H. Zhang: First successful independent Mizuno R20 replication!

I am pleased to report a replication of Mizuno's experiment by H. Zhang:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangHreproducti.pdf

Excess heat started at ~4 W and has now reached 9.6 W. Be careful when comparing this to the original experiment, because the mass of nickel mesh is smaller. [INCORRECT. THAT WAS A TYPO IN THE PAPER, WHICH I HAVE FIXED.]

The calorimetry is MUCH better than Mizuno's. It is splendid.

Mizuno expressed some reservations about these results because the heat peters out after 2 or 3 hours. He thinks this might be caused by "impure gas in the reactants or slight differences in nickel." I do not think this is a problem because:

1. Zhang ran several times with a mesh that produced no heat (p. 18).
2. I think the total heat release is too large to be explained as impure gas.
3. The reaction is getting stronger between the second and third runs, from 4 W 20 kJ up to 9.7 W 47 kJ. If this were caused by gas coming out of the nickel mesh, I suppose it would fade away. He does not open the cell or change the mesh between runs.
4. Zhang replaced the deuterium gas with argon. That killed the reaction. I hope he did not clobber it permanently! Yesterday he told me he went back to deuterium, but it is still dead.

Previously, I wrote that Zhang's tests tend to "peter out" after about 3 hours. I said they stop producing heat. That is incorrect. The spreadsheet shows the heat did not peter out completely. At the end of Test 1 the reactor was still producing 0.2 W. At the end of Test 2 it was producing 0.4 W, and at the end of the graph for Test 3, it was producing 1.8 W.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

To get respect (from me anyway), replication is just that. It's not any somewhat positive result.

Then you do not understand experimental science. What you describe would be the expectation from an engineering project, not a laboratory experiment. Getting 100 W or 200 W from this experiment the first time around would not be a replication. It would a miracle. No one with experience in ground-breaking experimental science would expect that. Mizuno and I are very pleased Zhang is getting any measurable heat at all, and pleased that it is increasing.

Mizuno is somewhat wary about this, because he thinks it might be a chemical effect from contaminants leaking in from the mesh. I doubt it. If Zhang's heat continues to increase, and the duration of the reactions increase, we can rule that out.

Mizuno's own R20 cell with a new mesh is only getting 20 or 30 W. Would you say he did not replicate himself? That's absurd.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Mizuno's minimum claim with the R20 setup was 50W in and 250W out.

That was the maximum claim with a calorimeter, not the minimum. I do not have the complete history for this reactor, but it was less than that most of the time. It is presently 20 to 30 W, as noted.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

So 10W won't cut it. 20 minutes won't cut it.

The first two tests were 165 minutes and 140 minutes, performed consecutively after a 10-minute interruption. The third test was 155 minutes. That's 460 minute total, which is much longer than 20 minutes. There was lingering excess heat after all three tests, 1.8 W after the last one. So it wasn't actually finished, but he stopped the spreadsheet there.

You are setting arbitrary and meaningless standards for what will cut it and what will not. There is no scientific basis for your standards. You might as well reject the experiment because the calorimeter container is silver color and you want it to be purple instead.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

10% more output than input won't cut it.

As I said before, the 10% is function of the insulation around the cell. It can be adjusted to any number you like. It is meaningless. Do you not understand how insulation works? This standard is not only arbitrary and meaningless, it is absurd, because Zhang could alter it easily. He will not, because that would make the experiment a pain the butt to operate. It would increase latency.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Want respect for replicating Mizuno, get results at least in the same general area of magnitude that he did for both absolute power out and power ratio (out/in).

In other words:

"I will only accept an impossible result. I demand that researchers do what no one on earth knows how to do. I will reject solid results from superb instruments that actually have been achieved in favor of imaginary results that meet an arbitrary, meaningless standard I set. I get to set the standards, not the researchers. Conventional standards such as signal to noise ratios don't count. Superb experiments such as McKubre's don't exist because I say they don't. I will move the goal post as far down the field as I want, right out of the playing field, out the parking lot, into the next county, to ensure that no cold fusion result will ever meet my exacting standards. Exacting and ever changing. I demand researchers produce the pot of gold from the end of the rainbow -- something they must chase forever at my bidding; something that I alone will define, and redefine, and define again, at whim. Their replications and data mean nothing to me, and my standards are the only ones that count."

