Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

Quote from Curbina

I can only understand THHuxleynewobsession with power input to the heater from an assumption of fraud. If someone was determined to commit a fraud in this, that person could use some convoluted circuitry and tricks to have a concealed input masked within an exotic waveform.

Quote from Curbina

You are the one obsessed to find a fault in the simple most undebatable of the reported data: the heater power consumption. There is no way that data is wrong as it was measured, and if you suspect that, you are tacitly accusing Mizuno of fraud.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Ok - so we must then disagree. And you must explain those 2017 data that concern ascoli.

As for my remarks on the spreadsheets of the 120 W tests performed in May 2016 tests, let me point out once again that they refer to two different facts:

(a) - a mistake in the wiring of the experimental set-up, which caused two different heater resistors to be powered during the active and control runs. This mistake is certain, because it is documented by the discrepancies between the values of V and I in the 2 spreadsheets of the 120 W active and control test (1). Furthermore, the trends of the curves evidence that the active reactor was heated by an internal resistance heater, while the control reactor was heated by an external resistance heater (2);

(b) – a modification of the data reported in the spreadsheet of the active run, so that the original data measured by the Yokogawa power analyzer were replaced by the product V*I. This modification is certain, because it is documented by the differences between the data reported in the "Input power" columns of the two spreadsheets of the active and control runs (3).

No one is saying that the mistake (a) was deliberate. In my opinion, as well as in THH's, it was an inadvertent mistake.

However, it's also clear, that the modification (b) can't be equally inadvertent. At best it can be justified by a legitimate reason, but the lack of explanations by JR on the inconsistencies in the spreadsheets doesn't help to imagine which this justification could be.

(1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(3) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(4) Error bounds for Mizuno R19 results

Quote

Or is that just your intuition? Your intuition is unreliable in this case

My intuition has been damn good in separating the BS from the Shinola in several past sets of claims. In fact, it has been 100%.

The jury is still out on this one and I have been as neutral, in fact supportive, as possible under the circumstances. In fact I agree that input power is not noise. I don't recall ever saying it was. Possibly I agreed with someone who drew an analogy between output power/input power as a signal to noise ratio. I understand and agree that insulation can change it. What you are missing is that small increases in output power compared to blanks indeed can subject the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio based on noise in the output measurement. If the out/in ratio is very poor, then the input power contributes to the output noise because more power is needed to run the experiment. I think you also said that.

As I have already said, it would be hard to account for 250W out, in the setting of good calibration and modest power in, other than some ridiculous error or deception. Unfortunately, those are still possible.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

My intuition has been damn good in separating the BS from the Shinola in several past sets of claims.

Which mainstream claim has you discovered was BS? List three. Heck, list one. Okay, you discovered problems with Rossi. Did you find any BS or any problems with anyone who has published an ICCF paper?

I am talking about technical issues here. Have you found any technical reason to doubt Mizuno's calorimetry? If you have not, you have no basis to say "some colossal error is possible. even probable." In a scientific or technical discussion "probable" means you have a reason. Intuition or a gut feeling does not count. No one can evaluate your intuition. It is not debatable or falsifiable. It does not constitute evidence to other people. It is subjective. It exists only in your mind, and -- in this case -- you have no facts or evidence to back it up.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

In fact I agree that input power is not noise. I don't recall ever saying it was.

You repeatedly confused this issue. You think that high input power reduces the reliability or the significance of the reaction. That would only be the case if it was difficult to measure and subtract out the input electric power. That is not the situation. We can reliably subtract out 200 W of electricity to such an extent that the remaining uncertainty is much smaller than the heat the calorimetry can detect. In essence, any watt meter can reduce any input power level in this experiment to zero. We can measure 5 W excess whether it comes on top 200 W, or 10 W or 0 W with equal confidence.

When I last heard from you, you failed to understand that.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

other than some ridiculous error or deception. Unfortunately, those are still possible.

What ridiculous error is still possible? List it. Tell us what it is. If you cannot name this error, then you have no reason to declare it might exist. There might be a ridiculous error in any experiment in history, going back to Newton, but unless you describe the error, no one has a reason to think one might exist.

