Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

What do Tr125, Tr225 etc. mean?

Those points are completely different from Mizuno's. You are nowhere close to replicating his conditions. You cannot draw any conclusions about his calorimetry, or whether his 7 points are sufficient to characterize the whole surface.

On the other hand, I can draw conclusions based on first principles. As I did. Unless you doubt the input power and temperature measurements, you must agree that Mizuno is measuring the flow rate correctly, and it has to be uniform. As I said, he would get the wrong answer otherwise. Calibrations would show either much less heat recovered than input at 10 W, 30 W and 50 W, or much more recovered. That's what calibrations are for. They show the instrument is working, or it is not working.

(THH has claimed the input power measurements cannot be believed, however many meters have confirmed them. He must think the 3 power meter are all wrong to exactly the same extent, and in a way that exactly compensates for 5 thermometers and the 2 anemometers, so that by some fantastic coincidence, the answers always come out right, and the heat always balances up to 50 W. That would never happen in the life of the universe.)

THH might conclude that Mizuno's data is somehow wrong, and Mizuno's anemometer is not working because your results are so different from his. I trust you have more common sense than that. Obviously you are both measuring correctly. You cannot make a hot wire digital anemometer misbehave enough to cause such giant differences. Go ahead and try! Clearly, you two are looking at physically different systems.

There are countless graphs and illustrations of laminar versus turbulent flows, and they all show the former has varying flow rates, and the latter does not. Both exist. Such textbook phenomena are not questionable or odd or somehow unbelievable, contrary to THH's synthetic doubts.

Quote from JedRothwell

What do Tr125, Tr225 etc. mean?

Those points are completely different from Mizuno's. You are nowhere close to replicating his conditions. You cannot draw any conclusions about his calorimetry, or whether his 7 points are sufficient to characterize the whole surface.

On the other hand, I can draw conclusions based on first principles. As I did. Unless you doubt the input power and temperature measurements, you must agree that Mizuno is measuring the flow rate correctly, and it has to be uniform. As I said, he would get the wrong answer otherwise. Calibrations would show either much less heat recovered than input at 10 W, 30 W and 50 W, or much more recovered. That's what calibrations are for. They show the instrument is working, or it is not working.

(THH has claimed the input power measurements cannot be believed, however many meters have confirmed them. He must think the 3 power meter are all wrong to exactly the same extent, and in a way that exactly compensates for 5 thermometers and the 2 anemometers, so that by some fantastic coincidence, the answers always come out right, and the heat always balances up to 50 W. That would never happen in the life of the universe.)

THH might conclude that Mizuno's data is somehow wrong, and Mizuno's anemometer is not working because your results are so different from his. I trust you have more common sense than that. Obviously you are both measuring correctly. You cannot make a hot wire digital anemometer misbehave enough to cause such giant differences. Go ahead and try! Clearly, you two are looking at physically different systems.

There are countless graphs and illustrations of laminar versus turbulent flows, and they all show the former has varying flow rates, and the latter does not. Both exist. Such textbook phenomena are not questionable or odd or somehow unbelievable, contrary to THH's synthetic doubts.

Display More

Tr = Traverse

1 = traverse 1 (full diameter), 2 = traverse 2, etc.

25 = 25 cm long tube

60 = 60 cm long tube

My point is that these numbers are different than Mizuno's. The velocity profile is nowhere near flat. Using the same fan and a tube 1 mm less in ID than his.

It shouldn't be rocket science to attach a cardboard tube to a fan outlet with electrical tape. The tube is squished to match the fan outlet as best as possible.

The results should be similar to Mizuno's, without resorting to bending the tube enough or crushing a venturi into it in order to level out the velocity profile, unless Mizuno did also somehow.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The velocity profile is nowhere near flat.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

merely noted that the 60 cm tube is approaching laminar flow

Quote from JedRothwell

Your flow is laminar;

The flow profile even in the 60 cm position is NOT laminar

It is nowhere near laminar.

