Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec

Quote from Daniel_G

Why would you prefer this over what we published at iccf24?

Because the output power isn’t currently being measured, (as discussed above several times).

A reasonably simple estimate/calculation of power could be done to demonstrate the fact of the output power that the oven temperature indicates, so there might be few questions about whether the oven temperature does accurately reflect the reported output power in different heating circumstances (ie: reactor and Joule).

As you can see, the audience is not satisfied with merely the “temperature equivalent watts”, but are willing to wait for better confirmation.

Quote from JedRothwell

Okay, maybe it could be done this way. But why? What is the point? The engineering standard method of testing boilers is to do flow calorimetry. This is spelled out in detail in laws, regulations and textbooks. It is done thousands of times a day by HVAC technicians inspecting boilers. There are online worksheets and lookup tables, to convert U.S. units such as BTU into percent efficiency. Just do it the conventional way! A conventional textbook method with off-the-shelf tools is the most convincing.

Because first they would have to build and invent a boiler, and try it for weeks to get the bugs out.

Slap some paint on the oven so it has the same emissivity all over (any arbitrary emissivity is fine, as long as it is known), and film the box with an I R camera. Do some flat plate conduction-convection-radiation math. Easy.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Because first they would have to build and invent a boiler, and try it for weeks to get the bugs out.

It works with any cold fusion device, not just an actual boiler. I just meant that ordinary flow calorimetry is easier and more convincing than the ad hoc methods discussed here. Granted, the HVAC procedures and instruments such as bimetallic dial thermometers only work with kilowatt level reactions, but you can use laboratory grade instruments instead. They are more precise. The principle is the same.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Slap some paint on the oven so it has the same emissivity all over (any arbitrary emissivity is fine, as long as it is known), and film the box with an I R camera.

That is an example of an ad hoc method. No skeptic will believe it. I myself would not know what to make of it.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is an example of an ad hoc method. No skeptic will believe it. I myself would not know what to make of it.

It has worked for over 100 years.

It works for stars 14 billion years old, alumina cylinders, and even boxes that may or may not be ovens, when appropriate methods are used.

And is non-contact so cannot interfere with the reaction rate or heat dependant mode.

When we prepare our transcripts a referee committee will begin to advise us on these matters. We intend to follow the advise of the referees. Thanks to all for their valuable input. We are discussing with a high impact journal at the moment.

Anyways, methods are only as ad hoc as one makes them.

https://pdf.cdn.endress.com/__pdf?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.endress.com%2Fen%2Fexternal%2Fproduct-html2pdf%2Fvortex-flowmeter-prowirl-f200-7f2c&downloadName=Endress-Hauser_Proline_Prowirl_F_200_7F2C_EN.pdf

This is how to measure steam flow and quality

Quote from JedRothwell

You are missing the point. At any power level, adiabatic calorimetry can only be done for an hour or so. The way Joule did it in 1841. It worked fine for his purposes, but it would not work for cold fusion, because you want to measure for days or weeks at a time.

The power level makes no difference because you have the same problems at any power level. If the reaction produces a watt or so, you can only heat up ~1 kg of water. With more than that, say 10 kg, even with a well insulated tank heat leaks will make it very insensitive, to the point where it will show nothing. If the power level is kilowatts, you need a much bigger tank. Say, 100 kg. Make it 1000 kg and you have the same problem as with watts. The tank cools too much no matter how well it is insulated, and it is far too insensitive. You would need 1000 kg to measure for more than a few hours.

1 kW is 238 calories/second. Take a large water heater tank, 80 gallons (300 kg). It takes 1 kW 1,261 seconds to heat that 1°C. That's 21 minutes. Once the temperature rises to 30 or 40°C the method stops working, even with a well insulated tank. That's 7 hours. Actually, the heat would be lost in the noise and heat losses after a few hours. It would be unweildy.

