What about a Mizuno/Rothwell demonstration? It would make things easier...
Alberto
Member
- Member since Jul 19th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Alberto
-
-
What about a Mizuno/Rothwell demonstration? It would make things easier...
-
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.
-
My initial report on the Ni mesh preparation:
This is a "Live Document" and will be updated periodically as the work continues.
AlanG
"This suggests that the formation of CaCO3 crystals is a functional part of the treatment." Jesus Christ! This is most unexpected!!!
-
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...
-
Some time ago here, I reported that the reactor surface temperature is much lower during calibrations than excess heat runs. That was a mistake. There are two columns in the spreadsheet:
G Control reactor surface temperature
K Reactor surface temperature [Ni-mesh reactor]
I got them mixed up. Both temperatures rise during calibrations and excess heat tests. Column G goes much higher during calibrations, K goes higher in excess heat tests. During excess heat tests, the Control reactor surface temperature is close to the outlet air temperature.
I will investigate this and report on it in more detail, probably in two weeks.
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."
The trick is to find out what parts of the surface are activated. Perhaps an IR camera could do this.
Should I include a window in my unit so that we can see where it is glowing?
As mentioned in Mizuno's earlier device "Kovar glass window on the left-hand side of the reactor, and a
pressure gauge; and a mass spectrometer valve and the gas inlet valve is on the right-hand side"
Should I also include the mass spec valve?
Which pressure gauge should I use? https://cascadesciences.com/sh…acuum-gauge-kf-16-flange/
I am not as cost sensitive as others and I want the best quality that will accomplish the task.
My budget is $50,000 for the replication. I intend to make two units and use D2 in one and H2 in the other as a control. I have no plans to do calorimetry until I see a difference in the heat output of the two units.
Any comments on this approach?
Which vacuum pump is recommended?
How about a mass spectrometer? Any recommendations? https://www.coleparmer.com/i/e…filament-tcd-115v/3400911
-
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.
I would like to put this in a new thread, but I can never remember how to start a new conversation. Anyway:
I made some revisions to the Mizuno paper:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf
Biggest changes:
p. 1.
Note: Readers have made valuable suggestions, so we have made some changes and corrections, mainly on p. 12. We appreciate the suggestions. This is the June 24, 2019 version.p. 12.
Three meshes are prepared for one test. . . .
Rubbing is done with a palladium rod, 100 mm long, diameter 5.0 mm, 99.95% purity. Before rubbing the mesh, weigh it with a precision scale. Then vigorously rub the entire surface, left and right and up and down. Turn the mesh over and rub the other side. Weigh the mesh again. Continue until the weight increases by 15 to 20 mg. The weight of the stack of three meshes should increase by about 50 mg. -
Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:
I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow calorimetry because it is not affected by such temperature variations. You do have to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.
Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It complicates matters.
If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing heat. An IR camera might reveal that.
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!
-
How did the experiments with the last reactor go (that with all the relevant elements except the diamond pads)? Everything as expected? Any images?
-
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.