Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

  • So, did anyone anemometer traverse test a 65 mm cylinder connected to a San Ace B97 fan?

    Didn’t think so.

    Anyone work out how the San Ace B97 fan that makes ~ 5 m/s airflow in a 65 mm tube manages 4 m/s at 1/2 power?

    Didn’t think so.

    Yes, Mizuno did, and so did the visitor with the propeller type of anemometer. It was ~16% higher than Mizuno's reading.

    You are the only one who has failed to do this, as far as I know, so the problem is on your end.

    I showed that the flow rate is correct by looking at 10, 30 and 50 W calibrations, and computing the flow rate mass per second = power / (temperature * specific heat). It was within a few percent of the measured value. Do you know of any problem with that method? If you don't, I do not think you have any reason to doubt it.

  • Yes, Mizuno did, and so did the visitor with the propeller type of anemometer. It was ~16% higher than Mizuno's reading.

    You are the only one who has failed to do this, as far as I know, so the problem is on your end.

    I showed that the flow rate is correct by looking at 10, 30 and 50 W calibrations, and computing the flow rate mass per second = power / (temperature * specific heat). It was within a few percent of the measured value. Do you know of any problem with that method? If you don't, I do not think you have any reason to doubt it.

    Paradigmnoia has proved a high quality and reliable source of info here.

    Perhaps the fan actually tested in this way is not the San Ace B97 - or is some variant of it running at different voltage, or something? Perhaps somone could check?

    It is always good to check things when they do not make sense.

    In addition: it makes sense to me that the fan traversal measurement should be as P has documented. The Mizuno measurements do seem to be extremely constant. I'm wondering what is the trick to get such consistency. Jed, if you have done this yourself you could compare exact methodology with P.

  • Paradigmnoia has proved a high quality and reliable source of info here

    Buongiorno in Assisi and UK?

    I was wondering if the 'high quality' forensics done by Ascoli on the heater power 2017 paper...

    has been updated?

    Does THHnew still consider the Ascoli forensics convincing as regards

    - averaging of V and I results

    - pasting of extraneous V*I results?

    Is there any evidence of pasting of V*I results in the 2017 active reactor . heater results?

    This of course may have happened with the blower results below as well?

    The P and the p values are slightly but remarkably different.

    Of course there may not be one explanation.,, not just "pasted p"

    This was an urgent topic for THHnew 8 hours ago.. what has changed?

    THHnewquote."RB - stick to the topic and answer the question (heater power 2017 paper).

  • Anyone work out how the San Ace B97 fan that makes ~ 5 m/s airflow in a 65 mm tube manages 4 m/s at 1/2 power?

    Didn’t think so.

    working with air is not simple but more or less the air drag is going with the third power of air velocity,
    for 4 m/s --> 4^3= 64
    for 5 m/s --> 5^3= 125 that is the double, so double power to go from 4 to 5 m/s

    more or less the anemometer reading should be correct.

  • Dear all,

    RB continues to post noise on here when asked to substantiate his view.

    It is a free site but if I go on patiently replying to him this just gets worse. I intend to ignore him when he posts repetitive stuff (396,398,400,404). Please would anyone who agrees with this (extreme) response like this post, or reply below. And anyone who would rather I replied (repetitively as needed) say so below? Thanks.

    I'll do another Redux shortly helping to keep track of current state of the issues here: otherwise they can get either overblown (unnecessarily interpreted as more negative than they are) or lost. That is if no-one else does this. For some reason the "ascoli problems with 2016 data" topic seems to have got onto the "Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry" thread. I'm not quite sure how that happened, maybe this is the wrong thread for the power stuff?


  • RB continues to post noise on here

    Its not noise

    why does the the 5W blower power have three to four times the discrepancy of the 120W heater power..?

    Neither Ascoli nor his convincee THHnew have addressed this 3 to 4 x discrepancy in the extreme scenario of

    the purported use by Mizuno of a special averaging meter for the heater power measurements

    and of pasting of results from one spreadsheet to another.

    I hope that from now on there will be silencio about this foolish scenario

    and no more boring repetition of averaging.. sopprimere plasma

    "power input analyzer (Yokogawa, PZ 4000), the data logger (Agilent, 34970A " "hiding"

    abolishing cancelling "fake-watts" XXXXXXXXXx etc etc.

    which boil down to allegations of dishonesty on Mizuno's part..

    as this forum has seen for the last ten days...

    Both THHnew and Ascoli probably have realized very belatedly this scenario is rather implausible

    given the information that has been provided by Jed and of course by me.. the blower power data.

    The explanation is perfectly simple .. a highschoolmath issue,,truncation error

    and should/could have been elucidated by these two would-be sleuths long ago

    but for their extreme bias and lack of technical knowhow.

    Please can we have no more of these foolish Ascolian -type imbrogliossimos?

