Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    With reference to the jpg Ascoli65 posted above...


    The voltage changes from 67v to 49v yet the current increases from 1.8A to 2.4A.


    That can only happen if the impedance of the load (the heating coil) changes. So something is up whatever the cause.


    I think the voltages may have been switched?


    Let's calculate the coil resistance assuming they were switched...


    67v/2.4A = 27.9 Ohms


    49v/1.8A = 27.2 Ohms


    Close enough to suggest this might be the cause?


    I haven't looked to see if we know the coil resistance.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.


    These are just words, not evidences. The only evidences we have so far are the two spreadsheets of the 120 W runs performed in May 2016 and that you uploaded in the internet in September 2017. Everyone can see that your words are in conflict with the evidences contained in these spreadsheets. Why we should believe to what you say about the 50/300 W test without even having the possibility to look at the spreadsheets?


    Quote

    There are no inconsistencies.


    The spreadsheets of the 120 W tests are public. Anyone able to read a spreadsheet can see these inconsistencies. Everyone can also see that you don't want (or you are unable) to explain them.


    Quote

    It is not possible that several power meters all agree on the electric power input, yet they are all wrong.


    Which power meters are you talking about? As shown by the available spreadsheets, the experimental set-up for the test carried out in May 2016 included only two way to measure the "input power": (i) the Yukogawa power input analyzer, and (ii) a complex of 2 voltmeter and a shunt which measure directly the DC voltage V/DC and calculate the amperage I/DC by subdividing the voltage drop across a shunt by the value of its resistance. In both the active and test spreadsheets the value of V/DC and I/DC are present and they allow to calculate the "input power" by multiplying V*I. However the values of the direct measure of the "power input" made with the Yokogava analyzer are only available for the control test, because the corresponding value of the active run were deleted and replaced by the product V*I.


    So, for the important 120W active test the "several power meters" - that you are claiming - reduce to one. It means that there is no redundancy, the only available datum is the product V/DV*I/DC, where the values of I/DC come from the division on Vs (voltage across a shunt) divided by Rs (resistance of the shunt). This last value need to be entered manually into the PC, so it is prone to be affected by serious error.


    The suppression of the Yukogava power input values from the active spreadsheet strongly reinforce the hypothesis that their value were much higher than the results of the V*I product so that there would have been no excess heat, so they were suppressed by replacing its values with the V*I products. This is nothing else than an hypothesis, but whose plausibility increases as long as you don't provide any other plausible explanation.

    Hi, Cwatters,

    Quote from CWatters

    The voltage changes from 67v to 49v yet the current increases from 1.8A to 2.4A.


    That can only happen if the impedance of the load (the heating coil) changes. So something is up whatever the cause.


    No, as you can see by looking at the 2 spreadsheets, neither the voltages, nor the amperages changes significantly during the 2 active and control runs. They are different for the 2 runs, but are almost constant throughout each one of the two runs. It also means the resistences of the two heater remained equally constant during each run.



    Be careful! You have inverted the terms. For the active reactor we have a resistance of 49/2.4=20.4 ohm. For the control reactor we have 67/1.8=37.2 ohm. The great difference between these values confirms that there happened a serious mistake in the wiring of the experimental set-up.


    Quote

    I haven't looked to see if we know the coil resistance.


    It would be very useful to know the resistances of the external and internal heaters. If you find something, please, let us know.

    @Ascoli, nichrome wire resistance varies greatly with temperature. There is not any logical reason to expect control and active heaters to have the same resistance nor is it necessary for calibration to use the exact same heater. Resistance heaters convert electrical power to heat and the electrical power is measured easily. Calibration of a colorimeter do not require identical conditions or heaters to work properly.

    You misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you. The data implies the resistance changed between active and control runs.


    However i think there is another possible explanation - that the voltage data was switched or transposed in error (eg the voltage data for the control run was actually the voltage data for the active run). If you assume that was the error and switch it back you find the resistance is the same for both active and control runs.


    In short there it may not be a wiring error. It might be a data logging error. Either way there is something that need to be resolved.


    Edit: But this would mean the power was different so my theory is obviously wrong.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    @Ascoli, nichrome wire resistance varies greatly with temperature.


    http://www.brysonics.com/heati…%20most%20common%20metals.


    Quote

    The resistance of the nichrome wire changes very little with temperature. Its resistance only increases by 7% when changing from 20°C to 400°C; and only increases another 1% from 400°C to 1000°C. The temperature coefficient of resistance of nichrome is much lower than that of most common metals.


