Albiston/FluxHeat Mizuno Analogue Experiments

  • If everything were super clean, it would be possible to determine if the heat capacity used in the calculations was for 0 C, 20 C, or 40 C and if the air was supposed to be dry or humid.

    The heat capacity of air hardly changes at the extremes of humidity. The humidity in a closed room in Sapporo does not change measurably from day to day. This experiment is not being conducted in a jungle.


    Such things cannot explain a 60% change. I am sure you know that. Stop grasping at straws.

  • The heat capacity of air hardly changes at the extremes of humidity. The humidity in a closed room in Sapporo does not change measurably from day to day. This experiment is not being conducted in a jungle.


    Such things cannot explain a 60% change. I am sure you know that. Stop grasping at straws.

    Right. And if a string of 1.005 or 1.006’s falls out of the equations run backwards from dT data then you are an experiment hero.


    Never said or meant
    that.

  • Never said or meant that.


    What did you mean..? why even mention humidity when its insignificant and known to be insignificant

    I still don't know what

    "Mizuno’s data leads to wildly variable air flow rate" means

    as well... ( its contrary to my calculations based onMizuno raw data..

    Perhaps some more considered calculation and communication is helpful



    I look forward to Paradigmnoia's results with an Albistonlike expt including a vacuum,,

    and considered calculation

    and active reactor versus control reactor..

  • A huge thank you to Alan Goldwater magicsound for SEM and EDX analysis of my prepared mesh samples. As suspected, very little Pd was deposited. Alan's conclusions were:


    1. The water used in the 1-hour soak at 90°C may have had insufficient Calcium. It should be >40 mg/l to follow the Mizuno recipe. Or cleaning after the soak may have removed the deposits. No post-soak cleaning should be done other than a dip in alcohol to remove trace water.

    2. The palladium used to rub the mesh was too hard or too small in contact area. It should be annealed and shaped so that a flat surface is presented squarely to the mesh when rubbing. It helps to clamp the mesh to a piece of plate glass or glazed tile across one entire edge, then rub the Pd only away from the clamped edge. Treat each of the four directions on each side this way. This should prevent wrinkling or stretching the mesh.

    3. Avoid using anything like a soft sponge that might leave organic deposits lodged in the mesh. The abrasive side of a “scotchbrite” pad should be OK if not used aggressively

  • Thanks for your interest Alan Smith . I found several calorimeter performance issues I wasn't happy with on my last round of testing so I am currently in the midst of performing calorimeter upgrades. When the upgrades are complete a re-calibration will be required.

    - I've added an additional mass airflow sensor to allow slightly higher airflow. This should allow power levels up to ~500 W to be tested without exceeding the maximum temperature of the calorimeter components.

    - I'm in the process of adding RTD input and output temperature sensors in addition to the existing silicon temperature sensors for redundant temperature measurement.

    - I'm working to better isolate the temperature sensors from the environment. I found that, counter to intuition, when the ambient temperature would drop the recovery/COP would improve. I believe this is because the inlet temperature sensor wasn't sufficiently isolated so the cool ambient air would result in a biased low inlet air reading. The effect was minor but I would like to eliminate it if I can.

    - The additional instrumentation requires more ADC channels than my Labjack has so I'm also adding additional ADC channels through I2C and SPI interfaces.

    Unfortunately, upgrades like this take a substantial amount of time which always seems to be in short supply.

  • - I'm working to better isolate the temperature sensors from the environment. I found that, counter to intuition, when the ambient temperature would drop the recovery/COP would improve. I believe this is because the inlet temperature sensor wasn't sufficiently isolated so the cool ambient air would result in a biased low inlet air reading. The effect was minor but I would like to eliminate it if I can.


    Good point I think there are 2 things you need to watch out for (at least) - one you already found out 'wind chill' of the input thermocouple, the other problem is positioning it anywhere in 'line of sight' of the hot reactor where radiative heating can raise it's temperature.


    Thanks for the update, I know everybody here appreciates your input.

  • milton

    Thank you for your interest. I've completed a second round of Mizuno style mesh testing. Again, no departure from calibration was seen on the "active" run.


