Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    Quote from RobertBryant


    The 46.02 during a power in discontinuity is because of different averaging (the Yokogawa outputs will average delayed a bit from the V*I values).


    Otherwise the 0.1% - 0.5% differences are because the power analyser outputs are different from the V*I values.


    So we can see, for the control run, using a resistor load, that as expected V*I (averaged over 20s, then multiplied) is almost identical to true power analysis.


    However, we do not know how the Yokogawa readings one relate to the V*I readings for the active run, where the load is a possibly oscillatory plasma discharge, because the Yokogawa reading column (Power - usually measured by power analyser) is filled with V*I figures for this run.


    We do know that when voltage and current are oscillatory and non-reactive true power measurement is higher than average power measurement, so this represents a possible large under-reading of the real input power.

    • Official Post

    Still suggesting that somehow accidentally more power was consumed than what was measured? Come on!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The 46.02 during a power in discontinuity is because of different averaging (the Yokogawa outputs will average delayed a bit from the V*I values).


    How would you know? Did you break into the lab to see the Yokogawa outputs? THEY WERE NOT PUBLISHED!!! Heck, they were not even preserved, so you must have a time machine.


    Oh wait, I told you that. You are trolling. I do not understand what you and Ascoli hope to accomplish by repeating this outrageous garbage, but you seem determined to repeat it ad nauseam. You are weird.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    V*I readings for the active run, where the load is a possibly oscillatory plasma discharge,


    There have been no plasma tests in the present set of experiments. The tests with plasma were all described as such in the papers. There are no hidden ones. The plasma tests produced no excess heat for about a year, so obviously input and output power was measured correctly. That's like a 1-year calibration. The plasma calibrations also produced no excess heat.


    Jed: as often I find myself confused by apparent contradiction, so bear with me while I explain two possible things you might be saying:


    (1) The Yokogawa was not used for control or power readings on spreadsheets

    if the Yokogawa was not used for anything why are the active results P = V*I exactly (to within spreadsheet rounding, 0.05%) whereas the control results have consistent small differences (large when the input power changes)? this is the same type of forensic evidence as allowed the anenometer velocity computed not measured to be known. You accepted that after some 10 pages of posts. Can i suggest that you say now whether you accept 9from the forensic analysis of the data) that the control sheet uses Yokogawa power, and the active sheets uses power generated from V av * I av readings on the sheet? If you do not accept this we can have another 10 pages as needed to convince you, with others you do not consider biassed adjudicating. Otherwise we can move on from this understanding that the spreadsheet power data for control and active runs comes from different methodology.


    (2) The Yokogawa was used for the control readings (not considered part of this series of experiments) and not used for the active results

    two problems here:

    the control runs should be part of the same series as the active runs and indeed are recorded as done close in time to active runs, so why the difference?

    the active run has (you say) plasma heating. For this to be measured with average V*I is highly unsafe. Indeed this is what the Yokogawa is for. To say that it was then not used for the crucial runs that it is needed for is weird, given it was used for the control run.


    I hope we can resolve whether you mean to assert (1) or (2). If (1) I'd ask you to examine the forensic evidence which convincingly shows that the active set of figures are generated from V*I, and the control set of figures are not generated from V*I.


    Now to address the matter of data capture. I understand that the spreadsheet contains:

    • analog data captured and digitised by HP data logger
    • digital data from Yokogawa (in the power column on the control run sheet)

    Whether these two sets of data are combined with a suitable software system, or downloaded separately and combined manually, is not the point. Either way, the control spreadsheet used the Yokogawa power data. The active spreadsheets does not have this additional (safer) power dataset, but weirdly has the column used for this filled from V*I.


    I don't, like ascoli, think this is deliberate obfuscation. As you say, it could be more work to incorporate the (safer) power dataset, since it would be separately downloaded.

    I do find your assurances that the safer dataset is not needed because "it is always the same" totally unconvincing. It was indeed the same for the control run - which used a resistive heater load for which the two methods of measurement are expected to be the same. It may be the same sometimes for plasma loads, and Mizuno and/or you may have personally noted that. But whether it is or is not the same will depend on the exact details of the plasma discharge. Without the work to extract the Yoko data and put it on the same spreadsheet as the rest of the active run data, and compare the two, no-one can know whether it is the same for any new experimental run. If that work has been done, why on earth would anyone provide an active run spreadsheet instrumented differently from the control run datasheet, using possibly less accurate power measurement? If the work has not been done for this particular run then it remains possible that the apparent excess heat is an artifact.


