Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

  • 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.


    I agree on the smoothing effect due to averaging. JR said (1) that all channels were sampled 20,000 times a second and averaged every 5 seconds. Maybe it is true, maybe not. Who knows.


    Anyway, air calorimeters are subject to large temperature excursions and inhomogeneities also due to temperature stratifications caused by buoyancy effects. A similar problem was just described yesterday in a paper presented at ICCF22 in Assisi (2).


    Surely the 25 s time scale is much shorter of any time scale due to anything happening inside the reactor.


    (1) Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry

    (2) ICCF-22 (Sept. 8-13) News/reports/opinions

  • only difference between the active and the calibration reactors is the processing of nickel, it was implicit that the active and calibration runs differ

    No it is not implicit.

    X Does not imply (Y+X)


    Reactor does not imply ( heater + reactor)

    The heater being internal or external makes little difference to what the RTDs see as delta T. at the blower exit.

    • Official Post

    There was one of the presentations at Asisi that dealt specifically with air calorimetry and temperature buoyancy as a potential problem, it seems to me that the work of Mizuno avoided most if not all the pitfalls identified by Mitchell Swartz.

  • 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.


    Here we are! Just a few hours after my post (what a cosmic coincidence!), in the thread "Fact Check, debunking obviously false information", axil - the most prolific creator of ad-hoc theories able to explain any CF experimental result, whatever its weirdness – informed us (1) about a new book which deals with "the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics", where it is affirmed that "it's the universe branching off into multiple parallel copies of itself."


    Now we have the scientific basis to justify any internal contradiction within the experimental documents as entaglements (incursions) of the other branches of the Multiverse into the Universe we are embedded in. :)


    (1) Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

  • Redux (revision 2)

    The power issues


    Ascoli's useful observations on the 2016 data (that is the 100% excess power 2017 published results that preceded the R19 and R20 results):


    • The input power is measured differently between the control and active run spreadsheets. In the control case with a mains power analyser*. In the active case with figures computed from V*I. This is not evidenced on the spreadsheets where the power column is used and filled with V*I or other measurements which by inspection would come from a power analyser.
    • The resistance of the heating element for control and active runs differs by a factor of 2.
    • The dynamics of the control data are 10X faster than the active data
    • The mass of the reactor used for these results is inconsistenctly stated as 50kg old-style (from the 2019 paper) and 20kg - seemingly new-style though not called that (from the 2017 paper!). It would be good to have some confirmation of which reactor was used, and also which methodology. the old-style reactors were measured individually by the calorimeter. the new-style reactors used two reactors, control and active, together at the same time.


    On investigating the dynamics issue we find that the active data has an internal heater, The control data has an external heater. This explains the different resistance. It does not explain the very different time constants between control and active data. Active runs have lower dTair/dt than control runs which makes no sense given that both are supposed to have the same heater power. There remains also no explanation for the different input power measurement between active and control runs, which is unfortunate, although not in itself a problem. The exact methodology of these results (old-style or new-style) has still not been clarified; the two papers contradict each other.


    There is nothing here that necessarily invalidates these results. However, the poor methodology (very different systems used for active and control runs) and poor documentation - e.g. the difference in power measurement is not made explicit on the spreadsheets - is unfortunate and makes it more difficult to accept extraordinary results as real rather than some mistake caused by poor methodology and record-keeping.


    As one example. It would normally be obvious from reactor temperature whether control power out was more or less than active power out (at least at the 2x level reported). In this case that cannot help, because the active reactor, with external heater, would get much hotter even with the same power as the control and no mesh inside.


    It should also be possible to do something similar (compare dynamics) with the R19 results given detailed spreadsheet data.


    On the positive side: we can see that looking at the dynamics of these runs, together with the reactor case temperature, allows an independent measurement of the total (output) power, as an excellent cross-check on the output calorimetry that should be accurate +/- 20%.


    * There are other options, but Yoko power analyser remains the most likely by far. See here for details.


    The calorimetry issues


    Enormous amounts has been said about the air-flow calorimetry. None of this (IMHO) invalidates the overall findings in this area, although there are many cases of laxness in reporting (e.g. substituting calculated air velocity for measured) that lead observers to distrust the data. Airflow calorimetry has known artifacts due to turbulence, these are evidenced by noisy power out results with noise proportional to deltaTair. However, on careful inspection, averaging results samples 20,000 per second over 25 seconds intervals, as stated in the paper, would make this randomness go away. It seems pretty likely that for the 2016 active run no such averaging was done, because the noise frequency statistics don't fit any plausible noise source after averaging, but do exactly fit turbulence before averaging.


