Simple - rig up an IR laser instead (a Nd YAG laser like Holmlid uses to generate muons from UDD) even 10 MW can be bought cheaply enough or borrowed from a uni or plasma cutting shop, or try a simple wire-wound heating element more likely to pump out IR around 1064 nm. Or what exactly are you after - just apply excess heat to the existing heater instead of electricity? That would create a positive feedback loop and lead to an uncontrolled runaway, excess heat generating more excess heat. The beauty of TM's reactor is that (in theory) a simple nuclear fusion reaction can be initiated, contained and terminated by turning on the internal heating element, letting it run on for a few hours/days releasing a plateau level of excess heat (up to 3 kW) and then turning off the heater predictably turns off the reaction and the heater cools down. Just like any other household appliance (Zanussi - the Appliance of Science) We could always ask Lord Dyson to mass produce them!
Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry
- Alan Fletcher
- Closed
-
-
Yes, it does have a "conspiratorial" meaning to it. Perfectly understandable for Mizuno/Rothwell to react so strongly to it's being used to describe their actions. Very good of THH to point that out also.
I had already edited that word out, so all is back to abnormal. You can get back to stirring the pot again.
OK, thanks. This is a problem of false friends between the 2 languages. The verb "sopprimere" in Italian is often used to indicate the cancellation of a bus or a train service.
-
This is a problem of false friends between the 2 languages. The verb "sopprimere" in Italian
Google translate of sopprimere= kill.. it could be cancel or abolish.
Ascoli could mean that Jed did any of these three,
Google translate of suppress = reprimere
As usual Ascoli is being loose with either language.,,intentionally or accidentally?
The lost in translation has been cancelled anyway
-
Ascoli,
That information - that the active run was perhaps heated by plasma discharge, raises issues about whether V*I is accurate.
A plasma discharge can often run with oscillating current. Depending on the PSU, maybe the voltage will be oscillating as well. In that case V*I would under-read the actual input power. This is similar to the average rms vs true rms problem. A power analyser would be less likely to under-read, but might give erratic readings if the oscillation frequency was higher than the sampling frequency of the power analyser. This would motivate measuring power on the mains input of a PSU and compensating for efficiency (unsafe though that is) plasma discharge waveforms are not always nice.Yes, this is what I told you a few days ago (1), shortly after JR revealed that ""The excess heat run was heated inside, mainly with glow discharge."
QuoteJed - this you can answer. If in any of these experiments V*I is taken as proxy for power when the load is plasma, not a resistance, this is a problem.
Ascoli's suggestion is that the excess heat results in the 2017 paper were from a reactor heated by a plasma discharge - in which case V*I is not safely equal to power and those results are likely wrong.
The "plasma discharge" is not my "suggestion", it is what has revealed JR. I only suggested (2) that the "active reactor" was heated internally.
In the meanwhile JR said (3) that "That information is in the papers. These were plasma discharge experiments. How else could it be heated, given that fact?"
Please, look better at the 2017 article (4). You understand English much better than me. Can you find, where it is said that the glow discharge was used to heat the active reactor during the "Excess heat" runs?
As I have already told him (5), I saw the glow discharge procedure mentioned only in section 2.5 "Preparation of reacting material". So it was clear to me and, I guess, to anyone else that the active tests of Figure 28 were run by powering the same external heater as for the corresponding calibration runs. And this is exactly what he replied to me last month, when he denied that the active reactor of the 120W was heated internally. He said (6): "In all previous tests with this technique, both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater." Now he has changed his version.
I've the strong impression to be fooled. And you?
(1) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry
(2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat
(3) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry
(4) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf
-
Google translate of sopprimere= kill.. it could be cancel or abolish.
Ascoli could mean that Jed did any of these three,
A little Italian exercise for you. This is what proposes Google at the beginning of its page:
https://www.google.com/search?…=firefox-b-d&q=sopprimere
sopprimere
/sop·prì·me·re/
transitivo
1.
Abolire ciò che era stato istituito o disposto precedentemente, annullare, abrogare, revocare.
"s. una cattedra"
generic.
Eliminare per ragioni di opportunità o convenienza, cancellare.
"s. una clausola contrattuale"
Impedire la pubblicazione di un testo o la realizzazione di un programma con un atto d'autorità.
"s. una rivista"
2.
Eliminare fisicamente, uccidere, ammazzare.
I've used the word in the first meaning above. Of course.
Anyway, I don't know who removed, canceled, hided, etc. the values of the Yokogawa analyzer from the active run spreadsheet. It happened somewhere between Japan and US, but not on the Pacific Ocean.
-
Anyway, I don't know who removed, canceled, hided,
It seems that Ascoli is continuing in the same loose vein
Now he is suggesting that Jed 'hided'
Ascoli's intentions are not 'hided' but are in plain sight.
In the end a watt is a watt is a watt ,, whichever way one measures it.