  • the discrepancy disappears

    This is highschool maths and THHnew and Ascoli65 are wouldbe technical experts..

    When one does spreadsheet work one of the first errors one should think of is truncation error..

    The relative discrepancy is also much more for (5.e x1.e) than for (120.e x1.e.)

    which is why the 5W blower power results are much more discrepant than the 120W.

    As Jed has described, the task, of translating and shaping the Mizuno old+Japanese

    formats, into google spreadsheet is labyrinthine.

    The purpose of the google spreadsheet was just to verify Mizuno's calculations

    within 1-2 % accuracy and for clarity Jed has likely truncated one significant figure..

    not knowing that in an Ascolian universe

    this can unleash a cataclysm of allegation!

    Honestly . I worked through this same spreadsheet 2 years ago and

    didn't notice because I was working at 3 sf precision,,and

    the main focus was on the delta temperatures...not the VxI.

    I hate the calibration spreadsheet.. it locks up my OS awfully.

  • Yes, Mizuno did, and so did the visitor with the propeller type of anemometer.

    The sensor has a much larger cross section than the hot wire anemometer, so you can traverse more easily, and you can cover the entire orifice with a few readings. This instrument confirmed that the flow rate is uniform and that Mizuno's anemometer measured it correctly. So, we have confirmed the air flow rate by three methods:

    1. By showing the heat balance in calibrations is zero.

    2. By comparing the readings to another anemometer, of a different design.

    3. By computing the average rate from the input power and temperature differences.

    I don't know of any other way to prove it. I cannot understand why Paradigmnoia has any doubts about it. Just because his air flow rate is not uniform?!? Obviously, his system is different for some reason. It cannot be that Mizuno's system passes these three tests yet the flow rate is not uniform.

  • I'm not claiming that. Nor is Ascoli.

    If you refer to Dr Richard question "Furthermore, if someone was intending to fool everyone (eg like Rossi), surely they would any not leave evidence of data having been modified as you are suggesting, they wouldn't be that stupid would they?", I agree with you: those who modified and released the spreadsheets are not stupid at all. They just think others are stupid!

    They didn't care to leave a detectable imprint of modification of data, because they knew that none of their usual readers would have questioned the genuineness of this data


    My position: bad methodology (clearly) that makes the results less safe. The methodology was (obviously) deliberate, but I'm not claiming it was deliberately done to make the results not safe, maybe it was just to save time or whatever.

    Ascoli: as me, but he thinks that maybe the Yoko power data was known to be inconsistent (as it might be with an oscillating plasma) and rather than investigate this the V*I data was used (at least I think he thinks that).

    The basic difference between our positions is that you assume that LENR only deals with physics, chemistry and other scientific factors, so sometimes you struggle to find a coherence in what you are told. On the contrary, I'm convinced that human factors prevail on the scientific ones, therefore I preliminarily filter the information in order to figure out what might be true, half-true or false.

    In particular, I systematically apply this filter to everything is reported by JedRothwell. In doing this, I assume that he is always coherent with his commitment to promoting the CF/LENR field at any cost, following the cardinal rule that he himself urged his fellows in the field to follow (1): "One of the cardinal rules of being a good military leader or a good politician is to make do with what you have, and to find a way to win by subterfuge if you do not have a material or strategic advantage. Cold fusion is very much a political fight, so we should take lessons from these disciplines." (emphasis added)

    I have verified that he is fully coherent in the application of this rule. It follows that the truthfulness of the information provided is subject to the accomplishment of his task.


    Either way, this is not comparable with Rossi, and counts as mistake not fraud.

    Dr Richard complained that someone (probably you or me) is considering the Mizuno's results as "another Rossiesque fiddle". Well, at least for me, it's not true. IMO, it is the Ecat affair that has to be considered "another Rothwellian attempt", the most successful so far, to realize his committment.


    The evidence of modification is subtle and was not noticed by anyone except ascoli, it takes about 10 pages of argument for such evidence to be accepted. And the column heading is ambiguous, so both types of data fit it. It is just very bad practice.

    Actually, most L-F members will continue to refute or ignore this evidence. It has been accepted only by you and a few other readers, but it is more than enough. This is and will remain a pro-LENR site and we are only tolerated residential skeptics.


    FYI - there is still some doubt about whether the active test used plasma heating. The 2017 paper says it did, as did Jed at one point (I think I remember this). Jed now says it did not, but maybe he will change his statement on reflection. Watch this space.

    He has already changed his statement more than once, but don't expect him to admit he was wrong.

    On August 7, he stated (2): "In all previous tests with this technique, both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater."

    Exactly one month later, on September 7, he provided a different version (3): "The calibration was performed with the heater wrapped around the outside of the reactor, and the reactor did not get very hot inside. The excess heat run was heated inside, mainly with glow discharge."

    Yesterday, September 12, he changed his version once again and vehemently affirmed (4): "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."