    • It is lax that the exact conditions of each run and each control (averaging / no averaging etc, measurement instrument, calculation method) are not precisely described in the paper but this does not (for the matters investigated) affect the integrity of the results
    • It is very bad practice that conditions are clearly different between control and active runs in many ways as above. Some of these ways (averaging) do not affect integrity. Some (power measurement) might affect integrity. Some of them (different rise times) remain unexplained and so might also affect integrity when understood.


    The blower airflow, independently measured, seems non-uniform and not easy to measure precisely. That calls into question the measurements of this in the paper, which are very uniform. Possibly, Mizuno is just much better at doing this measurement, but it remains a question mark because the blower specified necessarily delivers a non-uniform airflow and this remains measured in the tube as specified by the paper. It seems possible, given other errors, that the conditions of this measurement are different from that in the paper. Also, it is possible that the uniformity is a measurement artifact (given that it seems easy to get a range of speed values from the specified anenometer).


    Does this ambiguity affect the integrity of the absolute measurements of power? Probably not, or at least not by more than +/- 20%. The problem is that lack of uniformity between control and active runs make it impossible to trust control data, and then questions about absolute measurements (inevitably there are many that can be made, it is more difficult than control vs active results) remain.


    Another ambiguity that is annoying is the difference between calibrated for calorimeter heat loss, and true, absolute, results. These differ by approx 25% - the measured heat loss of the calorimeter. So a 50% claimed excess turns into a measured 25% excess in absolute terms. The compensation for calorimeter losses is reasonable, but to benefit from it we need clearer certainty that calibration is all done under the same conditions as active runs. And, we need to know precisely when results are absolute, and when they are adjusted for heat losses. This is not made clear in the papers. The results rest on a lot of pre-calibration, and changes in setup will invalidate this:

    • Pre-calibrate for air speed in terms of fan power (all results with air speed not directly measured)
    • Pre-calibrate for calorimeter losses (adjusted results)


    Finally, it is regrettable that these mouth-wateringly good results (like the 2016 ones) cannot be tested independently - or at least when this was done one time the good results go away (IH). Excuses can be made that IH did the wrong thing - but this is weird - both Mizuno and IH would presumably be motivated to get proper results by doing the right thing, so any issues of that sort could be sorted out at the time, or after, assuming good will. If no good will the question is why, given such a large common interest.


    1. Ascoli's view that the presentation of these results shows deliberate attempt to deceive I do not share. I agree with him that the methodological issues are bad, and could allow false positives. i disagree that this would be understood by the experimenters. Real work is chaotic unless well conducted with discipline throughout. that was not the case here. Getting some positive results (as false positives) from a large amount of poorly recorded data is quite possible as mistake. No-one can disprove allegations of "on-purpose" mistake. But, it is wiser to reckon this is mistake, and frankly not helpful to accuse scientists of bad intent whenever their work has mistakes. If you did this generally you'd end up with few scientists. So: be clear about issues, but don't add to this speculation about character.
    2. Jed's view that questioning these results shows pseudo-skepticism or deceit I also disagree with. I can understand how frustrating it is to have every little detail questioned - but that is what should be done when extraordinary results not immediately replicable are shown. In fact experimenters hoping to make a credible case would welcome it. None of this care is needed if results are replicable - you just point to (as many as needed) replications. Any issues can be investigated/corrected ab initio in the replications, which is so very much easier than trying to infer the past. For results of this type to stand up the methodology needs to be very well controlled - and that is just not done here, in very many ways.


    Given the above, you don't have to be a died in the wool skeptic to have reservations about whether Mizuno's collection of positive results actually represent working LENR. It is frustrating, because definite measurements of this magnitude would appear pretty easy to make. You'd think it would be worth it for Mizuno and some independent guy to go through the methodology, work out a water-tight set of checks based on what has been done, and make sure that the necessary tests are all done and recorded together in an experimental run. You feel it is all there, just not reliably all put together.


    THH


    PS - no doubt I've made mistakes above, happy to be corrected.

