Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    Quote from Robert Horst

    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.


    Good point. So something temperature dependent. The noise amplitude is maybe closely proportional to the reactor temperature delta from ambient? What about instability in the calorimeter airflow leading to modulation of the output temperature (depending on how much air goes past the hot reactor, and how much avoids it). That has nowhere been considered and would give these results. You can quite easily get surprisingly large instabilities in flow systems.


    The calibration and active heating (and other stuff maybe) is different - e.g. internal plasma vs external heater - so nothing can be concluded from this happening in one case only.


    EDIT - I note that ascoli (below) has the same view as me on this - citing turbulence - and in this matter is probably better informed!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    can anyone other than RB understand how his point relates to the heater issue


    Obviously THHnew purports he cannot. understand why the blower and the heater are linked


    The discrepancy with the heater is instead explained by a fantastic Ascolian scenario involving deception and hiding

    where Mizuno is supposed to have pasted in the heater VxI results


    THHnew cannot acknowledge that the discrepancy in both the blower and the heater

    is most likely due to a simple truncation error.


    Instead he says this is NOISE.. and "has not made a logical point"


    Why would Mizuno or Jed bother to paste in the 5W blower VxI results.. when its just easy to measure

    The 3-4x higher discrepancy with the 5W blower is consistent with truncation error..

    Perhaps THHnew can provide another fantastic explanation.

    Quote from Robert Horst

    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.

    [...]

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


    Your graph is interesting.


    IMO, the cause of Delta Tair variations is the noise due to the turbulent rising of the cooling air inside the acrylic box. This air flows over areas of the reactor surface which are at different temperatures, so its vorticity can cause the air to heat not uniformly. The Delta Tsurf is roughly proportional to the Tmax of the reactor body whose heating and cooling trends are substantially delayed by the large mass of the reactor metal. You can see in your first graph that amplitude increases at the power-on and decreases at the power-off following trends very similar to the heating and cooling phases of the reactor.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.


    Don't be surprised. RB is acting as any rational supporter of LENR should react to our analysis in accordance to the "cardinal rule" recommended by JR (1).


    Fortunately, his behavior is also an exceptionally effective hint for any other rational readers to understand the tactic used in promoting or defending the reality of CF/LENR.


    Quote

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


    You will get no more data on the 120 W experiments.


    JR said that the Yokogawa outputs were deleted, not preserved (2). Think about it. They were trying since year to obtain some excess heat. Suddenly, in May 2016, 3 tests in a row gave sensational levels of energy outputs. The active reactor was internally heated by glow discharge and the Yokogawa analyzer, purchased specifically for this rapidly changing power load, were connected to the data logging system and the PC. Does it make sense deleting the data measured by the Yokogawa analyzer? Any normal researcher would have treasured that data dearly.


    In the meanwhile, it was asked tous le monde to replicate these experiments. Why, on earth, someone should do so, if the authors of the original test deleted the more reliable data recorded during the original tests?


    (1) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    (2) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    Quote from Ascoli65

    Don't be surprised. RB is acting as any rational supporter of LENR should react to our analysis in accordance to the "cardinal rule

    Don't be surprised that Ascoli65 won't even consider the simplest and most probable

    explanation of truncation error   in the data transfer from Mizuno's original

    spreadsheet _data logs into Jed's google sheet

    because this is consistent with his irrational, dystopian view of ALL LENR research and researchers


    The truth is that ten days ago Ascoli65 did not(and will not) consider the blower data ... or the probability of a simple truncation error

    preferring instead to develop a fantastic scenario involving hiding and possible deception on Mizuno's part,based on a select part of the data,

    For those with an open mind,, the google spreadsheet is available below..

    This spreadsheet was a messy ad hoc 2017 effort to check the heat output of

    the calibration Mizuno reactor on a google sheet and to simplify the unwieldy original data Jed did quite a bit..

    including truncating the V and I columns.. among others.. and did not transfer formulas across for the most part.

    preferring to write them again on the google sheet,

    .Even so the thing is still unwieldy .. caution... it slows down/locks up IE

    There was more data on the original spreadsheet plus datalog.... hopefully Jed still has them..

    It would be of interest to look at the reactor temperatures

    However this 2017 data will likely be made redundant by updated spreadsheets / reactors.

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    Quote from Cipolla

    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.

    Interesting. I hope to try it in a couple days, once I return home.

    If the fan was run at almost 1/2 the rated power, that might be enough to solve the issue. Do you know how many volts were supplied to the blower fan? It is reported that the current and voltage for the blower were recorded. Running the blower with much less than 12V also makes the tachometer signal inoperative, which may explain why it is not used.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Ascoli65

    In the meanwhile, it was asked tous le monde to replicate these experiments. Why, on earth, someone should do so, if the authors of the original test deleted the more reliable data recorded during the original tests?


    I believe they were asking everyone to try and replicate their newest R20 experiment, and not the May 2016? If so, what they did, or did not do, with the old data from the "original test", is up to them. Regarding the R20 ; what more do you think could have done to help others replicate?


