could be cut up after.

THH

• Quote

Having those R20 results independently and competently tested (e.g. by NASA etc not LENR guys)

I am starting to doubt that this will ever actually happen. Is that pathological? Not in the light of past history.

• I give up!

Apparently you are conflating two separate conditions: high input power, and low anomalous excess heat.

High input power makes almost no difference to the calorimetry. It does not interfere in the measurements. It is easy to measure. Indeed, it is the easiest physical force to measure.

Low excess heat is difficult to measure. The error margin is large.

Thus:

300 W input, 330 W output, 30 W excess is very easy to measure. The 300 W of input power produce very little noise. The 10:1 ratio makes no different to the measurements.

1 W input, 3 W output, 2 W excess would be difficult to measure with this instrument. The low input power does not help. The ratio of 1:3 does not help.

I have a lot of actual data showing this is the case.

• Nearly ready for an air flow test using the correct fan.

I just wired up the fan power supply (regulated 12 V), and tested the tach signal. The tach signal is supplied by an internal Hall effect sensor and signal processing circuitry, integral to the blower fan, which reports two pulses per revolution. The yellow wire is a signal (ground), and the red (12v+ supply) is the positive terminal. It reports 128.4 Hz, or 3852 RPM at 12.08 V, free running (without outlet tube or attached to calorimeter).

I will begin taping on the outlet tube and will test with the anemometer shortly. The fan is much quieter than the axial fan I previously tried, and really doesn't seem to be blowing as hard as the axial fan. The anemometer will find out I guess. I have several lengths of cardboard mailing tubes with a 65 mm ID (but I will check that again).

• First pass with 8 points (as suggested in the report) resulted in 4.38 m/s (the anemometer software calculates the average once all the traverse points are taken).

Second pass using 21 anemometer points result was 5.12 m/s.

The overall traverse profile is far from flat, however. The tube edge corresponding to the blower forward fan blade section is as high as 6.28 m/s, while the tube edge corresponding to the blower fan retreating blade section is as low as 4.06 m/s.

• Mailing tubes are a clever solution. I expect they are very regular (close to circular).

So, the flow rate is not uniform? That's interesting. Good observation. It shows that this sometimes does not work, and you have to check carefully.

For inspiration, read about the Wright brothers and their problems with the wind tunnel.

I hope I did not give the impression this always works and you don't need to check, or worry. Elsewhere, someone thinks I said the experiment overall is "easy." That's the last thing I would say! Mizuno has been working on it for years, often months with no heat. It appears to be relatively easy for people skilled in the art.

• I made better notes, and here is a representative diagram of the results from another traverse.
The grey area represents the squirrel cage fan at the other end of the tube. Numbers are m/s.

The inlet side of the fan is on the left of this image.

(The missing number on the LH center is 5.29 m/s)

.

.

• Here's a thought. Mizuno's tube runs from the blower which has a small square opening, expanding out to the 66-mm circular orifice. It may act as a Venturi. I suggest you take a section of the tube closer to the blower than the orifice and crush it in to form a Venturi.