Daniel_G ,
Thanks for the additional information. We look forward to an update when it is available.
Best wishes and my heartfelt sympathy for the Mizuno family.
Paradigmnoia
Member
- Member since Oct 23rd 2015
Posts by Paradigmnoia
-
-
Maybe my brain is numb from not being able to sleep in my new hotel room, but I can’t make that equation work
-
Luckily I labeled and retained all lamps tested to date so covering them in aluminium foil and re-testing should be no big deal. Except maybe the 150 W and 200 W lamps. I will take it easy with them, since the heat maybe too much for the lamps if covered. I am also gathering “crown silvered” lamps that have already incorporated an aluminium reflector (I will confirm aluminium rather than real silver or chrome coatings, but aluminium is most commonly used anyways).
Any bets on whether the aluminium foil over the lamp actually makes a difference?
Unfortunately, I am out in the field once again, so you folks have a month for conjecture before I can do another calorimeter run. -
Interesting discussion but I think most are missing the forest for the trees. First of all the COP is 2.4, well beyond any kind of purported error. Secondly this high COP was achieved at a very low temperature relative to previous data wrapping a resistance wire around the reactor and using air calorimetry. This is not a peer reviewed published result but these results are illustrative of what is possible when the reactors are placed in an environment with a uniform temperature applied to the entire reactor surface. Experimental methods can be improved and teams are working on this now. Some of our academic and corporate partners are adapting their experimental methods to see if we can replicate these high COPs at lower temperatures. The calibration data is not linear (not sure if it "should be") and I am not sure how statistically robust the calibration process was (it should have error bars if done properly) but the temperature difference between control (90C) and active reactors (158C) is massive. The experiment in question was done by students under Dr. Muto's supervision. Professional researchers are now attempting a replication. Confirmation of large amounts of excess heat using different instrumentation and different methods does make Mizuno's claims for excess heat more robust.
Thank you clarifying, but could you please write up a brief and simple description of the oven experiment goals and method?
I feel that we don’t quite have a good handle on what the experiment conditions were, and therefore are guessing many of the details, leading to possibly pointless conjecture.
-
Display More
I understand you are talking about the R22? Please correct me if not. If you are talking about the R22, then The situation is not directly aplicable, as that reactor was heated internally. (Edit to add, probably I meant R20, the Mizuno reactor of which the data was presented by Jed at ICCF 22, R22 is a refrigeration gas, LOL).
I see these late “in oven”experiments as completely different, the oven is designed to reach an maintain temperature within it. Regardless of the losses, anything inert placed in the oven should reach the temperature of the oven and stay there.
If you put a stick in there, it of course will burn and release chemical energy and reduce the power input for a while and when the chemical energy is spent, it will get back to the set temperature.A control reactor will simply get heated and stay heated while the oven is working.
A working reactor will start getting heated by the oven, and when the reaction is activated by the temperature, it will start producing heat, and it should start to be sensed by the oven controls and it would throttle down the energy consumption to maintain the temperature within the set point. The excess heat can be deduced from the power consumption to achieve a temperature, not very precise but good enough for practical purposes.I don’t see why the model of reactor would make much difference as long as the activation heat was sufficient inside. Outside heat will eventually get inside, and the inside heat eventually gets out.
Otherwise, I was indicating what you appear to be saying here. A sufficiently heated reactor should (may) fire up without the usual electrical heat stimulation because the internal temperature will be the same (equivalent to the exterior heating, or interior heating, at some point). Unless the reaction is particularly picky about how the heat gets to some location or other unique circumstance.
The furnace should back off from adding heat commensurate to, if not directly proportional to, the reaction heat, in order to maintain the set temperature.
If the furnace is being used simply as a thermal box, and the usual heater (part of the assembly) is rated in 1000’s of watts, but only a few 100 watts are being used for the experiment, then the thermal mass of the furnace is grossly disproportionate to the experiment conditions and is possibly worse than the bare acrylic box for calorimetry purposes. A chest type freezer, much like Albiston was using is probably better.
Perhaps we can get some clarification on what the actual experiment involved. -
There is much to be said for a commercially made device. It is likely to be consistent. The company probably tested it extensively. But was it intended for this use? Or only to ensure a stable temperature background? I don't know. The constant temperature boxes I have seen (called "incubators" in Japan) were stable to within a fraction of a degree, but they were not intended to measure heat, as far as I know. They work like constant temperature water baths.
The only disadvantage to everyone using this would be if they all use it the same way. There is some danger that they will have the same systematic error. It is good to have a variety of different calorimeter types applied. However, for the first several replications, if everyone uses this box (or something similar) it would be okay. At some point I would like to see something like a large Seebeck calorimeter applied. I don't know if there is a commercially made one this large. There is that "whole room" calorimeter that fits a person. I don't know if it would be sensitive enough. You can also use a refrigerator as a calorimeter. Or a large thermoelectric picnic cooler.
Does the reactor require any added heat to activate it when placed in an oven?
I mean, the average temperature of the reactor at 300 W was shown to be about 50 C, with hot spots as high as 180 C or thereabouts. So if the oven were set to 175 C, should not the reactor fire up without the external or internal heater and start making excess heat of over 100 W?
