Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec

Quote from Daniel_G

We can just produce atmospheric steam so it’s a simple phase change calculation.

Yes. Just assume the steam quality is as low as it gets. Use the lowest value from a steam table. The only thing you need to do is use a tall spout, like a tea kettle. This keeps drops of boiling water from spurting out. Some skeptics doubted that, but I pointed out you can test that easily by putting a Kleenex in front of a boiling tea kettle. It stays dry. Also, I asked them: Why do you think people have been making tea kettles and chemical retorts in that shape for thousands of years?

Measuring steam or the mass of melted ice is called phase change calorimetry. It was first done by Lavoisier in 1780, so people should not say it is untested, novel, or what-have-you. It works fine. You have to know what you are doing and take precautions. As I said, with steam you should use a tall spout. It is dead easy to calibrate. Just use a joule heater and confirm that the result agrees with textbooks:

Water heat of fusion at 0°C: 334 J/g

Water heat of vaporization at 100°C: 2,230 J/g

A piece of cake.

Obviously it will be somewhat less than that because of heat losses from the cell walls and the spout, but if you get significantly more steam than 2,230 J/g of input power during a live run, you can be certain there is excess heat. It is also dead easy to measure the amount of steam. Just put the cell on a weight scale.

Since Mizuno and Daniel may be considering the production of steam as a next step, what do all of you think can be done to completely prevent any accusations about the power output being over estimated due to steam quality issues (the steam being wet vs. completely dry)?

I have a feeling that even if Mizuno's financial backers were willing to buy the most accurate and precise steam quality test device available (even if was professionally calibrated and it was used step by step exactly as recommended by the manufacturer) that there would be arguments.

Interesting discussions. Great food for thought.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is adiabatic calorimetry. It works fine, but only for a limited time. Once the liquid in the tank heats up enough, heat starts to leak from the tank walls, you have reached terminal temperature of the tank water, and you are then doing isoperibolic calorimetry. If the walls are thick or well insulated you have an isoperibolic calorimeter that takes forever to calibrate with a very slow response time. As Alan Smith said:

In the adiabatic mode there is no thermal lag.

For a typical cold fusion experiment you can use the adiabatic method for a few hours, but that is usually not long enough. The problem is, it often takes a week for the reaction to start; it will probably start in the middle of the night; and you want to measure the heat for days or weeks.

J. P. Joule used adiabatic calorimetry here:

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

No, it isn't fine. It doesn't work for long runs. If it is so large it does not reach the terminal temperature in a few hours, it is too large and insensitive.

Display More

the power out claimed here is high kW.

Insensitivity is therefore not an issue.

With good insulation (say 10cm cellotex) 0.01W/mK

assuming a 1mX1mX1m cube we have 6m^3 surface = 2W/K

we have 1000kg water roughly, with 4kJ/kgK => 4000kJ/K

For a 1kW output we have approx 1 hour/K rise - we can run for up to 50 hours or so, with an average heat loss of 80W

For lower outputs the temperature increase is smaller and the heat loss (for the same run time) therefore proportionately smaller. In all cases we get about 10% heat loss.

The heat loss depends on external temp, if we suppose variation of 5C (and less is pretty easy) we have +/- 5W error.

For a cheap increase in sensitivity encase the insulation in a metal box, put a TC on the box. The heat loss, between tank and metal outside, is very well measured (tank is isothermal because of water, outside is isothermal because of metal box). You do not even need to calibrate this if you use carefully trimmed cellotex, though it would obviously sensible to check that - and no experiment should be done without checking.

The nice thing about this method is that it can give accurate results without calibration, and it can measure heat output over long times.

Of course the tank + metal box + 10cm cellotex turns into an isoperibolic calorimeter if you remove the water.

But that (without calibration) is less accurate:

• Thermal resistance errors turn 100% into power errors, rather than being scaled by the fraction of power lost
• The thermal resistance errors are greater because the tank wall temperature is not fixed constant by the circulating water.

With calibration you have to open things up, you have possible differences in box sealing (unless you can keep a resistive heater inside and switch the reactor on and off), and extra complexity. Of course you might calibrate anyway as an extra check, the point is that you can get accurate results without calibration and the results are mostly independent of differences between calibration and active runs. Sort of the opposite of some of the electrolysis experiments.

The requirement to stir the water means a powered propeller in a tube from top to bottom (with baffles at bottom to spread out the hotter water through the tank). The prop power can easily be exactly measured, and anyway will be less than the heat loss.