    So less than 10% over the likely temperature range? The data suggests an 86% increase.

    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.


    Jed, it would in fact be very helpful if one of these lab visitors could provide a written account of their personal observations about the setup and instrumentation used validating one of the (many?) R20 tests that show COP > 6. After all, for these tests, independent validation of the measurements is all that we need. it sounds to me as though this exists, from what you say?


    THH


    This is math, accroding to spec you have aprox same power so

    U1 I1 = U2 I2


    Reareange this by dividing by I1I2 you get


    U1/I2 = U2 / I1


    So of cause you get aprox same resistance if you switch e.g. voltage. That is not strange at all and no reason to call for more investigation.


    Also there is differnt grades of nicrome wires some have higher temperature dependancy than other. But the do differ very much and suggests different coils. Which is by no means a problem. Especially since there has been careful redundancy in the measurements of input power.


    Stefan, that is a solution. But if so, how can any of these results be taken on face value if they have switched voltages or currents between control and active runs?

    Quote from Daniel_G

    @Ascoli, nichrome wire resistance varies greatly with temperature.


    Not so much to account for the factor 2 shown by the spreadsheets. The variability is less than 10% at 1200 °C: http://www.brysonics.com/wp-co…ty-Correction-vs-Temp.jpg


    Anyway, the values of V/DC and I/DC are nearly constant throughout the whole heating period of both the active and control runs, therefore the resistances of the two heaters powered in the active and control reactors were also constant and different each other.


    Quote

    There is not any logical reason to expect control and active heaters to have the same resistance nor is it necessary for calibration to use the exact same heater.


    We are not talking about a generic methodology. We are talking about the specific tests performed by Mizuno and this is what JR wrote three days ago:

    From JR post Error bounds for Mizuno R19 results


    The calibration and active reactor measurements are exactly the same in all cases, using the same instruments. The same wires, physically unplugged from one and plugged into the other. I saw Mizuno do this.


    The physical calibration and active reactors themselves have been the same in most cases, but in other cases they are different. However, it is impossible to tell the difference from the data. When the two are swapped, and powered at the same power level, they produce exactly the same calorimeter output -- within the errors of the calorimeter. You cannot tell which point came from which heater. The variations from hour to hour within a calibration (caused by ambient fluctuations) are larger than the difference between a bare resistance heater and heater inside a 20 kg reactor, once you reach terminal temperature.


    So, if the above information have some bases, the values of the heater resistances of the active and control reactors tested in May 2016 should have been identical. But, instead, they are very different: the resistance of the active reactor heater (20 ohm) was about the half of the control reactor heater (37 ohm).


    Quote

    Resistance heaters convert electrical power to heat and the electrical power is measured easily.


    It's true that measuring the electrical power is very easy, but it is also very easy to make big mistakes like those evidenced in the spreadsheets of the May 2016 tests. The inconsistencies contained in the spreadsheets suggest that the experimental data were not checked at all. But this hypothesis is the most benevolent, because it doesn't still explain why the values directly measured by the Yokogawa wattmeter have been removed from the active spreadsheet.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    So, if the above information have some bases, the values of the heater resistances of the active and control reactors tested in May 2016 should have been identical. But, instead, they are very different: the resistance of the active reactor heater (20 ohm) was about the half of the control reactor heater (37 ohm).

    You have an astounding ability to misunderstand things! OBVIOUSLY I did not mean that all resistors look the same. I meant the heat looks the same to the calorimeter. That's what I said. The output measured by the calorimeter is the same at a given power level, no matter where the heater is located or what sort of heater it is.


    Did you really think I meant what you said? Or were you just trolling, trying to introduce doubts, and trying to make Mizuno look like an idiot? I suspect the latter. But you say many off-the-wall things that no normal person would believe. Perhaps you are serious.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You have an astounding ability to misunderstand things! OBVIOUSLY I did not mean that all resistors look the same. I meant the heat looks the same to the calorimeter. That's what I said. The output measured by the calorimeter is the same at a given power level, no matter where the heater is located or what sort of heater it is.


    Did you really think I meant what you said? Or were you just trolling, trying to introduce doubts, and trying to make Mizuno look like an idiot? I suspect the latter. But you say many off-the-wall things that no normal person would believe. Perhaps you are serious.