Laminar flow has a peak velocity twice the average velocity as shown approximately by the blue curve

Flat is a relative term..

Compared to laminar

the turbulent flow profiles are flat, or flattish..

see Fig4.

http://www.engineeringmechanics.cz/pdf/21_6_371.pdf

Turbulent flow gets flatter at higher Reynolds numbers, and when "just" turbulent gets more variable and closer to laminar flow.

However, we already know that the flow measured in the 66mm tube - unless you allow 60cm or so for it to "settle" will have velocity profile dominated by the fan, not the characteristic flow in the tube. (Or, as the books call it - the turbulent flow pattern characteristic of the tube has not had enough tube length to develop). It is pretty obvious that the fan flow is turbulent, but also that how it creates a velocity profile will be specific to it and nothing to do with the so called developed velocity profiles of laminar or turbulent flow in a tube.

Luckily P can measure both close to the fan (as Mizuno did) and some way away from the fan, when the flow ought to be more characteristic of the tube (though this is not clear, if the fan introduces turbulence that is stable like vortices).

One more thing. It is pretty obvious from geometry that a blower will have an asymmetric profile very different from an axial fan.

I wonder, with the "blower calibration" and the "traverse data" in the paper, whether they were actually done using the newer blower, or an earlier (and different) fan? I notice that the fan type has changed between the patent data and that in the current paper. When did it change, and with which fan was the calibration done?

One thing that makes me suspicious is that the calibration graph does not go up to the nominal power used by the (new) fan, but stops at 5W. perhaps this is because it relates to an older, less powerful, fan.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Tr = Traverse

1 = traverse 1 (full diameter), 2 = traverse 2, etc.

25 = 25 cm long tube

60 = 60 cm long tube

My point is that these numbers are different than Mizuno's. The velocity profile is nowhere near flat. Using the same fan and a tube 1 mm less in ID than his.

It shouldn't be rocket science to attach a cardboard tube to a fan outlet with electrical tape. The tube is squished to match the fan outlet as best as possible.

The results should be similar to Mizuno's, without resorting to bending the tube enough or crushing a venturi into it in order to level out the velocity profile, unless Mizuno did also somehow.

Display More

One possibility, given the great variability in speed measurement that you note with probe angle, is that Mizuno chose probe angles in his traverse that gave the exact same velocity everywhere?

(THH has claimed the input power measurements cannot be believed, however many meters have confirmed them. He must think the 3 power meter are all wrong to exactly the same extent, and in a way that exactly compensates for 5 thermometers and the 2 anemometers, so that by some fantastic coincidence, the answers always come out right, and the heat always balances up to 50 W. That would never happen in the life of the universe.)

I'm of happy to take additional information, such as measurements by others. I think it is difficult for anyone to be sure about the input power measurements given the undocumented discrepancy in the 2017 data between calibration and active runs that ascoli noted. You must agree that the two sets of results have power determined in a different way.

In addition, you yourself are on record saying that power was sometimes measured on the input side of the PSU. That would, obviously, give a different answer from measuring it on the output side of the PSU.

I absolutely agree this is an easy measurement - it should not need additional info to be clear. However it is not clear, for the two reasons above, and these also apply to "many meters have confirmed them". Confirmed what? Under what conditions? Are the results given in the paper confirmed, and if so which ones and how?

You frame this in terms of my not believing. It is just that I am confused, because the details of the power measurement are not clear, and obviously they may matter. What I don't believe is that I know, from the paper, how the input power was measured for active and calibration runs, given the various known but not clearly documented differences in how it is measured.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

In addition, you yourself are on record saying that power was sometimes measured on the input side of the PSU.

In the ICCF paper mentioned some quotes before Mizuno writes he (re-)uses an old recombiner = battery. Thus the voltage must be extremely stable and the current easy to measure. The power measurement for the fan motor is negligible. Just take the maximum rated.