I have used this method of calorimetry. I have seen people use it, including Mizuno and the people at Hydrodynamics, where they used a barrel of water to sparge steam from a 20 kW reaction. No one uses it for more than an hour. It would never work for 7 hours.

Display More

All mostly agreed.

Why stop working at 40C? I'd expect could go up to at least 80C - that means 0.5 atm pressure, not too challenging. I agree open vented you would have problems.

I was going for a bigger tank

Which gets you from 7 hours to my 50 hours.

50kW-h = 180MJ

286kJ/mol H2.

Each mol H2 (with O2) weighs 36g - but you need 10X this weight for tanks to store.

So we have < 1MJ/kg possible chemically via H2 burning in a closed system (compare that with 100MJ/kg in an open system using atmospheric O2!). Interestingly: Li batteries achieve 0.5MW/kg.

I'm not sure if there is another reaction more efficient? If you had something with solid or liquid reactants and products the storage is a lot easier. Perhaps alcohol with CO2 stored in limestone? (this is assuming the reactor cannot get O2 from air - reasonable if external parties immerse it in a tank of water).

A reactor < 10kg weight with 1kJ output for 50 hours looks pretty interesting even to a skeptic such as me. Providing it is fully immersed in water inside a pressurised tank so that open system chemical reactions are not possible.

And the point remains that this is a system which can give decent results without calibration - and obviously more accurate with calibration. It reduces all of the uncertainties.

Not saying it is most accurate - but it meets Paradigmnoia's test and looks very bulletproof.

THH

Quote from Daniel_G

https://pdf.cdn.endress.com/__…Prowirl_F_200_7F2C_EN.pdf

This is how to measure steam flow and quality

I agree - but given you are trying to convince skeptics I think as Jed says a tall spout with a video camera observing the output continuously might be safer, and cheaper. Simpler is better.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Slap some paint on the oven so it has the same emissivity all over (any arbitrary emissivity is fine, as long as it is known), and film the box with an I R camera.

Just make sure you calibrate emissivity and do not as Rossi's friends look it up from a total emissivity table!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Just make sure you calibrate emissivity and do not as Rossi's friends look it up from a total emissivity table!

My original suggestion was 0.95 emissivity paint.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Why stop working at 40C? I'd expect could go up to at least 80C

In my experience, most ordinary insulated containers start to leak significant amounts of heat at about that temperature. The curve starts to flatten out, making it isoperibolic instead of adiabatic. I mean things like hot water heater tanks, refrigerators, and beer coolers.

Perhaps there are specialized expensive ones for things like cryogenic liquids that can go up to 80 deg C.

In the tests by J. P. Joule you can see the curve starting to flatten. He knew that, and discussed it. He recommends using a large thermal mass of water. He said the measurements are still valid because you can compare ratios. Quote:

Previous to each of the experiments, the necessary precaution was taken of bringing the water in the glass jar, and the air of the room to the same temperature. When this is accurately done, the results of the experiments bear the same proportions to one another as if no extraneous cooling agents, such as radiation, were present; for their effects in a given time are proportional to the difference of the temperatures of the cooling and cooled bodies; and hence, although towards the conclusion of some experiments this cooling effect is very considerable, the absolute quantities alone of heat are affected, not the proportions that are generated in the same time.

Joule, J.P., On the Heat evolved by Metallic Conductors of Electricity, and in the Cells of a Battery during Electrolysis. Philosophical Magazine, 1841. 19(124): p. 260

In the adiabatic tests at Hydrodynamics, they heated steel drums of water by sparging steam. The water got very hot. I don't recall how hot but it was dangerous to touch. They ignored heat losses from the barrel and the machine. In some cases, the heat captured by the water exceeded input electric energy. When there was no excess heat, it was far below input. 85% as I recall. After the test they picked up the barrel with a fork lift and dumped the water into the parking lot.

Bumpity bump, bumpity bump, bumpda bumpda, bump bump bump.

The rhythm of the heat

Magnetochemistry and electrochemistry. Hmmm.