    In the quoted post, you wrote " The physical calibration and active reactors themselves have been the same in most cases, but in other cases they are different." I don't think I was the only one to understand that the May 2016 experiment – whose photos show two identical reactors placed inside the calorimeter – belonged to the "most cases". In fact, it seems to me an obvious requirements - for an experiment aimed to demonstrate an extraordinary effect on the basis of the different behaviors between an active and a control reactor - that the tested devices are exactly identical.


    Are you now claiming that the heater resistors of the two reactors used in that important and unique experiment were so different that the resistance of the active heater was half the resistance of the heater used in the control reactor? Has Mizuno measured the resistance of the two heaters during the 6 runs performed in May 2016? Why didn't he report these important differences in the various documents (1-2-3) describing that experiment?


    (1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

    (2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf

    (3) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf

    Quote from Ascoli65

    the resistance of the active heater

    The heater was non-active in reaction terms

    The heater wire was non active .. it just produced heat


    The nickel mesh was active in the active reactor

    The nickel mesh was inactive in the inactive reactor


    The ordinary nickel mesh lacked Ascolian xray vision and did not measure resistance of the wire

    inside the heater ss sheath

    but sensed heat some distance away from the outside of the sheath.


    It was difficult to obtain Ascolian super-mesh in Japan .. I guess


    RB: please focus on the issue. How do you explain the provided heater voltages and currents for those two runs?

    • Is it, as stefan suggests, a mistake were the currents are swapped round with active current for control, and control current for active, runs?
    • Is it, as ascoli suggests, that these two sets of data must come from different resistance heaters?

    I don't have a strong view here. Nor am I saying this invalidates the data, although it is irregular and unusual that in one set of data the power measurements are not used, whereas in the other they are. I just want clear analysis of the evidence and its consequences.


    In the absence of clarity - I'd suggest that these data sets cannot be relied upon. Not anything sinister, just that they are not well enough understood to make clear evidence. Subsequent data sets may be better, but a history of unclear data means we should take even subsequent (clearer) datasets from Mizuno with a pinch of salt unless independently validated, unless this lack of clarity can be resolved.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    You have an astounding ability to misunderstand things! OBVIOUSLY I did not mean that all resistors look the same. I meant the heat looks the same to the calorimeter. That's what I said. The output measured by the calorimeter is the same at a given power level, no matter where the heater is located or what sort of heater it is.


    Did you really think I meant what you said? Or were you just trolling, trying to introduce doubts, and trying to make Mizuno look like an idiot? I suspect the latter. But you say many off-the-wall things that no normal person would believe. Perhaps you are serious.


    Jed: i'm still confused here.


    Do you follow Stefan and think that the current measurements between the two runs were swapped?


    Or


    Do you agree with ascoli that the heaters used in these two runs had very different resistances?


    It is not exactly a requirement that control and active heaters are the same, but any difference, e.g. in resistance, makes potential mistakes more likely. The problem here is because of the lack of clear documentation as to exactly what was what that would make it clearer there is no mistake. And the focus on this is because of the non-standard and difficult to explain difference between the way in which power was measured in the two runs.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    RB: please focus on the issue.

    Heat is the issue.. that's what the heat-er is for

    what resistance achieves 50W heat or 100W output heat is irrelevant

    so long as the electric power input is measured.


    The nickel mesh doesn' t care what the resistance is.

    It can't see resistance. It sees heat.

    Ascoli sees not heat but deception catastrophe etc

    It is likely we will see the further embellishing of yet another fantastic Ascolian scenario

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed: i'm still confused here.


    Do you follow Stefan and think that the current measurements between the two runs were swapped?


    No, that would be obvious from the redundant instruments. As I have said time after time. As I also said, he uses the same wires, first attaching them to the calibration heater, then the active cell. I mean the wires that go into the HP data collection gadget. The voltage and amperage show up in the same spreadsheet column, where the HP gadget puts them. There are two other columns for the blower V and A.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Or


    Do you agree with ascoli that the heaters used in these two runs had very different resistances?


    If that is what the data shows . . . I have not looked into it. The control and the reactor were sometimes different resistor types.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is not exactly a requirement that control and active heaters are the same


    No it is not exactly a requirement. It is not remotely a requirement. There is no reason for them to be the same. On the contrary, the whole point of calorimetry is to compare heat sources which are completely different from one another, such as a resistance heater and a cold fusion reaction. In some cases, in the past, Mizuno used two similar reactors so he could swap them without opening the calorimeter. Opening it up can be a chore, since you have to recalibrate. Also because there is plenty of room in this calorimeter chamber, so you might as well put in two reactors if you happen to have two of them ready to go. Most calorimeter can barely fit one reactor.


