Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec

Quote from Bruce__H

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 would call that a first principle method. That's what Fleischmann and Pons did. They calibrated, but they also did the physics. So did Melvin Miles, McKubre and others. It is more rigorous to do both. But it can be daunting to understand! See the great long equation on p. 3:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

My discussion of that equation, pages 21 - 23, 40 - 41:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf

Fleischmann emphasized that you always have to calibrate, even when you do a first principle analysis.

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.

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.

Display More

That result does indeed indicate excess heat production. All the critically minded people who matter would see that. I would like to ask if you have had any extended periods (at least hours) of self sustaining excess heat production after the input power is cut off - with the new catalytic method. If you have, please share the data when possible. Although such performance is not needed to prove excess heat, it would make it more challenging for the pseudo-skeptics to make up issues that don't exist.

Hello Bruce,

I will be honest with you. Although I hope I'm wrong, I doubt that enough information and data will be openly released on the internet to satisfy either of us. I think Daniel and Mizuno would like to share everything, but when projects go commercial with investors information sharing typically slows dramatically. I can't say I agree with this mentality, but I understand why it is implemented. What I hope everyone involved will realize is that multiple routes towards significant enhancement of CF systems are being publically discussed and the differences between the "secret sauce" of various parties is becoming small. The best path forward for any company at this point - in my non-expert, non-business person mind - is to show their absolute most convincing data while sharing enough for third parties to openly replicate. At the same time, while convincing everyone with irrefutable data and replications by third parties, get the funding to launch basic products as rapidly as possible.

Quote from Bruce__H

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.

I agree that it is an indirect measurement of power. And to extrapolate that into energy by merely adding time is a dangerous path without doing measured work with the heat.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

And to extrapolate that into energy by merely adding time is a dangerous path without doing measured work with the heat.

"Measured work with the heat" is what a Seebeck calorimeter does. It is a heat engine that converts heat to electricity. Offhand I cannot think of another common calorimeter type that does work. The others all measure temperatures in various ways, at various points.

The Brillouin demonstration with the Stirling engine performed work. That is not a common method of calorimetry. As I said before, as far as I know, they did not give any numbers or show the instruments, so I cannot judge what was going on. I have never seen calorimetry with a Stirling engine so I would have a lot to learn before reaching a conclusion. It might be a good method, for all I know.

Quote from CoherentMembrane

The best path forward for any company at this point - in my non-expert, non-business person mind - is to show their absolute most convincing data while sharing enough for third parties to openly replicate.

That sounds like a good path, as long as you have filed for a patent. You don't have to be awarded the patent; you just have to file for it. I know little about patents, but I have heard it is an advantage not to get a patent too soon, because it might expire before your gadget starts selling like hotcakes.

Quote from Bruce__H

It's been this way for 30 years. Another reason for not releasing enough data to satisfy either of us is that it doesn't really exist.

But this is where I think Daniel_G's suggested project might be interesting. From what he says it sounds as though the original Mizuno and Rothwell recipe for making LENR-active mesh is expected to work reliably if exposed to even heating. The Mizuno and Rothwell technology is no longer secret IP and neither are the conditions needed to make it work so if Mizuno and Daniel_G were to ship a number of working versions of these reactors to people for validation then I don't see how commercialization would interfere. Just the opposite. Clear validation by open labs would surely not hurt.

Hello Bruce,

I have a few thoughts to share. I'll list them one at a time.

One, although there are countless examples of parties not sharing enough information for an exact replication, I think that the overall mosaic of results that have been reproduced over the past thirty years indicates that what Mizuno and Daniel's technology fits with what has already been accomplished. There's not a single claim that Mizuno or Daniel has made that stands out as incoherent with the information we already have from other systems -- except perhaps the degree of repeatability and large power output. Yet there have been other examples of significant watts of thermal output per gram of fuel, even when less was established about the structures (NAE) that seem to create the conditions (Bose Einstein Condensates in my opinion) that allow LENR to take place. Also, the repeatability of at least the high power claim of the palladium rubbed on nickel mesh isn't established. Yet we know that palladium has been used as a spillover catalyst and a lattice material or even a fuel to undergo transmutation. So it's not a big leap to think that a standardized method of applying a layer of material - equivalent but better than palladium -- in a consistent manner could yield the current results he's claiming.

