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.
For Sapporo without aircon 70% humidity... 20C cp =??
Not much humidity effect ..at 20C.. I think this was mentioned during the 2017 paper discussion a while back..
What's more relevant is the absolute requirement for a vacuum in the R20 reactor
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..
Anyways, the 345 and 500 W input Saito data, including excess, hangs together really well.
Thanks Brian Albiston for sharing and to magicsound for helping him. Hoping this helps you get closer to a positive result.
- 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.
Brian Albiston any news on this experiment?
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.
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?
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.
I did some testing of Ed's Ni foil suggestion, and the result is included as section 7 of my report.
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.
