Posts by RobertBryant

Quote from THHuxleynew

To prove something extraordinary (let us call it LENR for lack of another explanation) you do not need the ability to replicate a working device. You need the ability for multiple parties to test (the same) working device.

Which is the point of the R20 paper and clarifying sequelae by Rothwell.

thanks Jed for keeping your eye on the ball..

Quote from Storms

success can be expected when using many variations of his technique as long as the critical conditions were created

Ed

the variations .. will produce anything btw failure and success.. eg hydrogen... vs deuterium,, burnishing with metastables

such as Ag107/Ag109/hafnium...varying the mesh.. wall distance

and will guide improving the reactor.

Your upcoming NAE paper may have a part in suggesting what modifications to try to to improve the reactor performance/durability

I look forward to reading it. RB

Quote from Shane D.

for that is we avoid politics, and religion.

and psychiatry..

Quote from bang99

Der Typ hat keine Manieren

Sorry to offend bang99

I now realise the mention of JC is not good manners in polite atheism

I shall refrain from further offending his sensitive sensibility

May the atomic universe bless his life

Quote from magicsound

it is 0.21 W/m-K at 20°C

Thanks for pointing this out.. Magic Sound

I think the properties of deuterium

at low pressures

may become an engineering focus if R20 style reactor become popular.

Deuterium appears to have the highest thermal conductivity of any gas

Maybe H atoms/He-3 gas have higher?

Is there some magnetic interaction??

I might look into kinetic theory to see if 0.21 is explainable relative to H2 and He.

Those 3 mg of deuterium seems to be working hard

if they can conduct of the order of 90 watts.

Quote from Bob#2

Truthfully, I read this forum now more interested in the psychology of the posters

God Bless You ..both or one ..personae.. B2, and your beloved T2

This is a technical forum, no religious topics and associated personal attacks allowed!

Quote from magicsound

It may be that both convection and conduction

Hi Magic sound.

The convection contribution is probably minor from my brief consideration of Rayleigh number based on recent arxiv paper by Yang et al

https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw2ktL0NGlyP1HVTluOyafNs

Unfortunately the calculation of Rayleigh's number requires yet more deuterium known values

kinematic viscosity and thermal diffusivity.

I think the thermal expansion coefficient can be modelled as 1/T(K)

I get a Rayleigh number of well below 100.. which means that conduction dominates over convection

Conduction based on a simple annular model can be a major contributor to heat flow.

I get something like Power = 0.36 x (delta T) in watts assuming a rod radius of 2.7 mm and an inner reactor radius of 5.4 cm.

Assuming the rod is 550 and reactor is 300C.. delta T= 250--> power = 90 watts.

This compares with radiative transfer from a o.o1 m2 rod of 139W at emissivity 0.7

and only 40 W at emissivity 0.2..

The radiation contribution depends strongly on the emissivity of the rod.

Does the deuterium atmosphere disturb the stainless steel surface greatly?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Certainly the input power is not likely to have been directly measured

Please say why this is certainly.. Is it 100% certainly or THH weaselword certainly?

And what does likely mean

Is it 60 % unlikely or 40% likely

another assumption and another weasel modal term

without any justification from debug THHnew???

The debug quote is entirely relevant to this thread

The 2017 thread shows obvious evidence of THHnews debug stance.

In the end he gave up

after trying many other ploys including asserting that 3 mg of deuterium of Combustion energy generated significant error in the results.

and yet THHnew raised this same dead duck ""combüstion" canard ön this thread.

So Mizuno has made a processing error but THHnew can't pinpoint

Its somewhere somewhere somewhere and all because Mizuno changed the position of the

heater in R20 without changing the calorimetry method.

This is farfetched waving hands in the air from THHnew in a last ditch attempt to discredit the huge excess heat in R20

Quote from THHuxleynew

or else reading RB, who has idee fixe

Quote from THHuxleynew

e.g. miscalculating input power for the different heater by reusing an old V - P equation.

Please elaborate .on the details of using a n old V-P equation

Is this yet another one of those flimsy ill thought out idees of THHnew which he hasn't bothered to follow through?

As I have said before the R19 and R20 calorimeter setup is the same

and the processing is minimal of the data

"Output power measured= m X Cp x delta T etc is the same

Why would Mizuno change .?

THHnew has failed to identify where a processing error happens. although he has handwaved"processing processing...

It is THHnew with the idee fixe... the DEBUG mentality ..or there MUST be a MIZUNO MISTAKE .... this is on file since 2017.

"THHuxleynew Member Likes Received3,590 #167

Aug 31st 2017

It is academic, because the IH replication failed. Still, I'd like to debug this. But not sure I have the motivation to spend long amts of time on it given the IH work.

Well THHNew ,, I do have an idee fixe.. please supply EVIDENCE rather than rhetoric and ad hominem

If THHnew postulates a mistake.. then THHnew needs to show EVIDENCE and in an intelligible fashion

not handwaving rhetoric vague thinking ... wrong formulas poolrycontextualised equations... etc

Quote from THHuxleynew

Mistakes, and bad ones, are often made, especially when somone desperately hopes for one outcome.

and especially when one does not check one's results with a textbook ... like here..THHnew . using the wrong formula for post after post on this thread

THHuxleynew wrote:

That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\

less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps.