    For this round of testing the calorimeter received the following upgrades:
    - An additional mass airflow sensor was added to the calorimeter to allow for slightly higher airflow. The calorimeter now has 5 mass airflow sensors to continuously monitor airflow. Each sensor can be compared with calibration and its companions to ensure no outlying measurements. Analog low pass filtering was increased to provide steady airflow measurements.

    - The inlet and outlet temperature is now measured using Silicon and RTD redundant temperature sensors. Different temperature measurement technologies/principles are used to increase measurement confidence. The temperature sensors have been better isolated from the environment to reduce sensitivity to ambient temperature fluctuations.

    The result is the calorimeter performs very repeatable measurements with very little influence from ambient conditions. I have very high confidence in the measurements.


    For this test two meshes were prepared according to standard Mizuno instructions and two meshes were prepared with Calcium Carbonate enriched hot soak water as my tap water is naturally very low in this mineral. The Calcium Carbonate enrichment seemed to have no effect although I do not have an SEM to test if any crystals were actually deposited on the mesh.


    I still find it extremely difficult to deposit the proscribed amount of Palladium on the mesh without ripping the mesh to pieces first. I was able to deposit 10-20 mg per mesh after many hours of rubbing. My Palladium was factory annealed. One key seems to be having absolutely no sharp edges on the Pd sample like Mizuno's well rounded sample.


    I completed several rounds of vacuuming (at least 10-5), heating, adding D2, heating, repeat over the course of 2 weeks of testing.

  • Brian Albiston

    Given the difficulty in depositing sufficient amounts of Pd material on meshes, have you considered using roughened (e.g. with coarse grit sandpaper) metal sheets like Storms has suggested in the past, perhaps even of Ni? In my own ultra-low cost exploration on the process I could put all of my weight on small sheet samples (mainly steel) while burnishing various coin metals and alloys to a visible extent, but I have not tried potentially harder metals like Pd.

  • Brian Albiston

    The only report I recall from Storms is the one he posted on his website and on LENR-CANR.org: http://lenrexplained.com/2019/…rocess-and-storms-theory/ , where a flame-oxidized Ni sample (not a mesh) would become very difficult to burnish. The nature of the oxide formed on the substrate is apparently important.


    In my own tests I found that oxidized mild steel substrates (to a blue-black or brown color) would strongly "bite" into the burnishing sample and promote material deposition, but the same substrates, when oxidized after depositing certain metals, would instead become slippery and make the process considerably more difficult, resembling more what Storms found out in his reported tests.


    I suspect that metal substrates that do not form a passivating oxide layer may be easier to burnish. My mental picture of the process is that in my case iron oxide flaked off in the burnishing process and the hard oxide particles coming off it probably acted as abrasives. However this is just my supposition and other parameters may be at play.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilling%E2%80%93Bedworth_ratio

  • How about age hardening the Ni mesh, rather than (Or in addition to) annealing the Pd?

    That may help, but the main problem is that mesh is fragile. It's easy to rip in both the sanding process and the burnishing process. Hardening the mesh may help the Pd deposition go faster, but you still are working with a very fragile substrate. After spending several entire weekends struggling with meshes, a more durable substrate is sounding very attractive. I'm sympathetic to Storms argument that at an atomic or nano scale it makes no difference whether it is mesh or foil.

  • Brian Albiston

    For what it's worth, some time ago in the general Mizuno replication thread I posted a burnishing test made with copper on a carbon steel blade whose surface was cleaned and roughened with 80 grit sand paper for about 4/5 of its length, while the other 1/5 was left slightly oxidized (from earlier tests with electrolysis). The oxidized portion acquired a uniform (visible by eye) copper coating, while the cleaned portion barely changed at all, although I guess a photo cannot really prove much on its own:


    MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY


    To be fair, copper is a fairly soft metal, so it might not compare well with a typical palladium chip. Likewise, the oxide layer formed on steel may have different properties than that formed from nickel. I used at least a few tens of Kg of burnishing force and the copper piece had a small contact patch on the blade.