Second, I would agree that since the Mizuno/Rothwell version of the technology is already out there, it would seem that it wouldn't hurt commercialization. But I want to tell you something I'm fairly confident you already know. Once investors in general (I'm not saying this about Mizuno's investors) start recognizing the significance and money making potential of a high powered CF/LENR reactor, they start becoming fearful of alerting the world to it's reality. This is because I truly believe that these systems aren't overly complicated, especially for a medium sized business that could apply a few dozen full time scientists and engineers to the task of developing one. So they hold back from providing the most convincing evidence to try and prevent others from "stealing" their ideas and building their own copy cat versions. But in my opinion withholding their best evidence and the full know how is a mistake because it limits the number of bright minds and high skilled people that they could bring in to assist them. I whole heartedly believe that if Daniel and Mizuno have a system that can consistently produce the results that Mizuno originally claimed with palladium that they would experience a rush of help and assistance (including financial) once they made sure anyone who desired to do so could successfully replicate and achieve matching results. Perhaps this would make it a little more likely that someone may try to build a similar version using their ideas but that's going to happen anyway. Also, the field has advanced to a state of understanding that there's many paths emerging towards the same goal.

Quote from JedRothwell

"Measured work with the heat" is what a Seebeck calorimeter does. It is a heat engine that converts heat to electricity. Offhand I cannot think of another common calorimeter type that does work. The others all measure temperatures in various ways, at various points.

The mass air flow calorimeter uses the source heat to increase the temperature of a very nearly constant flow and volume of air. The watts of heat added to the air are calculated from the mass of air (calculated from the constant volume using quite standard formulas, x time) and the temperature delta of the incoming versus outgoing air. Work is done to heat the air. The mass air flow calorimeter measures that work.

Quote from JedRothwell

That sounds like a good path, as long as you have filed for a patent. You don't have to be awarded the patent; you just have to file for it. I know little about patents, but I have heard it is an advantage not to get a patent too soon, because it might expire before your gadget starts selling like hotcakes.

I think that drawback of filing for a patent too soon would have been much more of a potential issue ten or twenty years ago than today. With all the different teams yielding good results that are likely to rapidly improve, there are going to be gadgets selling before too long. My guess is that it would make more sense to hurry and file a patent application and try to be among the first wave of companies selling products than to wait because at that point there will be more competitors to deal with. And since there's probably only a very limited number of core effects producing CF/LENR reactions, their methods will be similar to yours anyway and could result in legal battles. I really like the idea of the tangible products on the market being a measure of a company's worth rather than methods, patents, and intellectual property.

Temperature measurement is important for most calorimeters, but all calorimeters must ultimately measure Heat, not just temperatures, or it fails the definition.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The mass air flow calorimeter uses the source heat to increase the temperature of a nearly constant flow and volume of air. The watts of heat added to the air are calculated from the mass of air (calculated from the constant volume using quite standard formulas, x time) . . .

Sure. That is a temperature measurement, rather than measuring by how much work the system does. Of course the air does work, but that's not work by the cell. Whereas making a Stirling engine move with heat from the cell is definitely physical work!

The distinction I make here is somewhat artificial. I guess you could say that a mercury thermometer does work when the mercury expands and rises in the tube. It seems to me that a thermistor does not do work in the same sense. It conducts more electricity from the battery as the temperature rises. The battery is doing the work, not the cell.

With a Seebeck thermoelectric gadget, the heat energy from the cell itself converts to electricity, which is measured and then turns back into waste heat.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Temperature measurement is important for most calorimeters, but all calorimeters must ultimately measure Heat, not just temperatures, or it fails the definition.

Yup. And you would be surprised to see how many people don't know the difference between temperature and heat. Even some scientists don't know.

Many people also do not know the difference between power and energy.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I agree that it is an indirect measurement of power. And to extrapolate that into energy by merely adding time is a dangerous path without doing measured work with the heat.

What in the hell does this word salad mean? The primary measurement is almost always temperature. Even seebeck calorimeters are measuring delta T indirectly. Other than this and phase change calorimeters l, temperature is the primary variable measured. Calibration gives power, integration gives energy. This is dangerous?

Ok, let’s turn the tables. If I give you a temperature dependent heat source, how would you measure its output? Please give your answer in detail. I want to learn from you the best way to measure it.

Quote from Daniel_G

What in the hell does this word salad mean? The primary measurement is almost always temperature. Even seebeck calorimeters are measuring delta T indirectly. Other than this and phase change calorimeters l, temperature is the primary variable measured. Calibration gives power, integration gives energy. This is dangerous?

Ok, let’s turn the tables. If I give you a temperature dependent heat source, how would you measure its output? Please give your answer in detail. I want to learn from you the best way to measure it.

You can install a large (large enough) cylinder over your oven, bottom open, top open, measure airflow, inlet and outlet geometry, and temperature of the inlet and outlet, and now your oven can measure heat without changing the overall design.

Raise the temperature of a constant stream of water flowing through a coil tube passing through the oven interior.
(Maybe only after reaching a good steady state step, so a gazzilon litres of water need not be heated altogether.)

Perhaps 100 L at a time.

So put the entire calorimeter inside an airflow calorimeter? Do you have any idea about the uncertainties involved? Have you ever done such experiments yourself and are speaking from experience or it’s just your idea?

Could you explain why heating water in a tube would be more reliable than our current system?