    For someone who is not familiar with the field and who expects to evaluate the information on their apparent scientific coherence, it would seem that the above statements are totally contradictory. But, taking into account also the human factor and the peculiar attitudes of the protagonists, we can see that all these statements are fully consistent with the aforementioned "cardinal rule" of being a CF leader.

    You know, CF/LENR is one of the most fascinating themes of our times, but it is mainly an anthropological phenomenon, rather than a physical one. To fully appreciate its intriguing charm, you should add more keys of lecture on top of the purely scientific ones.

    (1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg73665.html

    (2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    (3) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    (4) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

  • Neither Ascoli nor his convincee THHnew have addressed this 3 to 4 x discrepancy in the extreme scenario of

    the purported use by Mizuno of a special averaging meter for the heater power measurements

    and of pasting of results from one spreadsheet to another.

    Since it seems many people want to pursue the RB noise, i'll reply.

    RB: the problem with this comment is that you are not reading what ascoli and I are saying, and claiming we are saying something completely different. That makes your posts very off topic and nonsensical.

    No special averaging meter: the (stated in paper) Agilent logger - or the PC it talks to - averages its voltage or current inputs over each sample period. At least so Jed has said here, and this would be expected.

    Pasting results: that might be how it was done, or in some other way. Either way, the Power column for the active data is exactly the same as the V column * the I column. The Power column for the control data has consistent >> rounding error differences from the V column * I column and is generated in some different way.

    Ascoli (and I) infer that the control Power data consistently different from V*I data must come from a different source from the active Power data consistently exactly equal to V*I data. Since the 2017 paper states that this data comes from Yokogawa power analyser it is reasonable to think that this is true - for the consistent small error data seen in the control run. However, although we would like to believe it also true for the active data this is not possible since no separately measured power analyser output could give exactly the V*I number from each sample, given the independent measurement errors of the Yoko, and the Agilent V * I channels. Therefore we know the active data Power column must come from direct multiplication of V*I values rather than separate measurement with the Yoko.

    Of course, the control power data may not have come from the Yoko. They could come from the V*I values with a random error added. The mystery however remains because there is no obvious reason fro the control run measurement to be made differently from the active run measurement, and if they are made the same way then the differences between V*I and power columns would not be so dramatically different in the two runs.

    RB is posting something about blower power which is irrelevant to the heater power issue, and since he does not reference all the original post (astolfi) that he is querying, and that post is not anywhere in this thread, even I will not digress to answer is query. It is as though somone made a recording of a conversation you had a month ago - extracted a single sentence out of context - and asked you to explain it - as a way of avoiding a question about how they had calculated a column in a profit and loss spreadsheet. Most people would think (a) that was avoiding the issue and (b) isolated partial quotes from ages ago are a great way to confuse things.


  • i am on the same side of Ascoli65 for 2 reasons: one is the input data power of the active run e the other is the shape of the curves where i am not able to find a point where the "LENR" reaction start.

    I can't believe that the excess energy follows a path equal to a normal electric heater, there must be a clear inflection point in the curve where the "LENR" start.
    same for the stop.

  • RB is posting something about blower power which is irrelevant to the heater power issue,

    Ascoli and THHnew are playing the math simpleton game.

    The three columns VxI =P for both the heater and the blower exhibit the same kind of 1.005... 1,006 etc discrepancy

    except that the blower is 3-4 x worse.

    They refuse to admit that they could not pickup a simple truncation error problem.

    They should have picked it up weeks ago.

    More fool them.

    How more longer will Ascoli and THHnew persist in such tomfoolery?

  • On a slightly different subject, I have been wondering why there is large variation in the output temperatures while the heater is on, but not when it is off. Here is a graph I produced from the Mizono spreadsheet:

    The temperature varies +- 2 degC while the heater is on, but then less than +- 0.1 degC after it has cooled.

    To look for periodicity in the variation, I took an FFT of the data, here it is plotted in the frequency domain on a log scale, and in the time domain on a linear scale. The input is the delta between measurements, which is like using AC coupling to a scope or putting the signal through a high pass filter.

    There is one peak at .015 Hz (66 seconds), but it is not much higher than the other frequencies. The distribution is pretty flat, like white noise.

    • It seems unlikely to be instrumentation inaccuracies, or they would affect the later measurements with power off.
    • It is not noise coupled from the heater or its power source, or it would drop abruptly when the heater is powered off.
    • I looked at deltaTemp for the input (ambient) air, and it has about the same low variation as the cool part of the experiment. That cannot explain the large heater-on deltas.
    • If the peaks were from excess heat events, it seems like there should be no low peaks. It is hard to imagine excess cool events.

    I am at a loss to think of a cause for the output temperature variations.

  • Above is ascoli's original post with the evidence.