As for deception, Mizuno has no means of deceiving the electronic instruments that I and others used. I did not use an anemometer, although other people did, but the air flow rate can be derived from the other three parameters: the power, inlet and outlet temperatures. They were measured with my instruments, so I am sure they are right.

Not only are you saying an error is possible. You are saying it is "probable." Yet you cannot name a single potential error. That's bold. That's chutzpah. That's a bad bet. I will grant that an error is possible, but I sure wouldn't say probable.

So, is the fan (or which fan was) 7.2W, 6.5W, 5W, 4W, or 3W?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

So, is the fan (or which fan was) 7.2W, 6.5W, 5W, 4W, or 3W?

In the recent R21 tests it has been set at 3.9 W. That is the only spreadsheet I can access. I don't have the data from other tests handy. I recall it was a little different during the 111 day test of R19. As long as you calibrate before a test and leave it alone it should be okay.

You can set it to any power level you like. As shown in the report, Fig. 4, it was calibrated from 1 to 5.5 W. (I think that was this fan, but it might be old data, for illustration.) It would not be good practice to run it above 5.5 W.

Quote from JedRothwell

In the recent R21 tests it has been set at 3.9 W. That is the only spreadsheet I can access. I don't have the data from other tests handy. I recall it was a little different during the 111 day test of R19. As long as you calibrate before a test and leave it alone it should be okay.

You can set it to any power level you like. As shown in the report, Fig. 4, it was calibrated from 1 to 5.5 W. (I think that was this fan, but it might be old data, for illustration.) It would not be good practice to run it above 5.5 W.

Thank you.

Do you know which model of fan was used at 3.9 W?

As far as good practice, if the fan was the San Ace fan, it is rated at 7.2 W.

JedRothwell

Sorry, no taking the bait this time. It's always pretty much the same bait. Some isn't bad, some is awful. The part about not having the right to doubt without finding technical issues is particularly galling. If you believe every proposition you can't find technical fault with, you will be deceived a lot. I suspect you are being deceived a lot but I don't want to continue discussing it with you with the same arguments.

The essence of scams and deceptive claims is that the part you don't get is the part which will get you. The bucket episode is a classical example of something that makes no sense. I don't get it (but I am not going to rehash it!). Is it deception or confabulation or what? I don't know but like I said, the way it was dealt with made no sense at all. Your arguments with Shanahan who knows much more about nuclear physics and engineering than you do are insulting and specious.

So thanks but no thanks. For now anyway, I will just wait along with everyone else and hopes someone actually does the appropriate thing, either by testing Mizuno's device themselves or by replicating it properly.

If you really want to know which scams I tried to put out of business in the past 12 years and which attempts succeeded and to what extent, I will be happy to provide a list through a private "conversation" or if you prefer, via email. I think most people here don't care. It's also off topic for the forum. I doubt that you are really interested since I have no idea what those perps published or where. One does not need publications in order to bamboozle scientists and cheat investors. One does not need to find specific technical faults with claims to conclude that they are most probably false.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

In fact I agree that input power is not noise. I don't recall ever saying it was. Possibly I agreed with someone who drew an analogy between output power/input power as a signal to noise ratio.

Oh, ye of little memory...

Quote from Mary Yugo

@Zephir_AWT

Yes, the heater would thus be more efficient and the signal to noise ratio (COP) would be much higher because the same amount of heater power in would yield many more times the heat out. That would make accurate measurement much higher.

...And more bigly.

(PS: Shanahan knows F-all about engineering, as evidenced by his abysmal grasp of thermodynamics and his strange attachment to invisible machinery)

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Do you know which model of fan was used at 3.9 W?

As far as good practice, if the fan was the San Ace fan, it is rated at 7.2 W.

That data is from last month, so it is the San Ace B97.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

What you are missing is that small increases in output power compared to blanks indeed can subject the experiment to a poor signal to noise ratio based on noise in the output measurement. If the out/in ratio is very poor, then the input power contributes to the output noise because more power is needed to run the experiment.