    It appears to me they have been as upfront as possible. A recipe, with pictures was published. Rothwell has been here most days tirelessly answering questions. Mizuno is hosting visitors to check his work, and feeding Jed answers to our questions here. All this only a short time after Mizuno saw these remarkable results.


    No matter how this ends, maybe we should give them credit for getting this out to the community as quickly as they did? If it turns out to be an error, then at least we will not have gone through the all too familiar process; make a big claim, then disappear to leave us wondering what happened.


    One thing good about LF, is that we can take these experiments, and ideas and vet them in a matter of weeks, so we do not waste much time. Not the years it takes via the conferences. As proof, we are now only a few months into the R20 vetting, and we are near the truth.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    if the authors of the original test deleted the more reliable data recorded during the original tests?

    Ascolian assertion,

    "authors of the original test deleted the more reliable data"


    Neither Jed nor Mizuno deleted any data,,, Jed , the author. has repeatedly said that..

    but Ascoli asserts to the contrary,,, inventing fantastic scenarios... contrary to the truth.


    Perhaps Jed has more productive things to deal with than Ascolian assertions,, in Sapporo and Georgia

    Quote from Robert Horst

    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 a


    The method you use is very good as it could help to detect some underlaying patterns.


    In LENR we have strong nuclear magnetic coupling that may result in short time endothermic behavior. We also see transportation of D*-D* to differenent places that could lead to internal gradients. (Also reported by Takahashi).


    As a consequence of this we should not always trust measurments if they are not based on different placements of TC's. Further TC's must be shielded and no direct interaction with air should happen. Thus we here see- as expected - more & different noise than without LENR.

    Quote from Cipolla

    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.


    Hi Cipolla, thanks for your support.


    You are totally right about the second reason: in any other scientific or technical context the shape of the curves would have been sufficient to exclude at a first glance any other exotic energy source, ie LENR, beside the electricity fed into the device. But, here, we are in a totally different context.


    LENR is the science of miracles. Researchers in the field are aware of the fact that CF would require the "happyning" of 3 miracles (1): "… These are the three miracles: Coulomb barrier, no neutrons, no gamma rays that prevented Cold Fusion to enter mainstream science." But they also proclaim that: "Cold Fusion has been demonstrated experimentally without any doubt by many experimentalists using lots of different techniques that eliminate the idea of systematic errors." And even if they admit that "On the other hand, the theoretical aspect is still missing. Many (too many) theories have been developed, but none is capable of explaining all the aspects of Cold Fusion.", CF theorists were (2), and are, able to develop any new complex quantum theory to explain any single weird behavior observed during the supposedly successful experiments.


    Therefore, LENR supporters - trained in solving this kind of miracles by means of powerful quanto-tools - will surely find an excuse to overcome your reason: for instance an instant activation of an anomalous nuclear effect triggered by the electromagnetic field generated by the current. Wyttembach has just proposed one of these remedies (3).


    In my experience, the only remarks which seriously challenge the CF claims are those relating to contradictions internal to the experimental documentation. It hasn't yet found a miracle capable to explain two contradictory statements or data, unless appealing to some multiverse theory.


    This is the reason why the question about the input power data in the two spreadsheets causes such nervous reactions in those who support the reality of Mizuno's claims. This remark is based on numbers, many numbers with a high statistical significance. It's impossible to refute it.


    It's rare to have access to this type of data for an important CF experiment. Fortunately, the two 120 W spreadsheets are already out of the bag. I doubt we will see other spreadsheets with the same kind of information. For sure, JedRothwell will ignore the many requests to provide a plausible explanation for the different "Input power" quantities listed in the two spreadsheets.


    Please, consider also that, in this moment, any other remark relating to any other Mizuno's reactor (R19, R20, etc.) or any other aspects of the Mizuno's experiment (for example, the fan and the air flow rate) is heart welcomed by JR, because it reduces the urgence to answer the questions about the spreadsheet issue.


    (1) http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m629.pdf

    (2) https://books.google.it/books?…ree%20miracles%22&f=false

    (3) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    Quote from Ascoli65

    will ignore the many requests to provide a plausible explanation

    Ascoli65 ignores the probable truncation error occurring in both the blower and Heater V*I.

    Ascoli65 cannot and will not acknowledge that this is consistent

    with the much larger discrepancy seen in the 5W blower readings as compared to the 120W heater

    The blower 0.007 and heater 0.002 discrepancies are within the expected range of

    0.007+/-.0013 and 0,0018+-0.0003 which might be expected from a truncation that causes

    0.0025 average deviation in the V and I readings


    Ascoli65 is without excuse .

    Quote from Shane D.

    I believe they were asking everyone to try and replicate their newest R20 experiment, and not the May 2016? If so, what they did, or did not do, with the old data from the "original test", is up to them. Regarding the R20 ; what more do you think could have done to help others replicate?


    It appears to me they have been as upfront as possible. A recipe, with pictures was published. Rothwell has been here most days tirelessly answering questions. Mizuno is hosting visitors to check his work, and feeding Jed answers to our questions here. All this only a short time after Mizuno saw these remarkable results.


