Well that’s embarrassing. It was 5am here when I have that talk!
Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec
-
-
Well that’s embarrassing. It was 5am here when I have that talk!
Ha you should see me at 5am. Splendid talk, liked it a lot thank you.
-
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?
Heating a specific amount of water is a trustworthy method of measuring heat. Putting the system under a significant (in terms of total expected power) measurable load takes away a lot of funny stuff. The current system doesn’t need a major change, it just needs a reasonable cross-check for the estimated power by temperature. Something that can fairly independently verify the heat claims. This makes the overall claims much stronger and more easily defendable.
-
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?
That reminds me:
For a simple black box measurement - heating water in a tank
Have a very well-insulated tank of appropriate size. Immerse reactor in the tank. Measure the tank temperature increase (and stir it, adding in the power of the stirrer which can be small).
This can give pretty decent (if heat capacity of reactor is a lot smaller than the tank water, as can be made happen) 1st principle estimate of power out over a long time - you need this to avoid chemical effect artifacts.
It will not be very sensitive - but I'd expect 5% 1st principle power accuracy from calculated spec heat of water + tank material. You then under-measure, due to additional spec heat cap of the reactor. You could calibrate with an immersion heater in the tank. The merit of this method is that it measures total energy out over long periods well.
You need a reactor which can run on its own or with wires coming in - those wires break your thermal insulation but that break can be very small and also calibrated out if the wires coil in the tank for a long length before going through the barrier. Then you know their temp is the same as the water. It helps if the wires have insulation which is not a good thermal insulator - but since you can have a long coil I think pretty well anything would work.
if COP is low you need to be careful how you measure the input power (remember all Rossi's mismeasurements) but that is not a problem for those who are competent and not friends of Rossi.
-
Have a very well-insulated tank of appropriate size. Immerse reactor in the tank. Measure the tank temperature increase (and stir it, adding in the power of the stirrer which can be small).
If the reactor works best at around 300C, you are going to need a very strong water tank - frim memory the pressure of steam at that temperature is around 55-60 Bar.
-
Daniel,
Here is a thought about a test that could be performed.
If you can induce one of your new reactors into a highly excited state in which it's self sustaining without external input, transfer it into a water proof (so H20 doesn't go into the reactor and damage anything) thermally conductive container, place the container into a specific volume of well stirred water starting at a constant room temperature (with thermocouples inside), and measure the temperature rise of the water over time. If you calculate and subtract the relatively small amount of trapped heat in the metal of the reactor at the start of experiment, you would be able to clearly show indisputable thermal power production with ZERO input.
-
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?
Paradigmnoia has extensive experience building and testing flow air-calorimeters. Look back on the original Mizuno reports increased heat and Mizuno replications threads to see his work from 2019 to 2021. When he says something it is usually from a pretty solid grasp of the technicalities involved. He is worth listening to.
-
More to the point, I work in a high risk, high reward industry and have learned to back stop enthusiasm with a solid footing, before going in too deep. Lots of things look and feel right but aren't when tested out. Test them out. It's way cheaper than backtracking, and ultimately gets you further ahead than just barging ahead on gumption and an idea.
-
We feel the next step is to produce steam. Once our control system is working well, producing steam is best and easiest first principles method of measuring heat output. We are aiming for 500-800C so anything involving water is a nonstarter as Alan mentioned.
-
Instead of measuring the temperature of the steam directly and therefore having to debate skeptics about the dryness of your steam (if your steam is bone dry or wet as can be you'll still end up having to argue the issue over and over again because people will create problems that don't exist), I would suggest producing the steam and transferring the thermal power produced by a heat exchanger to a secondary flow of liquid which will increase in temperature.
I beg, urge, and plead with you NOT to perform a validation experiment that will get you and the entire community bogged down in debate over steam quality. Please bypass this issue somehow. This technology is too important for it to get NEEDLESSLY slowed down.
-
CMNS ENERGY TECH
ELECTRIC SPACE PROPULSION
OK
If the tech from GEC and NASA SPAWAR JWK proves adequate we will mine Gold from Asteroids.
Consider Gold
16 Psyche
NASA is on a mission to explore a Greek-named asteroid called 16 Psyche that contains a double-edged sword. Made completely of metal, it boasts enough gold to either make every person on Earth a billionaire—or to collapse the gold market and destabilize the entire global financial world.May 10, 2022
https://greekreporter.com › asteroid-...
Asteroid Psyche Has Enough Gold to Make Us All Billionaires - GreekReporter.com
-
Skeptics?
Of no significant importance.
Condensed Matter Physics
Metamaterial Research
Nano Architecture
Solid State Physics
-
Instead of measuring the temperature of the steam directly and therefore having to debate skeptics about the dryness of your steam (if your steam is bone dry or wet as can be you'll still end up having to argue the issue over and over again because people will create problems that don't exist), I would suggest producing the steam and transferring the thermal power produced by a heat exchanger to a secondary flow of liquid which will increase in temperature.
I beg, urge, and plead with you NOT to perform a validation experiment that will get you and the entire community bogged down in debate over steam quality. Please bypass this issue somehow. This technology is too important for it to get NEEDLESSLY slowed down.
We can just produce atmospheric steam so it’s a simple phase change calculation. Also steam quality meters also are available if we decide to go that way.
-
If the reactor works best at around 300C, you are going to need a very strong water tank - frim memory the pressure of steam at that temperature is around 55-60 Bar.
It is not a problem Alan.
You in that case enclose the reactor in insulation (if its temperature needs regulation, you could use active or passive temperature regulation insulation). The surface of the insulation can then be < 100C.
In fact I've never understood why these temperature-dependent reaction claims are not oven tested - except that when you do so you prevent most of the calorimetry artifacts that otherwise can lead to false positive results. (I remember Brian Aherne was fond of the idea that you scale results by having reactors with high insulation which therefore require lower power in to get to the same temperature).
-
We feel the next step is to produce steam. Once our control system is working well, producing steam is best and easiest first principles method of measuring heat output. We are aiming for 500-800C so anything involving water is a nonstarter as Alan mentioned.
The nice thing about this is that you can basically clamp the temperature to various values and measure the rate of XS heat production at each value. This would be either difficult or impossible at many temperatures otherwise.
-
You in that case enclose the reactor in insulation (if its temperature needs regulation, you could use active or passive temperature regulation insulation). The surface of the insulation can then be < 100C.
You just designed a calorimeter with a thermal lag constant stretching into days.
-
You just designed a calorimeter with a thermal lag constant stretching into days.
For this specific requirement (measuring total energy out over long runs) that is fine. If someone gives you a black box reactor it can have such a "hot core" anyway, you don't know what is inside. one of Rossi's early demos, which exhibited apparently miraculous heat after death, had that. It fooled a lot of people.
THH
-
For this specific requirement (measuring total energy out over long runs) that is fine.
I advise avoiding calorimetry (and electrolysis) until you understand a little more about how it actually works in practice.
-
Have a very well-insulated tank of appropriate size. Immerse reactor in the tank. Measure the tank temperature increase (and stir it, adding in the power of the stirrer which can be small).
This can give pretty decent (if heat capacity of reactor is a lot smaller than the tank water, as can be made happen) 1st principle estimate of power out over a long time - you need this to avoid chemical effect artifacts.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:
You just designed a calorimeter with a thermal lag constant stretching into days.
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. 260For this specific requirement (measuring total energy out over long runs) that is fine.
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.
