Posts by Alberto

    Once again, I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results that I believe is skeptic-proof. In this setup we would have two identical reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heaters of these reactors would have the same characteristics and would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of reactors' heaters would be monitored during the experiments to show that the reactors would receive the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same now, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). If we have a large COP, as Misuno has had, this replication would save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter.

    Alberto, Why do you think active surface temperature (in active tests) is not significantly higher than cal surface temperature (in cal tests)? I'd expect this.


    However, as you point out, if the cal and active reactors have different surface area they cannot easily be compared. There is some evidence from photos this is the case...


    THHuxleynew, with a COP of 5 or more, I would expect that, if the active and calibration reactors are made of the same material and have the same dimensions, the active reactor (when active) would have a significantly higher surface temperature than that of the calibration reactor. If they have similar temperatures, we have COP ~= 1...


    Any news about that? I know you said two weeks, but this seems to me like a show stopper. If the active reactor surface temperature is not significantly larger than the calibration, I believe there is a strong chance of no excess heat...

    Ad nauseum calorimetry discussions have started in the other thread... Please, someone do a dummy (without the nickel mesh) versus active reactor replication with both reactors operating simultaneously with sheath heaters in series and with a tube connecting them together (same interior gas and pressure)!!! With the expected COP, difference of temperature between reactors will confirm excess heat (or not...).

    Ad nauseum calorimetry discussions have started... Please, someone do a dummy (without the nickel mesh) versus active reactor replication with both reactors operating simultaneously with sheath heaters in series and with a tube connecting them together (same interior gas and pressure)!!! With the expected COP, difference of temperature between reactors will confirm excess heat (or not...).

    dartin, I have made this suggestion a couple of times about how to check if the Mizuno Cell is producing excess heat. It is similar to what you intend to do, and I hope you find it useful. This is my suggestion:


    "I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside it and the dummy does not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter."


    We only need a "dummy" i.e. control gas in the reactor. Because of the design of the experiment, the heat has to come out somewhere from the core heater or the reaction itself. If the reactor is first loaded with say helium or nitrogen and then run, and the temperature at the reactor cylinder thermocouple(s) and the Delta-T between the input and the output airflow is measured and recorded; and then the reactor is loaded with the D2 gas to near optimal parameters and the core heater is turned on to the same power setting; if the temperature is significantly higher for both the output airflow and the cylinder thermocouples, that is proof positive for excess heat from the rig. Simple -- no extra swapping of components, just hook up the inert gas cylinder first, run the control run; and then pump it out, load it with the D2 gas for the active run, and take the data. This would end any doubt that LENR works.


    (The above assumes as per Jed's discussion that the D2 valve is turned off when running the active experiment, and that the control gas valve is turned off when running the control experiment, and that there is no leakage of D2 gas from the pressure side of the valve during the active test that could by some weird coincidence oxidize the D2. I think that those items are easy to rule out for Mizuno or any replicator using for example pressure gage in the reactor and the pressure gage on the D2 or control gas rig. Simple alternative arrangements (i.e. two valves, one on the tank side and one on the rig side, with a pressure gage in between) can rule out any significant D2 being introduced.


    In short, with those assumptions, it seems to this anonymous observer that we have proof positive coming after a successful replication. Congratulations to the experimenters and the entire community conditional on the successful replication. It's almost too good to believe is true. Cheers!


    Simultaneity is very important in my point of view. To turn-off and then turn-on the reactor takes time and this may add variables and, with those, doubts. If the current throughout the heaters is the same (as when they are in series) and the gas and its pressure is the same in both (same plumbing) at the same time in the active and dummy reactors, only the active elements in the active reactor would explain significant difference in temperature.

    I would suggest changing the x axis of figures 5, 6 and 7 from hours to minutes.



    Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

    I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter.

    I believe NASA and others overestimate the hurdles of living in space or, for instance, Mars. Elon Musk's Tesla went to space and was filmed there for several days and, after that, looked pretty OK. If one would consider what NASA and others say, they would think that the Tesla would be completely destroyed by the heat when exposed to the Sun or by the cold when in darkness. And I even not mentioned the vacuum of space.

    I believe humans would do just fine in Mars with current technology and resources.

    Another experiment from MFMP that failed to show excess heat, radiation or LENR… But, again, they have shown improvements in their equipment, techniques and knowledge. Using those they properly examined if we can see LENR in the LION setup. Unfortunately, so far we cannot.


    Congratulations to MFPM, their colleagues and supporters for your efforts. Keep up with the good work.


    Alberto.

    I spent 6 hours face to face discussing protocols with LION recently. I am happy we know enough to be confident about performing a replication using the same or very similar procedures. Data gathering techniques however are my own, and if successful will be rigorous, and there will be many more replications before the summer is done. There is no way this one is getting away.


    That is good news! Thanks for all your efforts!

    The audio power amplifier was a great idea! They are not that expensive and you can control the output using the volume. With them, it is not difficult to measure and to automatically control the power applied to the reactor - the electronics needed are not hard to build using cheap off-the-shelf components.