    Strangely, he considered rounding effects (= truncation) in much more detail than did RB above. You can see that in both the calibration, and the active run, there are truncation issues.

    In the calibration, the P - V*I graph has a smooth varying trend, different from the quantised (from the quantised and varying I, as the resistor warms up) V*I graph. This cannot be the results of truncating V*I, but is what is expected when the smoothly varying power dataset (measured with more resolution than V & I) is compared with the quantised V*I value.

    In the active run, the input power and the V*I value track each other very closely, with a few spikes caused by truncation errors. That could not be the result of a different data set, but can easily be the result of calculating V*I.

    The difference in the nature of these two curves tells us that different methodology was used (and a different power input dataset - for the smoothly varying calibration input power).

    It is a guess that the smoothly varying cal power trace comes from the Yoko power analyser, based on the fact that the 2017 paper says that this data came from it! Let us believe the paper when we can! However, you can see it is not possible that the active data power also comes from the Yoko power analyser because the correspondence is too good with V*I, where V & I are independently measured.

    There are other ways to obtain the calibration data without the Yoko, using an extra column or two of higher resolution figures. For example:

    (1) obtain high resolution V and I

    (2) multiply for the smoothly varying P

    (3) quantise I (and V) on the spreadsheet.

    but in all cases the calculation for the two runs has to be different to give such very different rounding behaviour.

    This is very poor experimental practice and while it does not necessarily invalidate the results it makes it difficult to trust them without an explanation for all the processing and the difference.

    Finally there is the issue, to fold into thus, of plasma vs resistor. For a resistor V*I works to give accurate power. As does the Yoko. For a plasma discharge that is oscillatory V*I will no longer be accurate, the Yoko result will potentially be much larger (for standard EE reasons).

    There is evidence that the active result comes from a noisy waveform, even after the V and I averaging. That is exactly what you would get if the plasma was oscillating to make oscillatory V & I waveforms, but this was mostly smoothed by the low pass effect of averaging the samples within each 5s period. Compare the V*I=P active trace with the much smoother P cal trace. This evidence is no way definitive, but it is suggestive.

    Note also the (honest) vagueness in the power column heading.

    A case analysis is below.

    Cal power column
    Active power column
    Note Accuracy
    V*I V*I Only possible if I or V is recorded at high resolution, multiplied before quantisation to get power,
    quantised to low resolution in Cal data I (or V) column. Whereas, for active column,
    power would need to be multiplied after any quantisation of I (or V).
    Active (plasma) value is unsafe
    Yokogawa V*I The obvious interpretation of the data Active (plasma) value is unsafe.
    Yokogawa data for active run (like that available for cal run)
    in this case would be informative
    V*I Yokogawa Not possible because active power column matches V*I too well Active value is safe
    Yokogawa Yokogawa Not possible because active power column matches multiplied V*I too well.
    This is what the 2017 paper states is used.
    Active value is safe


  • I am at a loss to think of a cause for the output temperature variations.

    If plasma heating is used, and significantly oscillates, then noise from that on the low level RTD amplifiers, averaged, could look like white noise? High frequency oscillation windowed and sampled tends to look like white noise.

    In that case, in addition to the ac noise, such noise could be rectified by sense circuits, resulting in a different DC value from that given by the temperature

    The problem with oscillation, if it appears, is that the possible errors are unknown. Both wrong power input, and noise causing DC errors on RTDs, could be problems, or could be fine.

    But there could be other reasons I guess (not sure what). I find it is easy to overlook noise sources in the real world!


    PS - is the active run plasma heated in the 2016 data?

    • The paper says yes
    • Jed initially said yes (perhaps with some uncertainty)
    • Jed more recently has said no.
  • There is one peak at .015 Hz (66 seconds)

    Frequency analysis.. my compliments!

    AN LENR explanation of the 66 second peaks

    assuming the energy comes out over a smooth hill profile

    and assuming that the energy from one D-D fusion is 22 Mev;s

    is that one peak represents the coordinated fusion of ~10 (12) deuterium molecules..

  • The obvious interpretation of the data

    Ascoli has neglected to consider a simple truncation error.in the heater data. and so has THHnew.

    They have both failed to look at the blower data as well.

    They will not even believe Jed when he shows them the original Mizuno untruncated data..

    but prefer to further promulgate their foolish scenario.

  • No, I do not think plasma heating or any other heater-related noise could lead to the output temperature variations. If you look at my first graph above (just edited to fix the horizontal scale), the large output temperature variations last for more than 10,000 seconds (> 2.7 hours) after the heater is turned off.

  • Dear all, in the interests of communication, can anyone other than RB understand how his point relates to the heater issue? He has not actually yet made any logical point. If he (or somone else capable of more clarity) were to make a precise logical point, I could explain why it was wrong, or agree with it.

    If there is additional data on the heater power that would be very helpful. Let us see it (link please).

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.