Thank you, oh Lord High Arbiter of Science. What would we do without you? We can toss out concepts such as signal to noise and the limits of chemistry (4 eV per atom) in favor of the new, all encompassing universal standard, which is defined as whatever the hell just popped into Seven_of_twenty's mind.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

By 10%, you mean excess heat compared to input heat. For example 100W in and 110W out. Assuming the 100W regulated input is constant, those numbers are not changed by insulation.

Ah. I think you misunderstand. The numbers would be changed by insulation. Suppose it takes 100 W to heat the inside of the reactor to 250°C. * Now suppose you wrap the cell in insulation. It will take much less power to heat the inside, because the heat will not escape as easily. It is like the difference between heating the inside of a Dewar flask versus a regular test tube. Or like heating a house with poor insulation versus a well insulated house.

In other words, the heater is needed to reach a certain temperature, and it would reach that temperature with much lower power. Instead of 100 W and 110 W, you might see 30 W in and 40 W out. Or 5 W in and 15 W out. That is, if 5 W was enough to raise the temperature to the operating point, with something like a large Dewar.

(With a house, you also have factors like the air blowing in through poorly framed windows. Disregard that and think only of heat losses through something like an uninsulated attic.)

This is also why you stay warmer in bed with lots of blankets. Your body produces ~100 W at rest. That does not change. You are warmer with more blankets because the heat escapes more slowly.

So, if Mizuno wraps the cell in insulation, it will take far less input power to heat it to same temperature. He used to wrap his cells in insulation, and they did take less power. That was to regulate the internal temperature. That caused problems with latency. When he went to the air-flow calorimeter, the calorimeter chamber itself can be brought up to any temperature you like by changing the insulation around the calorimeter chamber and the air flow rate, so you do not have to regulate the cell temperature with insulation around the cell itself. That is more convenient.

I apologize to you for being rude about this issue. I assumed you understood this, but apparently you did not.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

At equilibrium, Power In = Power (heater) + Power (LENR) = Power Out

Correct. And the equilibrium temperature of the body inside the cell is a function of the insulation. It is low with a poorly insulated cell, and high with well insulated cell. The cell constant changes. For an isoperibolic cell, this is also a function of the thermal mass of whatever is inside the cell. I once tested a small plastic cell with 100 ml of water used as an isoperibolic calorimeter. I calibrated at 1.1 to 4.0 W. 1 W produced a ~3.9°C equilibrium temperature of water. That is how much warmer the water was above ambient after about 45 minutes. Use a Dewar vacuum flask instead, and 1 W may produce a ~20°C equilibrium temperature rise. It is a lot more sensitive but it is a pain in the butt to use, and it takes forever to reach equilibrium. I did try a Dewar once (a thermos bottle), out of curiosity, after Srinivasan told me about his experiences with them. I did not write down the numbers. You should try it.

* That is not the actual figure, but it is close to that. I only have the outer surface temperatures.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You'd need to compare those figures with the accuracy of the calorimetry.

Or, you could do it. Read the report. Look at the calibrations, and do the arithmetic. You will see the calorimeter can measure 150 mW with confidence.

Quote from RobertBryant

Of course THHnew asserts that air calorimetry is less accurate than water calorimetry..

Zhang is doing Seebeck calorimetry, which is better than water, and way better than air. His calorimeter is a thing of beauty, as you see in his calibrations. The minimum power it can measure is 13 times better than Mizuno's calorimeter, and the losses are practically zero. That is to say, all of the heat is measured. The balance in the first calibration on p. 15 is 178.18 W in, 178.00 W out. 99.8989% recovered. That's outstanding! Whereas Mizuno has to estimate losses from the calorimeter chamber walls, as shown in Fig. 3. That works, but it adds a lot to the margin of error. With Mizuno's calorimeter at 178 W input, he would recover in the air stream . . . around 78%, or 136 W.