This is not a Rossi setup with rotten input current/voltage and totally manipulated heating current that delivers feedback in the PSU. I guess you should focus on teaching errors bars as here you will find nothing.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

My point is that these numbers are different than Mizuno's. The velocity profile is nowhere near flat. Using the same fan and a tube 1 mm less in ID than his.

No one disputes that. It is obvious that your system is quite different from his.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It shouldn't be rocket science to attach a cardboard tube to a fan outlet with electrical tape. The tube is squished to match the fan outlet as best as possible.

Apparently it is harder than you think. Bear in mind that Mizuno spent months working on this calorimeter, and he got expert advice from various people.

Regarding rocket science, Goddard's early rockets are nothing more than tubes -- like your tube. They look pretty simple. Some experts at NASA decided to replicate them in honor of an anniversary. They thought there would be nothing to it. I saw a video of their work. Launch after launch failed, with rockets blowing up, fizzling out, or going out of control. These are the best rocket scientists on earth and they cannot figure out how to make a simple tube rocket from 1926. Think about that.

And here is another tube technology: the Newcomen engine. Years ago, a group of experts in England made a large scale working model of it. Half scale? I don't remember. You might think that a machine made in 1711 can't be complicated, and a group of modern experts should be able to master it quickly. You might think so, but you would be wrong. They had to rediscover many things about it that Newcomen must have known, or he never would have got it to work.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The results should be similar to Mizuno's, without resorting to bending the tube enough or crushing a venturi into it in order to level out the velocity profile, unless Mizuno did also somehow.

Should be? Says who? Mother nature disagrees. The NASA people should have had no trouble making Goodard style rockets that work. They had every recorded detail about the rockets, the fuel and performance at their fingertips, and they had supercomputers and a hundred years of aerospace engineering. But they could not do it, because things are always harder than they seem.

Mizuno's data and my analysis of his spreadsheets leave no doubt whatever that he is correctly measuring the flow rate. He could not do that unless the flow rate is the same all across the orifice. Several other people have confirmed his instruments are working right by comparing them to their own instruments. Instruments do not lie. So there is no chance Mizuno is lying to us. Unless you want to argue that first principle physics don't work -- and that 3 power meters and 5 thermometer belonging to different people all agreed yet they were all drastically wrong -- you must agree that Mizuno has found a way make the flow turbulent and well mixed. There is no question about it. (Plus the other anemometer agreed.)

I do not know exactly how he did it. You don't know either, apparently. If you spend enough time, or if you communicate with him, you may discover the reason. But it seems trivial to me. It is only a small part of the experiment. It is hardly documented. It has no bearing on cold fusion per se. Anyone can think of ways to mix the air and make the flow rate uniform, so why not just do that your way, and stop worrying about how he did it? This is very minor part of the experiment. Any method will serve the purpose, so use any method you like.

After you replicate his conditions, you can check to see whether his 7 points are sufficient. Or, you can the simple arithmetic I did, and be even more sure they are sufficient, from the data alone.

Quote from THHuxleynew

In addition, you yourself are on record saying that power was sometimes measured on the input side of the PSU. That would, obviously, give a different answer from measuring it on the output side of the PSU.

Only as reality check. All of the measurements in the spreadsheets and papers are measured between the power supply and the reactor.

Measuring power going into the power supply is a way to ensure there is no mistake. It is an extra precaution. Those AC plug-in meters cost about $50 so there is no reason not to use one. You measure the power supply overhead by turning off all power to the cell. Of course the overhead increases a little as power increases.

Multiple meters belonging to different people have been used to confirm the power measured between the power supply and the reactor. They all agree with one-another, and with the spreadsheet data. It cannot be they all agree, they are in reasonable agreement with the AC meter the power supply is plugged into, yet they are all wrong.