Quote from THHuxleynew

RB: no bound

Mizuno: no bound

THH: some aspects bounded

I just need your assumed data

minus the assertions THHnew

Then a numerical comparison of error =THHassumed expected minus THHassumed Mizuno can be made.

The reason for this is that THHnew made many assertions about the foil relection until he did one clear calculation

which showed that he was using the wrong formula for many posts

Numbers minus THHnew words are the clearest indicator for me.

Of course Thhnew may be correct..about the anemometry..

but I just need to check...

Quote from THHuxleynew

sometimes reiterates past matters and mixes them up with current

This is still current..

Are these the formulae you used to calculate 80C for the aluminium foil temperature on the inside of the box?

Or did you use another formula?

which one?

Quote from THHuxleynew

I recommend readers of this thread to follow the entire argument

Please fill in the data that you have assumed THHnew

Then we can plot the results and show them clearly

Its so hard to sort out assumption and assertion from the way THHnew writes words

Perhaps this represents too much of an inconvenient wordless truth

Basically THHnew indications and assertions are based on many assumptions.

The most basic assumption was well detailed in 2017..

There MUST been an error somewhere,

The major error's that I have seen are in THHnew's calculations.

'

as in

THHuxleynew wrote:

That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\

less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps.

Of course THHnew alleges that he forgot the correct formula..

In view of this forgetfulness I will forget his assertions and assumptions

although this critical stance might be useful

in practice it is not

because the THHNew critique is so garbled and unclear

Quote from THHuxleynew

and now are asking different questions, about the R20

I have asked those way back

you never answered

The topic is "Mizuno reports increased excess heat"

Let me remind you of that

Errors in the input?

Quote from THHuxleynew

but in the input power calculation

The processing changed where?

Calculation Input = mx Cp x delta T.

where cp? m? deltaT??

Please be specific "The most likely error..

Justify likely... is this just posturing... 90% likely 99% likely?

just one of those THHnew vague mathematical terms??

Quote from THHuxleynew

Mizuno in the paper calls this a sample, indicating that it is an initial indication rather than a considered set of experiments written up fully

Another one of THHnew's many assumptions.

why would Mizuno change his processing of data with the same calorimeter setup?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Of course. In fact with claimed R20 levels of power you don't need a box.

The R20 results in the paper comprise one sample datapoint, and anecdotal accounts. Ignoring the anecdotal evidence, the one datapoint needs to be validated,

now THHnew said that the R20 results were based on one single point

This is patently untrue.

The spreadsheets for these results contain hundreds of data points.

THHnew alleges a processing error

but cannot identify where it might be.

Is it in the anemometer the thermistor or in the calculation..

why would Mizuno suddenly change his processing for R20

Its the same calorimeter setup.

clacualtion Output = mx Cp x delta T

where is the error

Pin point it please

No vague handwaving.. some other error...etc

Quote from THHuxleynew

The R20 discussion is clearly off topic for the last few pages

Who are you to establish whats off topic and on topic.

when its convenient for you.

Where is Mizuno's processing error in R20?

That explains the huge COP?

Is that an inconvenient question?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Engineers are very familiar with the importance of error bounds, as are scientists. Everyone sometimes ignores them, but you do so at your peril

Could THHnew following his exhaustive analysis of this matter and his assertions of 24% -64% error in the anemometer readings

show exactly what his assertions are based on by filling in the following datasheet.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The above is certainly a useful calculation for the R20 cal versus active results. As you know, because I've repeated it many times, the work on airflow is specifically relevant to the R19 data, so you are off topic.

No I am not off topic.

Where are the sudden changes in Mizuno processing that explain the R20 COP?

you state there are errors in processing of the hundreds of data in the R20 spreadsheet.

Output = m x Cp x 12



Input= m x Cp x 3

In m ... cp or delta T??

This is just handwaving by THHnew ... processing processing processing.

" Or some otehr such error" " Or some otehr such error Or some otehr such error

In addition the R20 results are 300%

THHnew has failed to establish any error of 300% except by handwaving,,,, wrong processing

but cannot identifiy where.... just processing processing processing assumption assumption assumption

Quote from THHuxleynew

Well we have a +- 8% error just from the M-20 anenometer datasheets I posted

You may have

but no one else gets what you have .

Quote from THHuxleynew

In the case of Mizuno's observations it is pretty clear that the absolute calculations are not accurate to anything like the 10% level needed to make 5W significant with 50W in.

No its not..

not clear at all.

you have not substantiated that THHnew.... assumptions on assumptions

In addition we are talking about 300%

THHnew has failed to establish any error of 300% except by handwaving,,,, wrong processing

but cannot identifiy where.... just processing processing processing assumption assumption assumption

Quote from THHuxleynew

Re #1,317. See #1,316 for answers

There are no answers to these questions

So what formula have you used?

What velocity profile have you used.

at r=0 cm r= 1cm, 2cm 3 cm?

What is the accuracy of this profile 5%,10% 15% ...do you know?

Wrong assumption. "which assumes that velocity is flat across the pipe,"

Where does it state this in the paper??

Normally when one takes a velocity traverse the different circles/annuli relevant to the of the measured are taken into account.

You are assuming horseshit.

Do you assume Mizuno knows less fluid mechanics than you know?\