    More generally, I'd like an apology from you on this specific point for you accusations that I am biassed/lying etc. I do not lie on this site (and very rarely in real life). I may be generally biassed. However here i have been very slow to accept ascoli's views about this anomaly. I continue to take the most charitable (and probably true) version. But the lack of integrity in this one exceptional (because it shows unusual large excess) dataset is notable, especial;ly because it is exactly what could allow a false positive.


    In fact, an alert experimenter, on finding this unusually large apparent heat excess, would remember that the V*I measurement of power is not guaranteed safe for oscillatory loads, remember that the plasma discharge could be oscillatory, remember that any difference in measurement methodology between control and active runs is problematic, and retrieve and incorporate the Yokogawa data for the active run, just like he did for the control run. Not to do this is most unfortunate and shows a careless approach to collecting data.

    There have been no plasma tests in the present set of experiments. The tests with plasma were all described as such in the papers. There are no hidden ones. The plasma tests produced no excess heat for about a year, so obviously input and output power was measured correctly. That's like a 1-year calibration. The plasma calibrations also produced no excess heat.


    We are discussing here the exceptional and exciting 2017 published (2016 data) results which you have said included a control run with external resistive heating and an active run with internal plasma heating. The difference in methodology is not necessarily a problem but it needs careful consideration, which is what we are doing here.


    The later (R19 and R20) results, not using plasma, are not the point here. I have noted it myself because many people here seem to assume that what is true for one experiment is true for all - a cardinal mistake. And I've never said there are hidden tests. Ascoli has also not said this though he (unlike me) believes there is probably a hidden set of results deliberately not published. That is his analysis of the inconsistency between the control and active "power" column data. I agree with ascoli about the source of the two power column datasets, and that this was deliberate, but not that the difference in dataset source was necessarily the result of deliberately hiding anything. However, it does hide something that would be useful in any external scrutiny of this data. Without the missing data, the active run power input measurement is unsafe.


    I fully accept that this consideration does not speak directly to the R19 or R20 results. However it does speak indirectly to them, if careless methodology and unsafe use of one dataset instead of another were used in that 2017 publication. Such lack of care does not prove any result wrong, and certainly does not (as you continually seem to think I am saying) show malfeasance. But the type of issues found in earlier experiment methodology need to be checked, since they might also be present in later experiments and lead to false positives there.


    THH

    Quote from RobertBryant

    The forensic analysis

    ..needs more expert forensicists..


    Carry on.:)


    RB - I welcome expertise. Always. And I pay attention to such expertise. Can I suggest that you do the same.


    Ascoli laid out, a long time ago, and repeated (several times I think) the differences that lead him to conclude that the control Power column data was not derived from spreadsheet V and I column data, whereas the active run Power column data was so derived.


    You have ignored his comparison, and until you show that you have read it and explain it (why is one set of figures exactly V*I, when the other is not) your analysis here will not be convincing.


    An old old trick, used by people used to review the work of experts when they contradict each other. Pay attention to what each side does not address. If a point is made logically by one side, and not directly addressed by the other, that is a sign the point has some merit that cannot be denied.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The 46.02 during a power in discontinuity is because of different averaging (the Yokogawa outputs will average delayed a bit from the V*I values).


    Otherwise the 0.1% - 0.5% differences are because the power analyser outputs are different from the V*I values.

    Just for the record the 46.02 value has 0.3% difference

    The power values for the blower are even worse... up to 0.8% and 1.0% differences.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    your analysis here will not be convincing.

    I have given no analysis

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Ascoli laid out, a long time ago, and repeated (several times I think) the differences that lead him to conclude that the control Power column data was not derived from spreadsheet V and I column data, whereas the active run Power column data was so derived.


    You have ignored his comparison, and until you show that you have read it and explain it (why is one set of figures exactly V*I, when the other is not) your analysis here will not be convincing.


    An old old trick, used by people used to review the work of experts when they contradict each other. Pay attention to what each side does not address. If a point is made logically by one side, and not directly addressed by the other, that is a sign the point has some merit that cannot be denied

    Just for the record..

    I will analyse this in time,

    I was wondering why the 5W blower power difference is worse than the 120W heater power difference?

    Jed:

    How would you know? Did you break into the lab to see the Yokogawa outputs? THEY WERE NOT PUBLISHED!!! Heck, they were not even preserved, so you must have a time machine.