    PPS - this thread has suffered drift from Jack Cole's original intent. Apologies, I don't quite know how it happened. If anyone cares a lot posts could be split off onto another thread. Original was airflow stuff. this has morphed into two things: power stuff specifically looking at 2016 results, and airflow stuff. They do however fit together.

  • The input power is measured differently between the control and active run spreadsheets. In the control case with a mains power analyser*.


    No, it is not. It would not be in the spreadsheet if it were. The spreadsheet is generated by the A/D converter.


    You and Ascoli have repeated this lie again and again. I am sure you will continue to repeat it after I get tired of pointing out it is a lie, and that it is impossible to attach a digital meter to A/D converter. At this point, I wish the people in charge of this forum would throw you both out for a few weeks. I have never felt anyone deserved that, but you two go too far with you constant drumbeats of lies, lies, lies . . .


    I am sick of pointing this out, and since I cannot shut you up, and you will not accept anything I say -- even something as simple and irrefutable as this -- I will not respond to either of you, and I probably will not contribute to this web site again.


    Over and Out.



  • I might be wrong, but I believe you are not representing Ascoli65's nitpicking properly.


    Your point, if I understand correctly is that discrepancies between P and V*I are to be expected, and that those discrepancies will increase in % as the absolute value of power decreases. You make a point that those discrepancies are to be expected by bringing up the blower data.


    Now, my understanding is that you are just adding color to the "spikes are easily explained by rounding effects" at the bottom left of the image below (at the bottom of this post), i.e. the P-v*i data in the active run.


    But that's not what Ascoli's analysis is about. If you look at the calibration run, the difference between P and V*I is certainly not due to rounding effect.


    I believe Ascoli's analysis shows that, for input power, calibration power was measured directly by a wattmeter, while active power was measured by V*I.


    Does it matter? I don't know! Everything else is just speculation. I would say that it's a bit weird to have anything change between calibration and active runs when it doesn't have to change.


    If I was about to spend $XX,XXX or more on a replication, I would certainly want to see the data of the latest experiments first. I hope that this data will be made available now that Jed can recover from the ICCF. It would be reassuring to confirm that this "issue" is not there anymore.






    9743-pasted-from-clipboard-png

  • I asked this "question" to Jed a few weeks ago:


    >>It would be much more productive for Jed to take a quick look at the most recent data and see if input power is still being calculated in a different manner for control and actual run. If yes, I would really wonder why


    Quote from JedRothwell


    Nope. Same instruments and methods. Note also that the power supply overhead is modest. I don't recall how much, but when it supplies 50 W to a resistance heater, the power supply does not draw much more than that. Around 70 W, I think. There is no digital watt meter that would mistake 300 W for 70 W. There is no likelihood three meters would all make that mistake and come out with the same answer to within a fraction of 1%.



    This is reassuring, and I hope that we will one day see a spreadsheet that contains data from equivalent sources for control and actual run. Presumably the data from at least one of the meters was recorded for both cases.



  • Just so we can stop all the speculation: where did the calibration power data come from in the 2016/05/20 spreadsheet? The title of the column says V*I but probably measured directly with a wattmeter.


    I hope my posts don't upset you too much. I am just trying to move things forward given that the conversation between you and THH is not going anywhere.

  • Just so we can stop all the speculation: where did the calibration power data come from in the 2016/05/20 spreadsheet? The title of the column says V*I but probably measured directly with a wattmeter.


    It is measured in the columns to the left, one for I, one for V. The spreadsheet versions I have uploaded do not show the computation because it is lost in the mult-step conversion from the Japanese 1980s Lotus 123 to the modern U.S. spreadsheet. It converts only the final value as a constant. The spreadsheet is generated by the A/D converter. You cannot attach a digital instrument to an A/D converter. It does not output values as a voltage change. It only outputs digital data over something like an RS232 (given the age of this machine).


    If there were watt meter data it would be in different format. Even if were moved into a spreadsheet. Integrating the spreadsheets by timestamp would be a pain in the butt. Mizuno would never bother. He would just publish another graph titled "Watt meter input power measurement" (or something like that).


    I have explained this several times. THH and Ascoli ignore me, and go on claiming that I am lying about it. They don't even acknowledge what I have pointed out time after time, and what anyone familiar with A/D converters knows. I get no feedback from anyone else. I am tired of their horseshit, and I do not plan to explain this or anything else again. The people running this site should not let the trolls dominate it, constantly hijack the conversation, and fill the discussion with imaginary bullshit. If that is what they prefer, I am out of here.