    No, sorry, IMO it doesn't work this way.


    The main problem raised by the spreadsheet issue is not about the May 2016 tests, it rather concerns the May 2016 testers and the 2017 JCMNS Vol.25 (1), 2018 ICCF21 (2), 2019 JCMNS Vol.29 (3) authors. The same people who asked to replicate the R20 experiment. Why anybody should believe they are really interested in verifying the reality of their claims, when any trace of the only reliable power data, those measured by the Yokogawa analyzer, collected during the May 2016 run - such a rare successful event that it was presented for 3 years as the state of the art of the Mizuno approach to LENR – were "not preserved" (ie were deleted)?


    Quote

    No matter how this ends, maybe we should give them credit for getting this out to the community as quickly as they did? If it turns out to be an error, then at least we will not have gone through the all too familiar process; make a big claim, then disappear to leave us wondering what happened.


    One thing good about LF, is that we can take these experiments, and ideas and vet them in a matter of weeks, so we do not waste much time. Not the years it takes via the conferences. As proof, we are now only a few months into the R20 vetting, and we are near the truth.


    Please, do it. I have already made my proposal (4). Google can spend a few thousand dollars to encourage as many of possible of their HVAC suppliers to send a couple of their expert technicians to Sapporo, equipped only with a plug-in wattmeter, to feel directly on their hands the 3 kW of heat produced by the R20 reactor when it is powered with 300 W in input.


    (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

    (4) Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    @THHuxleynew
    Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    i think the plasma is applied only before powering the ceramic heater but it is not clear in the paper saying:


    "When the temperature drops to room temperature, gas is evacuated from the furnace down to 50 Pa or less. There-after, a current with a high voltage of 500 V is supplied to the electrode on which the Pd wire is wound around the Pd rod. If discharge is difficult to start, the gas pressure is lowered to about 10 Pa and voltage is raised high. The current at that time is about several 10 mA. This discharge is continued more than several hours.Since D2gas comes out from the Pd rod and wire at the beginning of the discharge, the plasma covers the entire electrode as shown in Fig. 8. After that, when the gas is exhausted from the wire and rod, the whole inside of the reactor emits blue plasma as shown in Fig. 9.After this processing, the final step is taken. Keeping the pressure intact, electric power is supplied to the ceramic heater, and the ceramic heater temperature is raised to 700–800◦C."

    i see a thermo-couple just beside the ceramic heater, are there any recorded data of the temperature?

    Quote from Ascoli65

    Your graph is interesting.


    IMO, the cause of Delta Tair variations is the noise due to the turbulent rising of the cooling air inside the acrylic box. This air flows over areas of the reactor surface which are at different temperatures, so its vorticity can cause the air to heat not uniformly. The Delta Tsurf is roughly proportional to the Tmax of the reactor body whose heating and cooling trends are substantially delayed by the large mass of the reactor metal. You can see in your first graph that amplitude increases at the power-on and decreases at the power-off following trends very similar to the heating and cooling phases of the reactor.

    You may be right the the cause is related to the turbulent air, but realize that the data points in the spreadsheet are 25 seconds apart. It is hard to imagine a vortex that lasts 25 seconds or longer and makes the average 2 deg C hotter or colder than the previous 25 sec.


    Maybe the problem is the way this spreadsheet was derived from the raw HP data logger measurements. The logger probably sampled much more frequently than once per 25 seconds. I was assuming that each 25 second spreadsheet row is an average of the last 25 seconds, but maybe the spreadsheet just takes one raw measurements from each 25 second period. That may show the large variation we see, while averaging them (integrating over the entire period) would smooth everything out.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.


    The paper (1) says (implicitly) NO! It mentions plasma only in Section 2.5 "Preparation of reacting material". This phase is not (should not have been) the active run. It only serves to activate the internal Ni mesh by depositing some Pd on it.


    Section 2.6 "Air flow measurement for heat calibration" states:"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. The internal reactants are the same nickel, of the same weight, size, dimensions and position. Both are washed and wound the same way. However, excess heat is not produced by the calibration electrode even though deuterium gas is added to the cell, because the nickel material is not processed as described in Section 2.5"


    Therefore, having pointed out that the only difference between the active and the calibration reactors is the processing of nickel, it was implicit that the active and calibration runs differ (should have been different) only for this aspect. That is, the heating of the internal meshes, both in the active and in the control reactors, should have been provided only by the "Reactor heater" described at Section 2.4, whose "purpose was to heat the nickel mesh in the reactor".


    But figures 27 and 28 reveal that, contrary to what was implicit in the paper, the active reactor was heated internally. When this fact was made noticed more than one month ago, JR refuted it, by confirming that (2) "both the active and control reactors were heated with an external resistance heater", as it was implied by the paper. One month later (3), he admitted that "The excess heat run was heated inside, mainly with glow discharge". And, finally, after three more days (4), he made half step back to the first version, by saying "In this series of experiments, the input is to electrical resistance heaters, not plasma", without specifying where the heaters was.


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

    (2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    (3) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    (4) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

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.