Google translate Eng--->Ital. Watt=Watt
seconds
ACTIVE
WATTS
CONTROL
WHATS
o 0.00 0.00 24.4 121.14 46.02 48.9 121.00 121.61 73.4 121.06 121.34 97.8 121.03 121.13 -
It seems that Ascoli is continuing in the same loose vein
Now he is suggesting that Jed 'hided'
Ascoli's intentions are not 'hided' but are in plain sight.No. I'm saying in plain sight since many weeks (1), that in the "excess heat" spreadsheet the "Input power" values measured by the wattmeter, ie the Yokogawa power analyzer, don't appear. Therefore, since JR confirmed that this instrument was specifically purchased for measuring the power in that rapidly changing power condition and that it has its own memory, it means that these values have been measured, recorded, but not included in the released spreadsheet. So they are kept hided by someone. I don't know by who.
QuoteIn the end a watt is a watt is a watt ,, whichever way one measures it.
I've already answered to you on this point (2).
-
Quote
That would create a positive feedback loop and lead to an uncontrolled runaway, excess heat generating more excess heat.
Yup. If there really is excess heat, you could interrupt the power to the heater and the reactor would still make heat. Or runaway. See, there are some of us who still think the appearance of excess heat could be artifactual or erroneous in some way. I wrote "could be" - not "is."
-
No. I'm saying in plain sight since many weeks
Anyway, I don't know who removed, canceled, hided, etc
"I'm saying in plain sight...I don't know who removed, canceled, hided,"
" So they are kept hided by someone
Please stop playing with words Ascoli. Your allegations are boring..and
Jed has already stated that the 120W power measurements were made at the time of the expt
and that the special meter was used for plasma expts where the power fluctuated quickly
In the case of the 120W... control and experimental measurements the
watts measurements for the control and active mesh reactor are valid.
Could you perhaps explain why 46.02? is in plain sight.
-
OK ascoli, so bear with my slowness, we have confirmed for 2016 test (2017 paper):
Control from external resistive heater - measured with Yokogawa power analyser
Active from internal plasma heater - measured with V*I, V and I averaged over 5s (or so).
[And, for ascoli, evidence that both would have been measured with Yokogawa, but the spreadsheets for the active test contain V*I in the power column (in addition to V and I columns) ]
Jed, I'm calling you out on this. I'm not saying it is sinister, but it is just not right, because the active test (where the Yokogawa measurements are needed to prevent undermeasurement of input power) does not have them. I cannot conceive why this more appropriate measurements are given for the control - where they are not needed, and not for the active run, where they are needed.
The changed measurement type in the active test power column is exactly what might generate a large false positive result. And it is not documented in the paper that this change is made.
Now - you understand all these issues. I'd expect you to agree that this is at a minimum unfortunate, and not call me a troll and liar. (Or, if you call me a liar, state what in the above is a lie).
It does not help that you say the plasma gave the same readings both ways, because that result would be highly condition dependent and cannot be relied upon. Unless you remember these specific tests, in which case you can explain why the control and active test reporting methodology was different.
THH
-
The changed measurement type in the active test power column is exactly what might generate a large false positive result
The watts figures look OK to me.
I just need someone to explain 46.02..
-
How hard would it be to use the heat to create appropriate IR emissions near the grid, if that was the problem? Just apply the excess heat to the existing heater instead if electricity. Get the same temperature you get now. You don't need electricity to induce IR radiation. You need heat.
exactly.
any case i am not able to recognize any trigger point from the curves of the diagrams, they all look to me like standard electrical heater. -
Experiments that use an internal heater have a different equivalent thermal circuit than the one I posted earlier. This circuit would apply to R20 as well as the earlier experiments if they also use an internal plasma heater.
lenr-forum.com/attachment/9719/
The diode is here because I assume that when the heater is turned off, it does not contribute to cooling of the mesh. This also uses better values for the heat capacity as suggested by THH and RB. The reactor is 20.3 kg * 500 j/kgC and the mesh is .3 kg * 450 j/kgC.
For the reactor thermal resistance, I found a reference that says forced air cooling has a convection coefficient, h, between 30 and 600 W/m2C. R = 1/hA. The reactor is 114 mm dia x 600 mm L for an area of about 0.21 m2. That makes Rra = 0.1 to 6.4 degC/W. That is a huge range depending on the blower and surface it is blowing over. I used a value of 1, but it would need to be measured. All thermal resistances are not much better than pure guesses.
Using the values shown above, here is what the reactor temperature (delta T from ambient) would look like:
And this shows both the reactor and the mesh temperatures.
-
Jed has already stated that the 120W power measurements were made at the time of the expt
and that the special meter was used for plasma expts where the power fluctuated quickly
Yes, exactly. But the "Input power" values measured and recorded by the "special meter" appear on the "control" spreadsheet and don't appear in the "active" spreadsheet. And JedRothwell has not yet explained why.
QuoteCould you perhaps explain why 46.02? is in plain sight.
What's the problem? Those values appear at the beginning of the 120W calibration run, whose control reactor was heated externally by a normal resistor. As JR said (1), at the beginning of the tests the input power was adjusted by a Variac.