This is not, obviously, the most accurate type of calorimeter. But it is bomb-proof, and good for integrating heat out over a long run. That is the only performance metric relevant in proving this is nuclear in origin.

The tank water temperature will be pretty uniform, so its temperature change can accurately be measured differentiating this you get power out (not accurate over short periods of course). If LENR is giving excess heat as claimed in most of these experiments it lasts for a long time and this system will be fine, simple, difficult for experimental errors to muck up.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

Measuring steam or the mass of melted ice is called phase change calorimetry. It was first done by Lavoisier in 1780, so people should not say it is untested, novel, or what-have-you. It works fine. You have to know what you are doing and take precautions. As I said, with steam you should use a tall spout. It is dead easy to calibrate. Just use a joule heater and confirm that the result agrees with textbooks:

Water heat of fusion at 0°C: 334 J/g

Water heat of vaporization at 100°C: 2,230 J/g

A piece of cake.

Obviously it will be somewhat less than that because of heat losses from the cell walls and the spout, but if you get significantly more steam than 2,230 J/g of input power during a live run, you can be certain there is excess heat. It is also dead easy to measure the amount of steam. Just put the cell on a weight scale.

Display More

Steam is OK, but you need an honest and sensible experimenter. Check the steam coming out to make sure it is fully transparent on exit from the spout, check there is no water coming out of the spout - neither of those two things are difficult. Though we all know people in the LENR field who have not done them (Rossi, Parkhomov).

Ice is difficult to measure init temp of ice, and a bit of a pain.

Also, steam requires high temperatures - overall more dangerous.

Quote from Cydonia

13 signs to recognize a narcissistic manipulator

Sign #1: He has a huge ego

Sign n°2: He regularly adopts the posture of victim

Sign n°3: He does not hesitate to denigrate those around him

Sign n°4: A discrepancy between what he says he is and what he really is

Sign #5: The Narcissistic Pervert Always Needs Attention

Sign n°6: He is a fine seducer

Sign n°7: He has a reputation that precedes him

Sign n°8: He has a flagrant lack of empathy

Sign n°9: he tries to isolate you

Sign n°10: He totally overestimates his abilities

Sign #11: He uses blatantly perverted language

Sign n°12: It puts its victim in a position of weakness

Sign #13: He's a born liar

I will add, it is a snake which slips everywhere to exist.

Display More

Wow cydonia - have I said something to upset you?

There seems zero corresp between your list and my posts. here. Or me.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

Since Mizuno and Daniel may be considering the production of steam as a next step, what do all of you think can be done to completely prevent any accusations about the power output being over estimated due to steam quality issues (the steam being wet vs. completely dry)?

As I said:

1. Assume worst case steam quality. A steam table shows that the worst quality steam at 100°C has almost as much enthalpy as the best.
2. Calibrate. This will show that the steam does not include much unboiled water and that steam quality makes no significant difference.

If people are not convinced by these two steps, nothing will convince them. Ignore them. An investor who is not convinced by these two steps is a lost cause.

Quote from THHuxleynew

the power out claimed here is high kW.

Insensitivity is therefore not an issue.

With good insulation (say 10cm cellotex) 0.01W/mK

assuming a 1mX1mX1m cube we have 6m^3 surface = 2W/K

we have 1000kg water roughly, with 4kJ/kgK => 4000kJ/K

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.

Quote from Roseland67

I might be wrong but I think you just described the previous president of the US?

The Good and evil are in all of us, including you and me.

Quote from THHuxleynew

For a cheap increase in sensitivity encase the insulation in a metal box, put a TC on the box. The heat loss, between tank and metal outside, is very well measured (tank is isothermal because of water, outside is isothermal because of metal box).

I do not think you have ever done this, or anything like it. I have, with Mizuno, the people at Hydrodynamics, and elsewhere. 1 TC in a metal box would do no good at all. You need a dozen, or 100 TCs, and weeks or months of simulation and calibration. Even a hot water heater leaks heat at very different rates from different parts of the box. Hold your hand over one and you will see this. (Don't touch it!)

With a hot water heater, you have to run water from the cell through the heater in a continuous loop. The pipes lose a lot of heat, even when they are well insulated. Any other kind of 40 to 80 gallon container is difficult to work with and will lose a lot of heat no matter what you do.

An 80 gallon water heater takes 22 kW to heat (76,000 BTU). 1 kW would hardly register, and would soon be lost in the noise.