  • THH and Ascoli ignore me, and go on claiming that I am lying about it.


    No-one thinks you are lying (at least I don't).


    An opaque conversion from the set of raw data to that actually used, with not understood differences between control and active data as finally presented, is difficult for anyone external to analyse. Without the reassurance of such checking there are many who will defer judgement on the correctness of results that depend on it. I'm not criticising you for this: it is what it is.


    On a matter of presentation: if you are sure the spreadsheet power data does not come from a Wattmeter the power column title (which implies it sometimes does) should be changed?


    THH


    PS: It is an truth universally recognised that a creative but methodologically imprecise experimenter in possession of extraordinary and exciting results must be in want of methodological correctness.

  • An opaque conversion from the set of raw data to that actually used,


    There is nothing remotely opaque about it. The A/D reads values into the spreadsheet. Additional columns are added by Mizuno, and the spreadsheet computes I*V. The readings are confirmed with two other meters. Nothing is simpler, more reliable, or more certain than reading the level of electric power. When it is confirmed with additional meters, there is not the slightest possibility it is wrong.


    That is all there is to it. I have explained that again and again. When you call this "opaque" you are trolling. You are pretending there is a problem where no problem exists. You are trying to make a simple, foolproof method look complicated and doubtful. Most of all, you are trying to Mizuno and I look like idiots and liars who cannot see which wires are screwed into an A/D converter, and who magically manage to input a digital instrument into it. If you are serious about this, you have no clue how instruments work. If you are not serious, your goal is to torpedo serious discussion and spread lies. Apparently, that's okay with the people who run this web site, so Go For It. Carry on.

  • I'm gonna try to conclude this V*I discussion, at the risk of getting shot:



    I finally looked at the actual data.


    Active dataset comes from here:

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

    https://drive.google.com/open?…r0UahtG1ZPAJmAJmejB6EMipY


    Calibration dataset comes from here:


    Mizuno reports increased excess heat


    I believe this is where Ascoli got his data from since I followed the links from this image. Annoyingly, the calibration dataset isn't in a google spreadsheet, so it was a pain to copy it from that thread post. I don't know exactly where RobertBryant got it (from another thread it seems)



    OK now for the juicy part:

    In the calibration data posted on the forum, U and I are rounded to two decimals e.g. 67.68 and 1.77.


    In the active data that is on google docs, data appears like it is rounded the same way. However, it turns out that data isn't rounded, but formatted. If you click on a cell and look at the actual value in the formula bar, it turns out values are, for example, 49.815 and 2.41983. Rounded to 3 decimals for U and 5 for I.


    I submit that this explains the remarks about wattmeter data by Ascoli. There is no discrepancy in power measurement method, there is a discrepancy in how the data was presented to the forum and thus a discrepancy in how many significant digits we have for U and I.


  • In the calibration data posted on the forum, U and I are rounded to two decimals e.g. 67.68 and 1.77.

    For the calibration data

    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.

    The standard deviation is approximated from 195 throws of a 5 sided die.

    The calibration p values have not been pasted.

    Ascoli65 is without excuse .

    9750-ffuntitled-png

    This post has previous versions that are saved.


  • Thank you very much. You finally provided a plausible explanation. I didn't notice the difference in the way the data were presented in the two spreadsheets. I asked for such an explanation since my first post on this specific issue (1), without getting an adequate answer.


    The two spreadsheets were uploaded by JR in the first week of September 2017: the active spreadsheet on September 1 (2) and the calibration one on September 4 (3), (I found the latter post only after seeing the copy posted by RB, last June (4)). Both spreadsheets were uploaded on a Google site, hard to imagine why they were formatted differently.


    Anyway, good to know NOW that the values reported in the "Input power" column of both the active and control spreadsheets are compatible with the V*I product.


    It remains a mystery the reason why the upper note reports that the "Input power" was "probably measured with a wattmeter". How is it possible that the source of one of the most important experimental data was not known with certainty?


    In any case, we don't know......Edited out for "insinuating". Shane


    (1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

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

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

    (4) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

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

  • Great, you found the original calibration spreadsheet. It seems that the way it was shared only allows viewing (but not copying the file, looking at underlying values/formulas etc), which is the source of the extra "2-decimal rounding" when copying the data.


    I personally consider this case closed!

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.