No, that is completely incorrect. As I said, you fail to understand the fundamentals here. This is simple arithmetic. The input contributes only a tiny amount to the noise, because it can be measured with great precision. At the highest input power in this experiment, input contributes less than 0.5 W to the noise, which is so small it cannot be measured on the output side with this equipment.

Quote

Mary Yugo wrote: @Zephir_AWT


Yes, the heater would thus be more efficient and the signal to noise ratio (COP) would be much higher because the same amount of heater power in would yield many more times the heat out. That would make accurate measurement much higher.

Yes, that is the same mistake.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

The bucket episode is a classical example of something that makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. It is the same heat after death phenomenon observed hundreds of time by Fleischmann and Pons, and many times by others. You have no reason to claim this "makes no sense."

Mizuno’s tests – Inconsistencies in the spreadsheets of the 120 W runs of May 2016

Quote from Ascoli65

As for my remarks on the spreadsheets of the 120 W tests performed in May 2016 tests, let me point out once again that they refer to two different facts:

(a) - a mistake in the wiring of the experimental set-up, which caused two different heater resistors to be powered during the active and control runs. This mistake is certain, because it is documented by the discrepancies between the values of V and I in the 2 spreadsheets of the 120 W active and control test (1). Furthermore, the trends of the curves evidence that the active reactor was heated by an internal resistance heater, while the control reactor was heated by an external resistance heater (2);

(b) – a modification of the data reported in the spreadsheet of the active run, so that the original data measured by the Yokogawa power analyzer were replaced by the product V*I. This modification is certain, because it is documented by the differences between the data reported in the "Input power" columns of the two spreadsheets of the active and control runs (3).

No one is saying that the mistake (a) was deliberate. In my opinion, as well as in THH's, it was an inadvertent mistake.

However, it's also clear, that the modification (b) can't be equally inadvertent. At best it can be justified by a legitimate reason, but the lack of explanations by JR on the inconsistencies in the spreadsheets doesn't help to imagine which this justification could be.

(1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(3) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

(4) Error bounds for Mizuno R19 results

Display More

I hope, the following jpeg better explains the serious inconsistencies which are present in the spreadsheets of the May 2016 tests:

So, ascoli, if those values for V & I are correct Rs is 2 X smaller (20.4 vs 37.2) for active test than for cal test, which means that if the same conversion from voltage to current were used by mistake, it would explain an almost exact 2X output power uplift in the calculated values. The different shape of the graph would be caused by the higher thermal resistance between inside heater and case relative to outside heater and case.

A pity that Yokogawa values were not used for both because these would not be subject to such mistakes.

This could be confirmed by checking the actual resistance of the (presumably external and internal) heaters used in the control and active reactors respectively.

This is exactly the same type of mistake as I suspect for the R20 results.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

A pity that Yokogawa values were not used for both because these would not be subject to such mistakes.

The Yokogawa meter was on, and other meters were used. If the mistakes that you and ascoli imagine were made, it would have been immediately obvious to all observers, including me. The numbers on the different instruments would be different. The whole point of using redundant instruments is to avoid this kind of error. So, what you and ascoli are saying is outrageous nonsense, as always. Carry on!

Quote from THHuxleynew

So, ascoli, if those values for V & I are correct ...

Only the V values (ie V/DC) come directly from an instrument (Vv), so we can presume they are correct. On the contrary, the I values (ie I/DC) depend not only by a measured value (Vs) but also by Rs (shunt), which was entered manually, probably at PC level. Unfortunately, the spreadsheets don't report the values of neither the Vs nor the Rs.

Quote

… Rs is 2 X smaller (20.4 vs 37.2) for active test than for cal test …

No, it's not the Rs (shunt resistance), but the resistances of the heaters used in the two reactors, as I already pointed out a few weeks ago (1). The shunt has a lower value and we don't know what it is. We don't even know if the same shunt resistor was used in both the active and control runs.What we know with certainty is that the two heaters wer different.

Quote

... which means that if the same conversion from voltage to current were used by mistake, it would explain an almost exact 2X output power uplift in the calculated values.