Quote from Cydonia

The Good and evil are in all of us, including you and me.

So true. A lot of evil in the world consist of people thinking they are all good and their opponent are all evil.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

Since Mizuno and Daniel may be considering the production of steam as a next step, what do all of you think can be done to completely prevent any accusations about the power output being over estimated due to steam quality issues (the steam being wet vs. completely dry)?

I have a feeling that even if Mizuno's financial backers were willing to buy the most accurate and precise steam quality test device available (even if was professionally calibrated and it was used step by step exactly as recommended by the manufacturer) that there would be arguments.

Just raise water temperature 50C, from 20 to 70 C, by intentional design.

A reservoir, heat exchanger and simple piping scaled to the heat exchange area and temperature of the oven. Nothing fancy. It can be scaled to higher temperatures and steam once the baby steps are done.

If one thinks that heating a volume of water 50 C is too hard, then keep away from steam experiments altogether.

If the excess heat output is really proportional to surface area as we hypothesize, the next reactors should have thousands of watts of excess heat. I would hope with that level of output even the THH type hard critics would become a little more open minded.

Quote from Daniel_G

I would hope with that level of output even the THH type hard critics would become a little more open minded.

Never. THH will find another excuse to deny the undeniable. Something that cannot be falsified such as: "there might be some error somewhere that no one has detected." Or: "everyone makes mistakes, so you must have made a mistake" -- which is what he said about McKubre. That is roughly as logical as saying "everyone dies, so McKubre must be dead." Regarding cold fusion, THH is not rational. He is emotional. No amount of evidence will change his mind. Only the widespread commercial use of cold fusion will force him to admit he has been wrong since late 1989.

No data you can present will be more convincing in the aggregate than the data from McKubre, Storms, Miles and the others. If a person does not believe that experimental data, he is not doing science, and he is not rational or logical. As the expression goes, you can't use logic to dissuade someone who didn't use logic to reach their viewpoint in the first place.

That is not to suggest you should be fully believed the moment you present steam data. You will have to be independently replicated. However, THH will deny that steam data means anything or that your method could prove there is excess heat even in principle. That may seem absurd, but he will always come up with an absurd reason that violates elementary physics, such as: "the difference between heavy water and light water caused an error even in flow calorimeters, and calorimeters where the all tests and calibrations are done with heavy water." There is no arguing with that because it is nonsense. It is like saying "thing don't fall because there is no gravity." All of the technical claims made by THH -- all, without exception -- are nonsense, and anyone the least bit familiar with the literature will see that at a glance.

THH is not arguing in bad faith. He is not arguing at all. The researchers present logical, replicated, experimental facts based on 200 year old techniques and thermodynamics. He responds with blather and nonsense. That's all there is to it.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not think you have ever done this, or anything like it. I have, with Mizuno, the people at Hydrodynamics, and elsewhere. 1 TC in a metal box would do no good at all. You need a dozen, or 100 TCs, and weeks or months of simulation and calibration. Even a hot water heater leaks heat at very different rates from different parts of the box. Hold your hand over one and you will see this. (Don't touch it!)

With a hot water heater, you have to run water from the cell through the heater in a continuous loop. The pipes lose a lot of heat, even when they are well insulated. Any other kind of 40 to 80 gallon container is difficult to work with and will lose a lot of heat no matter what you do.

An 80 gallon water heater takes 22 kW to heat (76,000 BTU). 1 kW would hardly register, and would soon be lost in the noise.

It could be done with IR and an oven with covered an Emissivity 0.95 paint. All heat going into the oven comes out of the oven eventually at steady state.

Just because one group screwed it up doesn’t mean that IR thermometry doesn’t work.

Quote from Daniel_G

If the excess heat output is really proportional to surface area as we hypothesize, the next reactors should have thousands of watts of excess heat. I would hope with that level of output even the THH type hard critics would become a little more open minded.

I know that this is a premature question (but I bet you are quite certain of what you have), But what time frame would you think you will be able to start produce heaters for houses?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It could be done with IR and an oven with covered an Emissivity 0.95 paint. All heat going into the oven comes out of the oven eventually at steady state.

Just because one group screwed it up doesn’t mean that IR thermometry doesn’t work.

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.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It could be done with IR and an oven with covered an Emissivity 0.95 paint. All heat going into the oven comes out of the oven eventually at steady state.

Just because one group screwed it up doesn’t mean that IR thermometry doesn’t work.

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