Jed,

We will have to remain in disagreement for now. If Mizuno did something special to the outlet to mix the velocity profile perfectly in 20 cm from the fan, let’s hear about it. Otherwise I consider it a problem, because all output power calculations depend on that 20-25 cm of tube and that fan. The profile I measured is consistent with fan manufacturers and HVAC companies for air profile velocity in close proximity to a centrifugal fan. Please find out and clarify what the actual fan power was for the velocity reported, used in recent tests...4 W, 5.5 W, 6.5 W? We seem to be getting a bunch of different numbers for fan power. Maybe my RPM is too high at 12.08 V? Perhaps Mizuno can put a DVM with a frequency setting on the fan power (+), and yellow signal wire (-)(dangling from the fan in photos), in the meantime also (divide Hz by 2, because the blower produces two pulses per revolution).

Quote from JedRothwell

After you replicate his conditions

Flexible cardboard might be easier to modify rather than a rigid tube... Mizuno used 'paper'

plus a series of traverses at 0.2, 0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6 m.

. there might be a sweetspot somewhere along the tube.

what would be nice is a spot at which two orthogonal half traverses

give a flattish velocity profile of approximately the effective velocity( the area averaged velocity)

Paradigmnoia's C traverse gives two points 4.82 and 4.71 which are near this.

Thorough research is tedious..

The point here is that when things don't check out you check. Always. Even if it is probably OK. Because it is possibly not OK and the cost of getting it wrong is high.

Current list of things to check:

• Input power measurement (calibration and active, the two sometimes seem different). Shunt resistor value(s).
• Blower effect on inlet vis outlet before vs outlet after temperature. The measurements from 2017 seem inconsistent with the explanation in the paper, which itself implies RTD temperature affected through conduction from blower, a possible issue.
• Output velocity profile and absolute value vs blower power (and note that speed for given power varies with air restriction, so calibration must be with exact same arrangement as test

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If Mizuno did something special to the outlet to mix the velocity profile perfectly in 20 cm from the fan, let’s hear about it.

Ask him yourself. I am not going spent my time chasing trivial problems that you can fix with a mixer. If you cannot figure out how to make a turbulent flow with a uniform flow rate, you are not very good at this. Why the hell do you care how he did it? I do not understand this obsession of yours. You can see from his numbers and from other people's instrument readings that he did. You don't need his word for it.

Really, this is like fretting over the color of his watt meter faceplate. Any watt meter will do! It does not have to be blue! Get one. Make sure it works. Go from there. Make sure the flow is uniform. Go from there.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Otherwise I consider it a problem, because all output power calculations depend on that 20-25 cm of tube and that fan.

Look at the data and you will see it is not a problem. Unless you think the textbooks are wrong and energy does not equal mass of air * specific heat * degrees K.

Why the heck are you arguing against such fundamental proof? What better proof can there be? Can you think of any reason why that might be wrong?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The profile I measured is consistent with fan manufacturers and HVAC companies for air profile velocity in close proximity to a centrifugal fan. Please find out and clarify what the actual fan power was for the velocity reported, used in recent tests...4 W, 5.5 W, 6.5 W?

I clarified already. All recent spreadsheets show 3 or 4 W of blower power, and air flow rate from 4.1 to 4.3 m/s. All of the R19 data and calibrations were taken at 4.1 m/s. The recent R21 was 4.3 m/s. As shown in Fig. 4, the air flow rate is uniform at every point in the orifice at any power level from 1 to 5.5 W. What more do you need to know? Make yours uniform and we will have something to talk about. Until you do that, you cannot draw any conclusions about Mizuno's results or his method of calorimetry.

Quote

I clarified already. All recent spreadsheets show 3 or 4 W of blower power, and air flow rate from 4.1 to 4.3 m/s. All of the R19 data and calibrations were taken at 4.1 m/s. The recent R21 was 4.3 m/s. As shown in Fig. 4, the air flow rate is uniform at every point in the orifice at any power level from 1 to 5.5 W. What more do you need to know? Make yours uniform and we will have something to talk about. Until you do that, you cannot draw any conclusions about Mizuno's results or his method of calorimetry.

I don’t have any recent spreadsheets to refer to.