Yes, this is a possibility. But it's up to the authors to explain this mess in their data. In any case, the input power issue has the priority with respect to any other, because it can easily explain whatever level of excess heat and COP.

Quote

The different shape of the graph would be caused by the higher thermal resistance between inside heater and case relative to outside heater and case.

Yes, exactly.

Quote

A pity that Yokogawa values were not used for both because these would not be subject to such mistakes.

Well the real problem is that the Yokogawa values were recorded by the data logger and presumably transferred to the PC for BOTH the active and the control runs, but they have been canceled from the active spreadsheet and replaced by the V*I products.

Quote

This could be confirmed by checking the actual resistance of the (presumably external and internal) heaters used in the control and active reactors respectively.

Yes, this is a possibility provided that those reactors have not been dismantled.

Quote

This is exactly the same type of mistake as I suspect for the R20 results.

If you are referring to the test with a 50 W input and 300 W output, yes, it's natural to imagine a similar mistake.

(1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from Ascoli65

If you are referring to the test with a 50 W input and 300 W output, yes, it's natural to imagine a similar mistake.

Except that the other two meters that showed this is not happening. The AC meter showed the power supply consumed only a little more than 50 W but you insist it output 300 W.

Quote from Ascoli65

If you are referring to the test with a 50 W input and 300 W output, yes, it's natural to imagine a similar mistake.

Imaginations and visions are sometimes a good reason to consult a doctor. In your case I would just pick the red card for foolish trolling!

Quote from Ascoli65

Mizuno’s tests – Inconsistencies in the spreadsheets of the 120 W runs of May 2016

I hope, the following jpeg better explains the serious inconsistencies which are present in the spreadsheets of the May 2016 tests:

What do you say about Ascoli's first point JedRothwell (that there is a discrepancy between the values of V and I in the control vs. the active runs for the 120 W tests)?

We can see that Ascoli is correct in the literal sense (the spreadsheets are online and the values differs as he says), but maybe it doesn’t matter, or there is some reason for them to differ? What is your standpoint here?

ascoli: re Rs - sorry yes I know you are right. which makes the X2 less explainable although it is still suggestive.

Quote from JedRothwell

Except that the other two meters that showed this is not happening.

Any evidence? Where are the spreadsheets of the 50Win/300Wout tests?

Quote

The AC meter showed the power supply consumed only a little more than 50 W but you insist it output 300 W.

For now, this is only the most plausible hypothesis. I can't say more about the 50/300 W test, because I don't have the spreadsheets of the active and control runs.

However, the spreadsheets of the 120 W tests carried out in May 2016 are public and they show that there was surely a serious mistake in the connection of the heaters to the power supply and, more importantly, that the active spreadsheet was modified by removing the "Input power" values measured by the Yokogawa power analyzer.

THH and me (and now milton too) have already asked you to provide your justification for these inconsistencies, but you continue to avoid any answer on this point. You can easily understand that your silence doesn't help to trust the reliability of the information provided on any other Mizuno test.

Quote from Ascoli65

Any evidence? Where are the spreadsheets of the 50Win/300Wout tests?

The evidence is not in the spreadsheet. I have been to the lab, and many others have been to the lab, and we have seen there are multiple meters in use. The $70 AC one is between the wall and the power supply. If the power supply were producing 300 W, it would show more than 300 W being produced. It does not show that. It shows only a little more than 50 W in this case. Anyone can look at the instruments and see they are working. That's the whole point of having redundant instruments of different types, in different parts of the setup. That is also why people visiting bring their own meters to confirm the readings.

You are also ignoring the fact that exactly the same circuits and shunts are using during calibrations, and calibrations always show a balance less than zero, with losses. If the power measurements were wrong, a 50 W calibration would produce 300 W.

Quote from Ascoli65

THH and me (and now milton too) have already asked you to provide your justification for these inconsistencies,

There are no inconsistencies. As always, as you did with the boil-off experiments, you are inventing impossible nonsense and then declaring it is fact. It is not possible that several power meters all agree on the electric power input, yet they are all wrong. You can say that as many times as you like, it is still not possible.