    He did use two, but he did not have to. I have not heard of any other researcher who used two reactors. Everyone else uses a single reactor and a resistance heater. No one but you has suggested this might cause an error. I cannot imagine why it would. Heat is heat, and a calorimeter cannot distinguish between 50 W from a resistance heater, and 50 W of cold fusion heat.


    RB: no. The issue is whether these measurements are correct, or whether they are some mistake. When the control and active reactors show very different heater resistance (which is the issue ascoli and I have been noting, and which you need to reply to), it is worth noting this. Maybe the control data comes from a reactor very different in design from the active reactor - for example. It still does not explain, alas, why one run has direct power measurement, and the other does not have this, but has power inferred from V*I. It seems strange that there should be this difference and it would be good to understand why in case this affected anything else.


    Ascoli may see deception or catastophe (you'd have to ask him) but I see mistake - which is an awfully common and innocent human phenomenon, and why good practice in experimental work is to have very careful documentation of everything.

    He did use two, but he did not have to. I have not heard of any other researcher who used two reactors. Everyone else uses a single reactor and a resistance heater. No one but you has suggested this might cause an error. I cannot imagine why it would. Heat is heat, and a calorimeter cannot distinguish between 50 W from a resistance heater, and 50 W of cold fusion heat.


    As often, I agree with your general principles but note that you proclaim them as absolutes and do not consider second order effects. In this case different heat sources in an air flow calorimeter can result in different heat loss.


    Also, that is not the point here.


    if the drive circuit is different (different voltage and current for the same power) because of a different resistance then this is fine as long as the input power is correctly recorded. In this case there is the mystery of two different methods being used to measure the input power which throws up questions about recording methodology that would not otherwise be asked.

    Mizuno’s tests – Expected DTair trend for the 120 W run of the May 2016 experiment


    The following jpeg illustrates the main reason which suggests that the an inner heater was powered during the active runs of the May 2016 experimental campaign, instead of the regular ouside heater.
    Azy5YT2.jpg


    Figure 5 of the 2019 JCNMS article (1) shows that the active and the control reactors are apparently identical. The same identity is shown in Figure 11 of the 2017 JCMNS article (2), in which, at point 2.6, we can also read: "The same type of reactor is used in the calibration, and is installed as a control for calibration of the heat balance in the enclosure described below. The design, size, weight, and shape of this calibration reactor are exactly the same as the reactor used for testing."


    Therefore, everyone expects that, within the limit of the error guaranteed by the manufacturers, all the components of the two reactors (shown on the schematic of Figure 1 (1)) are also identical, including the external reactor heater, briefly described in (2) by providing these univocal parameters: "A 2-m-long heater of stainless sheath was wrapped around the reactor body. Its purpose was to heat the nickel mesh in the reactor. The heater capacity is 100 V, 600 W, with a maximum temperature of 500°C."


    However, the power output curves of the active runs at 80, 120, and 248 W clearly show a strange trend compared to the correspondent control curves. This difference was also noted by the experimenters, as they reported in (2):

    "The calibration test by the control reactor were performed at three input power levels. Figure 27 shows the output power of the control reactor for the input of 80 W, 120 W and 248 W. The output power is confirmed to be the same as input power.

    The results of same inputs to the test reactor are shown in Fig. 28. These tests behave differently from the calibration test. …"


    The weirdness of this different behavior is much more evident when drawing the active and control curves in the same graph. The above jpeg shows the two curves for the 120 W active and control tests, whose spreadsheets was release in summer 2017 (3-4). The represented quantity is the DTair, which is assumed to be proportional to the power output. Moreover, the two curves have been slightly shifted over time in order to make them both start at the power onset.


    We can see that, during the heating phase, the active curve (in red) increases much more slowly than the control curve (in blue) and the two curves intersect only after a couple of hours. This is very strange, because - if the only difference between the two experimental setup was the activation of the internal mesh, which was claimed to generate excess heat in addition to the heat produced by the external heater - it was expected that the active curve would have remained above the control curve for the entire heating phase, as exemplified by the green dotted line reported on the graph.


    In conclusion, the only plausible explanation for this strange behavior is that, in the case of the active reactor, an internal source of electric heating was mistakenly connected to the power unit, rather than the normal external heater.


    (1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf

    (2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf

    (3) Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    (4) Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

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.