3 to 4 W of power to the 12V 0.6A San Ace fan suggests that it was being fed well below its rated voltage, or maybe being PWM. Something closer to 6 - 7 V RMS. However at approximately half voltage, I now fail to see how the fan makes ~80% of the rated flow rate. 4.3 W would apply to the older fan, supposedly no longer being used, rated at 12 V 0.36 A. Please clarify this information in a supplemental or future report, and for which reactor the various fan power settings apply, since there are apparently several iterations. Quite frankly most of the confusion comes from recycling old information into the new reports without noting where important changes occurred.

Where can I see the reports of “other people’s instrument readings” for the flat velocity profile?

If the fan is being run at half power, perhaps the velocity profile is less erratic. If it is claimed that the velocity profile is flat for all blower speeds, 20 cm down a paper tube from the fan, without doing something special to mix the air velocity profile between the fan and the outlet, I simply cannot believe it at present.

This is not about me being able to make a flat velocity profile.

I want to know what was done to make the reported velocity profile flat. If it is because the fan is being run at half the rated power, then that is important information.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I want to know what was done to make the reported velocity profile flat.

Its not flat.

its flattish.

Its turbulent and NOT laminar

Research is tedious.. for your anemometry opus

which you have volunteered for

please search along different sections of the pipe.

0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6m

compare and contrast the 40 half traverses that you get.

also look at the effect of using a flexible thin cardboard versus rigid cardboard.

good luck

Quote from RobertBryant

Its not flat.

its flattish.

Its turbulent and NOT laminar

Research is tedious.. for your anemometry opus

which you have volunteered for

please search along different sections of the pipe.

0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6m

compare and contrast the 40 half traverses that you get.

also look at the effect of using a flexible thin cardboard versus rigid cardboard.

good luck

Display More

Let’s find someone else to try to replicate the fan and tube portion of the calorimeter, as specified in the recent reports (such as it is).

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Let’s find someone else to try to replicate the fan and tube portion of the calorimeter, as specified in the recent reports (such as it is).

Good luck.. but your research (such as it is) is rather incomplete.

Quote from RobertBryant

Good luck.. but your research (such as it is) is rather incomplete.

Sure is. But I am not going to replicate a whole bunch of incomplete and conflicting specifications. Besides, I will be in the bush for another 10 days or so, starting tomorrow, possibly with (crappy) internet this time, but I won’t be hauling the fan, tube and anemometer along with me. (Perhaps the airline can mangle the outlet tube appropriately, along with my luggage, so I should bring that...)

Let’s see if someone else can independently test the fan and tube arrangement over the next 10 days and see where that leads.

That’s a challenge, BTW.

@THH, I have a question for you from a theme that seems to be popping up now and again after reading your posts. At multiple times you mentioned possible discrepancy about input power measurement of Mizuno not clear if its measured before or after the PSU. Yes, I agree it would be nice if input was measured after the PSU but 100% of all PSU's have a finite efficiency so even if it was measured at the line voltage outlet level, that would over-estimate (not under-estimate) the input power unless you think the PSU efficiency is over 100%. So, yes I agree that these things should be cleared up but in terms of any possible error that would under-estimate input power, this one is a non-starter. Can we agree upon that in principle? As Jed says, there is nothing easier to measure than input power.

In terms of the flow velocity profile, if Paradigmnoia is having problems with mixing, I suggest stuffing a high-porosity sponge filter like what you can buy at K&N, etc. that will remove any vortices, etc. from the fan before the air enters the tube. These would have minimal pressure loss and should solve most of these profile issues being discussed.

Quote from Daniel_G

At multiple times you mentioned possible discrepancy about input power measurement of Mizuno not clear if its measured before or after the PSU. Yes, I agree it would be nice if input was measured after the PSU

There is NO DISCREPANCY. It is measured after the power supply. With 2 or 3 meters. This is obvious from the data, which often shows no input power.

It is also measured before the power supply, with a $75 watt meter. That is a "reality check" just to be sure there is no problem with the measurements after the power supply. That measurement is not recorded. It is noted in the log from time to time.