    My previous posts have addressed this point. Ascoli's analysis convincingly show that the control dataset power figures came from some source other than V*I. He concludes this is from the Yokogawa. I agree, and in the context (especially the heading of the power column) this seems reasonable.


    If those control power column results don't come from the Yokogawa then you have to explain how they were generated (they are not V*I). In comparison the power column results for the active run, on inspection, are V*I. Ascoli made this point a long time ago, and i cannot fault it.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Jed: as often I find myself confused by apparent contradiction, so bear with me while I explain two possible things you might be saying:


    (1) The Yokogawa was not used for control or power readings on spreadsheets

    if the Yokogawa was not used for anything why are the active results P = V*I exactly . . .


    I do not know, but I know that a digital instrument does not output its values as voltages on a wire, so you cannot interface it to an analog to digital converter. I also know that spreadsheets are generated by an A/D converter, and the I and V columns are specific, hard wired connections to wires, which read voltage. They covert analog voltage into digital measurements, with various options such as look-up tables. That's how they work.


    Do you understand what I am saying here? Have you ever used an A/D converter? Digital meters of the Yokogawa era had RS232 connections and various other types, but they did not have a wire that produced different voltages corresponding to the wattage they read. That would be an insane interface. So there is no possibility those spreadsheet columns came from the Yokogawa meter.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    In fact, an alert experimenter, on finding this unusually large apparent heat excess, would remember that the V*I measurement of power is not guaranteed safe for oscillatory loads,


    1. In this series of experiments, the input is to electrical resistance heaters, not plasma. These are not oscillatory loads. There is no form of electric power easier to measure. In fact, there is no physical force easier to measure or more precise.


    2. We are alert. We confirmed the input power readings are correct, by checking them against the Yokogawa, the AC meter between the wall and the power supply, and against several meters brought in by visitors. They all agreed. There is not slightest chance they were all wrong. You cannot suggest a more foolproof, irrefutable method of ensuring the input power was correctly measured.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I do find your assurances that the safer dataset is not needed because "it is always the same" totally unconvincing. It was indeed the same for the control run - which used a resistive heater load for which the two methods of measurement are expected to be the same. It may be the same sometimes for plasma loads, and Mizuno and/or you may have personally noted that. But whether it is or is not the same will depend on the exact details of the plasma discharge.


    There is no plasma discharge results in the present series of experiments (ICCF21 and ICC22, Pd on Ni). If there were, we would have noted them in the papers. I am sure I told you this time after time after time. THERE ARE NO PLASMA DISCHARGE RESULTS. I will say that again: THERE ARE NO PLASMA DISCHARGE RESULTS. I could say it a hundred times, but you and Ascoli will continue to say there were such results. You will ignore me. And you will continue to insist that a Yokogawa digital meter can be interfaced to A/D channel and magically add numbers to it. This is beyond tiresome. You clearly have no agenda but to disrupt, deny, confuse the issues, and lie through your teeth.


    Frankly, if I were in charge here, I would be tempted to ban you people for a few weeks, for trolling, lying, and pretending I and others did not say what we said.

    I will analyse this in time,


    I was wondering why the 5W blower power difference is worse than the 120W heater power difference?


    Thanks for that, i suggest you start by reading ascoli's analyis, and then pick holes in it, or agree.


    I don't understand your point about 5W and 120W power difference. I don't know how you think this comment applies to the current matter? I've not claimed a 120W heater power difference. I've claimed that the actual active run heater power is not accurately known, because, unlike the control run, the power recorded for it could suffer artifactual under-reading. (The old true rms vs average rms issue). I strongly suggest that in order to save time you read the argument ascoli and I make here, and reply directly to it.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    . I've claimed that the actual active run heater power is not accurately known, because, unlike the control run, the power recorded for it could suffer artifactual under-reading.


    In other words, the instruments read the resistance heater power correctly during a excess heat run, but they read the same power to the same resistance heater incorrectly during a control run. How would instrument know which is which? How would the resistance heater know? It cannot tell it is inside a reactor with an active Ni mesh.


    Oh wait. You are saying the active run was with plasma discharge, even though we told you it is not.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Thanks for that, i suggest you start by reading ascoli's analyis, and then pick holes in it, or agree.


    Some holes:


    1. It is not possible to interface a digital meter to an analog interface.

    2. There was no plasma discharge.


    What bigger holes could there be?

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.