At that moment, as better shown in (2), the recorded values in the spreadsheet are:
Time/s
54.0
V/DC
-41.33 (V)
I/DC
-1.11 (A)
Input power
46.02 (W)
The V*I product gives 45.88 W, which differs by -0.14 W from the recorded "Input power". Therefore, "Input power" data in the "calibration" spreadsheet come from another instrument, that is the Yokogava special meter.
It follows that this special Yokogawa meter, an expensive tool which was specifically purchased for experiments in which the power fluctuates quickly, was used during the May 2016 tests, but its values have not been included in (or have been removed from) the spreadsheet of the 120 W active run, that is one of those experiments in which power fluctuated quickly!
This suggests that someone somewhere is cheating us.
-
Indeed. For that matter, why does any LENR device purported to make much more (x2? x5? x10?) than the input heat requirement for it to run, why does such a device stop when the electrical heat is removed?
With the electrolytic method, when you stop electrolysis, the reaction stops after a while because the NAE gradually decomposes. The deuterium degasses, and goes out of solution with the Pd. This takes time, which is why you have heat after death (HAD). The duration and power level of HAD depends on how much Pd there is. The longest lasting HAD was observed by Mizuno, because his cathode was 100 g, which is 50 to 100 times larger than most cathodes.
With electrolysis and other methods, when the reaction is underway, a heat pulse will often boost it to a higher level. This has been widely observed. Less often, people have reported that sudden cooling will quench the reaction. This has been observed when cold D2O make-up water is added to a cell. See the graphs from Fleischmann and Miles. With gas loaded cells, Mizuno reported on various methods of quenching the reaction. Pumping out will stop it, but it takes a while for the gas to come out of the metal. Cooling it down will quench it. Adding air to the cell will quench it. The two methods may be the same thing, since air will cool the cell.
With the latest Mizuno experiments, it seems there is a minimum threshold for heat production. Reducing input power apparently lowers the temperature below that. The situation is a little unclear. There are indications of HAD, meaning it may take a while to go below the threshold, depending on how hot it is. The higher the temperature, the stronger the reaction, which Storms predicts based on his theory. Small reactions must be close to low end threshold. Storms predicts that "a runaway reaction is possible at a critical high temperature." (See the slide in my presentation.)
-
Experiments that use an internal heater have a different equivalent thermal circuit than the one I posted earlier. This circuit would apply to R20 as well as the earlier experiments if they also use an internal plasma heater.
I think the plasma experiments ended with R10 (around there). Later reactors had no windows so they were not used with plasma. R14 does not have a window.
-
". Therefore, "Input power" data in the "calibration" spreadsheet come from another instrument, that is the Yokogava special meter.
Sorry Ascoli... in this dastardly Borgian imbroglio
Could you elaborate upon your labyrinthine Sherlock deductions
specifically -0.14 ---> therefore B----> thereforeC
It seems remarkably linear,
This is such an apocalypse.!!
"The darkness is ours. The nights belong to us. Everything we do is secret. Nothing we do will ever be understood; we will be feared and kept well away from… “.
-
Control from external resistive heater - measured with Yokogawa power analyser
Active from internal plasma heater - measured with V*I, V and I averaged over 5s (or so).
[And, for ascoli, evidence that both would have been measured with Yokogawa, but the spreadsheets for the active test contain V*I in the power column (in addition to V and I columns) ]
Jed, I'm calling you out on this. I'm not saying it is sinister, but it is just not right,It is not right because you made it up. The Yokogawa power analyzer was never used to record power with this series of experiments, only to confirm it. As I said.
You should explain to us how to interface a digital instrument to the HP A/D board. As I said, the spreadsheet comes directly from the A/D board. Do you think the Yokogawa has an outlet that converts the measured power level to a voltage? That would be a retro design! A digital instrument that produces an analog voltage. It would greatly reduce accuracy and precision.
Given the utter absurdity of your notion that a digital instrument can be read by an analog to digital interface, I would not call your allegations and calling me out "sinister." "Asinine, idiotic, utter ridiculous" come to mind. This is not effective trolling. You need to up your game.
The Yokogawa was used years ago for the experiments that destroyed cathodes with extreme plasma discharge. See:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoThydrogenev.pdf
-
Reducing input power apparently lowers the temperature below that.
Turning off the power in a larger system will not reduce the temperature quickly.. perhaps because of thermal inertia
.. reflected heat from hot reactor walls..
in the 120W active experiment the Xs heat dis not stop instantly
which suggest that LENR reactions did not stop abruptly
some of them did .. but others kept going.
As the temperature reduced more reactions stopped
The reactions appear to be happening in thousands of hotspots.
It is possible that each hotspot has a different critical temperature at which it quenchs,
-
any case i am not able to recognize any trigger point from the curves of the diagrams, they all look to me like standard electrical heater.
Yes. I addressed this in my presentation. Fortunately, the most recent results do not look anything like a standard electric heater, so it is unlikely this is an instrument artifact.
