Posts by Paradigmnoia

    Using solely a 5 cm air inlet hole for the calorimeter makes the blower fan protest very noticeably. Major drop in RPM and significantly more motor noise. I doubt Mizuno used only the 5 cm air inlet for very long. The larger inlet is required to keep the calorimeter from developing a vacuum inside (and possibly burning out the fan motor) as well as helping with plumbing clearances.

    Regarding the above plots of averages, note that the velocity is almost unchanged from 4.8 W to 6.0 W. The RPM, however, increases at about the usual rate relative to W. I suspect that the start of this flat spot is the peak mechanical efficiency of the fan.


    The fan will blow harder if I increase the voltage further, but the air restriction of the fan housing itself will increase the cost of average velocity in terms of power. (There might still be a higher voltage/RPM sweet spot for the motor/fan).

    I did the 1 W to 2.3 W fan input steps last night, attempting to replicate the Figure 9 (JCMNS 2019 Mizuno report) plot. It is interesting, but not difficult, matching the power for each step, because the blower fan does not have a constant resistance across the voltage range (because it is a motor).

    Those who have looked for transmutation even in electrolysis experiments have found it.

    Many of those who look for transmutation find it almost everywhere, from chicken eggs to lightbulbs and even dental implants. It is amazing that chemistry has managed to hold together as a science at all.

    For example, we have closed plastic bottle of coke saturated with carbon dioxide under equilibrium pressure. We drop the bottle on the floor and in this moment the pressure rises (the bottle gets visibly hard and some gas evolves in form of thick foam). Why? How can pressure of gas in oversaturated solution raise above equilibrium pressure?


    Because much of the carbon dioxide in a factory sealed pop bottle is stored as liquid carbonic acid due to the relatively high pressure in the bottle as prepared by the pop factory. A good shake or impact imparts enough energy to release carbon dioxide from the carbonic acid, increasing the CO2 pressure. If left alone, the new excess pressure of carbon dioxide will return the carbon dioxide to carbonic acid, and the pressure will reduce again. This is also why all of the CO2 does not try to escape at once (leaving one with a flat drink) the moment the pop is opened.

    That's an interesting question - how about a free neutron traveling through outer space having been released from a fusion reaction in a supernova at just below light speed c . This neutron travels from the supernova to our solar system and has a lifetime of 10 min before beta decaying to a stable proton, an electron and an electron antineutrino. If the antineutrino is released at close to the speed of light, what is the speed of the antineutrino relative to Earth?

    First, the lifetime of the neutron traveling at nearly the speed of light will be extended significantly beyond 10 minutes because the time it experiences will slow down.

    Second, if the supernova can expel neutrons into our solar system that get here in ten minutes, that almost certainly means it is OUR sun that went supernova. So forget the antineutrino and say a prayer or something.

    Third, I assume you mean the antineutrino goes in the same direction as the neutron was. (It could go the opposite way, and be almost stationary relative to the Earth)

    I see. I thought you meant the measurements. How close to the edge was 2.15 m/s?


    It sounds like it is not as uniform as Mizuno's. I don't know why, but I wouldn't worry about if I were you.


    Mizuno's 3.6 W reading is not very uniform, as you see.


    If the 2.15 point was more unstable, I might have chalked it up as an outlier. However it was pretty stable. Not sure what that is about.


    Overall, I am fairly happy with these results. They seem to be in line with what Mizuno reports, so at least now I am now on the right page.

    Ah. That seems reasonably close to Mizuno's results in Fig. 3, for the 8th and 9th steps (~3.4 to ~3.6 W). The uncertainty in the 3.6 W step looks a little bigger than that. Just eyeballing it:


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


    (The numbers in this graph are a little confusing because power happens to be about the same as the velocity, both ~3.5.)

    I should clarify that is the instrument uncertainty.

    The range is from 2.15 (at the edge, the only one point that is less than 2.89 m/s) to a maximum of 4.49 m/s. The majority of anemometer measurement points fall between 3.5 and 4.2 m/s. The program was supposed to export a csv file of all the measurements, and claimed that it did, but I have no idea where the file actually went...


    Here is a photo of my notes. (The fan blades are approaching the viewer at the bottom of the circle)

    .

    OK, after some fiddling I now have 9.75 V total, 1.38 V across a 3 ohm 5 watt resistor in series with the fan, and 8.37 V across the San Ace fan. Close enough for now. Time for some anemometer traverses...and let it run a bit to see if the values stay stable.


    Edit:

    After several hours of continuous operation the total voltage settled at 9.80 V, 1.35 V across the 3 ohm current sense resistor, 8.45 V across the fan ..... and a kinda-sorta flat velocity profile with a 48 sample average of anemometer points of 3.69 m/s. Fan speed of 2847 RPM.

    So the San Ace fan is operated at 8.8 V, which means I can insert another IN5404 in series with my 9.4 V that I currently have to get it, or alternatively use a 3 ohm 10W resistor in series with 10 V supplied to the fan (which is a better match to the Mizuno set up).