Posts by Paradigmnoia

    It is not flimsy. It is stiff, and well formed. Lots of things in Japan are made of paper. Heck, in old houses the walls are made of paper, which is why your toothpaste is frozen the morning. * Nothing is left to chance. It has been carefully tested in traverse tests, which have been repeated many times, and we know it is right because the calibrations produce a balance of zero, after accounting for losses which are linear and unchanging.

    * Okay, they also have sliding screen doors, and sliding wooden slats, deployed for snow and typhoons. In an old house, there are large gaps between the slats. Basically, living in an old Japanese house is like camping. It is picturesque but you wouldn't want to live that way, and there aren't many old houses left.

    Lots of things are already made round, smooth and with regular dimensions.

    PVC, mailing tubes, cans of biscottis, etc.

    So why use rolled up heavy paper? (Granted that paper is a poor conductor of heat.)

    Was there a target of about 4 m/s average velocity for the outlet air for some reason (so the outlet orifice was made to specification?)

    The tube supposedly contributes to mixing.

    If it is not mixed, add a Venturi or an in-line mixer, or increase the air speed. You need to verify it is well-mixed and the air speed is uniform, with a traverse test. Or, alternatively, you can use an anemometer with a propellor large enough to cover the entire outlet. With that, it will not matter whether the air is mixed or not, since all of the air will pass through the propellor.

    I highly doubt the tube does much for the mixing. It makes for a simpler measurement of velocity by making a circle, which is easier to traverse than a rectangle. Certainly the air is quite turbulent at 2 diameters distance from the fan, which will make for a fairly flat velocity profile but also introduces a lot of uncertainty in the velocity measurements. Log-T traverse spacing does not seem to have been used, so that adds some more uncertainty. Maybe a roughly 4 m/s flow rate won’t have much effect on the temperatures measured in the tube compared to a stagnant air temperature, but I haven’t evaluated that yet. Traverses at the point where the tube effectively opens up to infinity is also suspect in my opinion (due to vena contracta).

    It just seems weird that so much attention to details was paid to reactor construction, etc., then the output result left to chance to a large degree by using a flimsy paper tube as the “calibrated” orifice from which all output measurements were taken.

    Just use a heavy sheet of paper. Or plastic. It does not matter what you use, as long as you get a circular orifice and a well-mixed stream of air.

    I have rolled up a sheet of heavy paper. Getting it round and to stay round is a challenge. Since a 1 mm measurement difference in diameter results in about a 1 W difference at 50 W (2%) at a nominal 65 mm diameter, I would say that getting the paper tube round is pretty critical for velocity and volume calculations.

    Edit: If the fan doesn’t mix the air enough, then nothing will.

    Perhaps a candidate for 3D printing.

    Most paper is flimsy, and sealing/smoothing the inside seems awkward, so wondering how it was done. I mean, I am actually trying to replicate as best as possible.

    I don’t intend to 3D print a rolled up sheet of paper.

    However maybe I should get a long thin balloon and some paper mache...

    I may have to borrow someone else’s hands to tape up the inside seam of a 65 mm cylinder of paper.

    When building a flow calorimeter I machined 1/2" plexiglass to accept the square hole pattern of the fan on one side and a 2" PVC pipe on the other side. Plexiglass can be bonded to PVC with the plumber's cement sold at hardware stores.


    I tested heating and shaping one end of a 75 mm white PVC pipe today.

    It gets burn marks very easily, is quite malleable when hot, and holds heat surprisingly well (stays hot a long time).

    65 mm pipe in ABS or PVC seems to be unusual around here.

    The two ends have to be different sizes, and different shapes (rectangular to circular). That's the whole point of having the tube.

    I understand that. There has to be some sort of transition.

    Most paper is flimsy, and sealing/smoothing the inside seems awkward, so wondering how it was done. I mean, I am actually trying to replicate as best as possible.

    Desireless, can, Paradigmnoia, Alan Smith, Alan Goldwater .... and, it seems, many others. All Mizuno replicators.

    Is anyone keeping a list of M-replicators?

    Will LF have a thread that is only for these M-replicators to report results?

    I am only going to be replicating the calorimeter.

    It may take a while to get it running since I will be far from home for most of the summer. I expect the acrylic box to be completed on Thursday, I have both types of fans used (Servo and San Ace) on the way, and found a pretty clean 12V regulated power supply to run them. An anemometer is also on the way, but not quite as nice a one as the CW-60.

