Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec

    Quote from Daniel_G

    The data we have that shows the exponential relationship of xsh to temperature is real and from Mizuno’s experiments. The data I published at iccf24 also showed an increase according to temperature but not an exponential function. This is related to the small surface area vs. the type of calorimeter used we believe. We also don’t have control of all the variable in an outside replication experiment. The reactors under construction now have a much higher surface area and the new calorimeters we are building also will incorporate several improvements meant to get more resolution and faster results allowing us to do more data points in a shorter time span.

    Just make sure you are measuring for long enough to rule out Arrhenius like behaviour from chemical reactions: obviously with larger samples you need to measure for longer.


    THH

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Bruce we measure out vs in power. The x axis is watts so not sure what the meaning of your statement is.


    Dummy reactors are not necessary. Why would they be? The interior is 100% turbulent flow. TC values varied by less than 1C. We are not searching for mW here. We will be searching for kW. Our calorimeters give the same results no matter what is or is not placed inside. It’s not a real calorimeter otherwise.

    I am unclear on this also. How do you measure power out of the oven-calorimeter thing?

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    More expressly, using what method do you measure watts power output?

    I believe it is an indirect method that uses the calibrated behaviour of the incubator.


    First find the steady state relationship between temperature and input power when there are no internal sources of heating or cooling. It is assumed (because no internal sources) that at steady state input power equals output power. Thus the relationship between temperature and output power is known. Now put an active reactor inside the incubator, measure the temperature, and use the previously determined relationship to deduce output power.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    I believe it is an indirect method that uses the calibrated behaviour of the incubator.


    First find the steady state relationship between temperature and input power when there are no internal sources of heating or cooling. It is assumed (because no internal sources) that at steady state input power equals output power. Thus the relationship between temperature and output power is known. Now put an active reactor inside the incubator, measure the temperature, and use the previously determined relationship to deduce output power.

    That is exactly what I am imagining. Which is measuring temperature not watts. And we have been through the rest that follows so I’ll leave it here until further clarification.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    That is exactly what I am imagining. Which is measuring temperature not watts. And we have been through the rest that follows so I’ll leave it here until further clarification.

    Many forms of calorimetry measure temperature as the primary variable. The calibration converts this temperature to power which is integrated over time to give energy. This comment seems a bit naive to say the least.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    More expressly, using what method do you measure watts power output?

    Are you familiar with Seebeck calorimetry? The main variable is delta-T. Calibration gives power and integration gives energy. To treat this as something other than direct power measurement is either naive in the extreme or an indicator of nefarious ulterior motives. In fact all calorimetric methods either measure mass, such as in a phase-change calorimeter, or temperature or both such as with flow calorimetry.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Are you familiar with Seebeck calorimetry? The main variable is delta-T. Calibration gives power and integration gives energy. To treat this as something other than direct power measurement is either naive in the extreme or an indicator of nefarious ulterior motives. In fact all calorimetric methods either measure mass, such as in a phase-change calorimeter, or temperature or both such as with flow calorimetry.

    I am sort of half-and-half on this one.


    Especially with diy calorimeters, or when using them in unusual ways, you need to make sure that all of the assumptions needed still work.


    So (Seebeck) to measure temperature you need to assume

    1. that the effective thermal resistance (which can be altered by sample temp distribution changing) is the same calibration and active,

    2. that your "outer" temperature stays the same in the two cases - or else that differences can be well enough understood.

    3. That your inner temp measuremet is not affected by change in temp distribution (this is another way of saying (1)


    Or if it is flow calorimetry that:

    1. the heat losses are the same (chnage in temp distribution can later these

    2. the average temp of the coolant (in and out) is close enough to the measured temp.


    For large excess heat compared to that pushed in it is pretty easy to measure all these things well enough. As you get down to 20% - 50% (?) of power in it gets more problematic. It depends on things like the flow rate for flow calorimetry - you can get good info by comparing results for different flow rates.


    THH

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Are you familiar with Seebeck calorimetry? The main variable is delta-T. Calibration gives power and integration gives energy. To treat this as something other than direct power measurement is either naive in the extreme or an indicator of nefarious ulterior motives. In fact all calorimetric methods either measure mass, such as in a phase-change calorimeter, or temperature or both such as with flow calorimetry.

    So you slowly reduce the oven input power and replace it with reactor power to maintain the same steady state temperature?

    Daniel G,


    You are going to face online skeptics that will try to pick apart any calorimetry system that you design or utilize. There's no reason to waste an exhaustive amount of time answering their question. Not matter how well you address any issue they bring up, they will move to another made up "issue." The best way to convince those who really matter is to have a run in which for the longest period of time possible there is a constant production of heat with no input power. This should be possible if you can generate a very excited state in your fuel.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I get that an oven of a certain stable mass and exterior dimensions will lose heat in the normal and fairly predictable way.

    I don’t mind the skepticism. In fact I encourage it. But when someone calls measuring temperature in calorimeter an “indirect measurement of power” that is not up to the level of professional skepticism.


    In the calibration run, without a reactor, the relationship between input power and equilibrium temperature is made. Multiple runs and multiple TCs at different points in the calorimeter will give an idea of the uncertainties involved. These were all within a few degrees C.


    When adding in a rock or brick or piece of metal, there’s no change in the final equilibrium temperature. Only the time constant changes.


    When adding in an active reactor the same input energy gave 30-50C higher equilibrium temperatures than the calibration runs. This particular case resulted in about 50W of excess heat. That’s at least 10-20x the total uncertainty of this system.


    Am I satisfied with this? Absolutely not. Do we think we can get better data. Of course and that is what we are doing now. Every iteration is an improvement on the previous. Now our new calorimeter design will have much better insulation and much less thermal mass so we can take a lot more data points to give clear statistical power to our results.


    We plan to publish this data in a mainstream journal.

    Quote from CoherentMembrane

    The best way to convince those who really matter is to have a run in which for the longest period of time possible there is a constant production of heat with no input power. This should be possible if you can generate a very excited state in your fuel.

    This is something I have been advocating. I think that a big clear signal is more persuasive than a small signal and if there is no input power at the time then all the better. What you call an "excited state" should be possible. Indeed, according to my calculations it should difficult to avoid. So I am puzzled as to why we haven't heard about such a thing so far.


    On a larger stage, Daniel_G has professed some interest in sending working (but sealed) reactors to suitably equipped labs for study. I think it would be ideal to try to come to some agreement, before these validation attempts are undertaken, as what sort of data would be persuasive. A highly excited, durable, no-input state of heat generation? Great! Would something else be persuasive too?

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I don’t mind the skepticism. In fact I encourage it. But when someone calls measuring temperature in calorimeter an “indirect measurement of power” that is not up to the level of professional skepticism.

    The "indirect measurement of power" phase was mine. I meant this as description rather than criticism. You directly measure input power and internal temperature. You then deduce output power by steady state arguments. You don't measure output power directly by, for instance, measuring the temperature gradient across incubator walls of known physical properties and so on.


    I think that this steady-state method of deducing output power is fine. What I question are the results you have shared so far. They are fragmentary, inconsistent, and don't seem to back up your claims. To be fair, some of the inconsistency seems to be due to changing conditions as you refine your system. But that doesn't help a reader build up a consistent picture of what you are doing.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.