    Currently I am rounding up a selection of outlet tubes for outlet air calibration.

    (See: Mizuno reports increased excess heat )

    That is insulation. The tube under that is made of paper. Plastic can also be used. Additional text from my notes and an upcoming paper:

    "The blower exit is rectangular, 58 × 38 mm. The wind velocity in a square outlet is uneven. It is better to measure it some distance from the fan, so a 200-mm long cover pipe cylinder made of paper (Fig. 1-4) was attached in front of the blower outlet. One end is rectangular to fit the blower, and the other end is circular, 66 mm in diameter. This cylinder can be made of paper or plastic. 2-mm-thick urethane insulation is wrapped around the outside of the cylinder."

    (The photo above is Fig. 1-4.)

    Is it a sheet of thick paper rolled and seams taped up, or a something more like a cardboard mailing tube?

    Just wondering how it is kept consistent in cross section (after mating to the fan).

    Thanks, but that photo looks like it shows wrapping foam wrapped around a clear tube of some sort.

    wrapping foam


    We see this same lack of insightful understanding when attempts were made to replicate the Rossi claim. At no time did Rossi actually use the claimed heating of Ni+LiAl4, yet people spent a lot of wasted time exploring this method without paying any attention to the behavior that would be expected and to the method Rossi actually used As result, Rossi is considered a fraud while the real evidence is ignored.

    I replicated the Lugano Effect using no “fuel” at all. Solid ceramic. “COP” of 7.2 using Lugano methodology.

    So did the MFMP. “COP” of approximately 4, not publicly claimed, but easily calculated from their data. That one had no “fuel” either.

    Although we do not wish to aggravate gentlemen such as yourself here, I don’t think that you should be immune to the truth. Rossi is a distraction from the facts. Poison to the facts, really.

    where is +/- 8%. specified?

    is the accountant fudging the figures? or is there other data?

    Re: 5%

    If I haven mucked up the math, that works out to be about +/- 1 W inside a 65 mm diameter tube at 20 C at a reading of 4 m/s. A positive 2.5 mm diameter measurement (67.5 mm) error makes about 1 W error also at 20 C and 4 m/s air velocity.

    (There is a good chance that I did muck something up since it is late, I’m tired, and I didn’t make a very thorough job of it by using a manual calculator and several unit conversions to get the answer. But I think that it is close...)

    I had an interesting idea regarding testing the quality of the output air flow rate measurements while sitting in a plane today.

    • Change outlet pipe diameter for calibration W steps already done with original pipe diameter. (Air velocity will reduce with larger diameter pipe). Do anemometer traverses. Recalculate air volume per unit time and compare to original the diameter and respective air velocity results. Test at least two additional sizes of pipe (don’t make restrictive, so probably bigger diameters are better). The total calculated air volume at standard conditions should be the same for each different diameter test. If they are grossly different, then something is being measured a bit off.

    That is not just based on present calculations. That was measured repeatedly in calibrations with different sized reactors, as shown in Fig. 3.

    I don’t disbelieve you. However, for example, maybe there is an undetected error that “loses” 10 W, and some other error that adds 10W so everything appears to square up at 95%. How do you know the difference?

    Do you have a data example, and the exact calculations used available for a couple of the 50W calibrations? (I’m fine with some sort of reasonable average of measurements from a larger data set)

    At 50 W, recovery is 95% with this calorimeter. See Fig. 3.

    99% recovery would indicates some excess heat. But how about then the air temperature alone indicates 150 W excess, as shown in Fig. 6? That is even more compelling. That is before adjusting for the losses from the calorimeter box walls. THH and his handwaving cannot explain that (or any other major cold fusion result for that matter). I know that THH will say that is a one-off result because it is the only R20 results in this paper. He ignores that fact that there 111 days of R19 data in Table 1 with results almost as dramatic as this, in many cases with far more heat recovered in the air temperature alone than input power, and no need to adjust for losses from the walls. The most recent result in my computer with more heat captured in the air temperature than input power was from July 19, 2019, a few weeks ago.

    There is no point to fretting about the recovery rate when there is more heat captured in the air temperature than in input power. If you want to pretend the calorimeter is magic and it does not lose any heat from the walls, go ahead. Ignore Fig. 3. There is still massive excess heat!

    Based on the present calculations, at 50 W recovery is 95%, with that calorimeter.

    Based on empirical testing by the manufacturer of the fan used for the older tests, that fan reportedly pushed more SCFM than the fan is capable of by about 25%.