-
The constant temperature chambers I have seen have heat pumps that work in either direction. So they can have compensation heating or refrigeration (heat pumping out), controlled by a thermostat. I think it would be very difficult to use one of these as a giant calorimeter. This data does not look like it came from something like that. Then again, maybe the blip at 100 W and inconsistent curve are caused by a heat pump?
I downloaded a specification sheet that seems to show that it is just a rather high powered convection oven. A manual exhaust valve lets the blown air out for cool down, otherwise it is recirculated. Takes an hour to reach 500 C, at peak 7800 W for one model, so probably lots of bricks or something in there besides fluffy insulation.
-
My guess is that this is a crude measurement, with a large error margin. I think the temperature rise per watt of input declines as temperatures rise. The line goes up steeply at first and then gradually levels off. I suppose that is what is happening, but that trend is not clear from this wobbling line. Maybe I am wrong?
Presumably, there are heat losses increase even with this well insulated box, and they increase until it reaches a terminal temperature. I assume each blue dot is the terminal temperature for that power level. In other words, this is a gigantic isoperibolic calorimeter. If the insulation was much better, that would make it a gigantic adiabatic calorimeter. I have a feeling the temperature would rise a lot more until it got very hot. (Eventually, any adiabatic calorimeter has to begin losing heat until it reaches a terminal temperature, making it isoperibolic.)
The constant temperature chambers I have seen have heat pumps that work in either direction. So they can have compensation heating or refrigeration (heat pumping out), controlled by a thermostat. I think it would be very difficult to use one of these as a giant calorimeter. This data does not look like it came from something like that. Then again, maybe the blip at 100 W and inconsistent curve are caused by a heat pump?
The temperature rise per W ‘curve’ looks a bit better when the 25 C background is subtracted.
I like the idea of a common device for a test machine that should be fairly consistent in response overall (more calibration points at each power step would clear this up) so that instead of nitpicking the various measurements of ‘home-made’ one-off calorimeters built by various people, the relative heat difference between activated and calibration is obvious and undeniable, in a sensible way, in an off-the-shelf item. It is hard to tell if this oven is as reliable a measurement device as it could or might be.
-
I just spoke with Mizuno and he asked me to contact the forum and apologize for the delay in his reply. He is quite overwhelmed with personal matters. Dr. Muto's experiment was done with the following equipment: https://www.yamato-scientific.com/product/show/dh650_2/
This is more or less a convection oven with a powerful recirculation fan. Calibrations were done to relate heater power to temperature with a dummy reactor.The dummy reactor at 150W input, gave around 90C. With the active reactor, the temperature increased to 160C, equivalent to 364W with dummy reactor. I hope this clarifies the experiment. We have several partners around the world attempting to replicate this.
Is there more information on the calibration, like the period of time for the temperature to settle, etc.?
There is something weird about the temperature to power input response in that graph. For example, 100 W input raises the temperature to 80 C, but an additional 50 W only raises the temperature another 10 C. The degrees C obtained per watt input drops almost in half from 100 W to 364 W. -
Oh, and I guess I still have a DVD disc with hot pitchblende sitting on it to detect tracks. I keep forgetting about it. It has been stewing for about 2 years(?) now. I should probably put that to bed, one way or another.
-
Being able to mimic tracks and concluding your method is the likely cause is a big leap of faith. You have to be able to prove how contactless experiments produced the tracks with your method.
What ‘contactless’ tracks do you propose are worthy of study?
My point is that by weeding out the mundane, the exceptional may be exposed for more study.
Wasting time on mundane effects, while ascribing them to novel causes, just leads to confusion and dead ends. It is good to be able to tell the difference.
I have not reported the results of most of my tribolgical studies.The morphology of the physical particles that make some of the most interesting tracks is often surprising. A partially rolled-up disc or lozenge-shaped particle, caused I think by “plucking” a bit of the surface material out of the media, seems to make the most compelling tracks, for example. The difference in hardness between the particles and the media does not need to be significant to make good tracks, and only a slight (or even no difference) in hardness often works best.
.
.
.
-
SR tracks on different materials are undeiable, consistent and cannot be explained without admitting the existance of an unknown phenomenon.
You may be surprised to find out how easily some tracks are made by “mundane” processes.
I am getting pretty good at making some types of particle tracks of types identified by some researchers as being caused by strange radiation.
-
I do suggest that the air inlet is the most error-prone part of the calorimeter, and steps should be taken to stabilize how air enters and the temperature is measured there. The inlet orifice area in particular is quite variable due to plumbing and wiring crawling through the hole.
-
Mizuno's system is improved in the sense that when you compare recently collected temperature or power time-time to those from older data sets you will see that the older ones wriggled around all over the place whether it was activated mesh runs or calibrations. Now things are much tighter and more reproducible. I am sure that you are correct about the presence of systemic biases and errors but they are now at least there all the time in the same way.
The Saito/Muto (whatever) recent tests hang together much better than previous work, I agree.
I see what you mean ... I just don't see how the sort of problems you describe would differentially affect the calibration and activated-mesh runs. If measured excess heat is artefacutal here, it must have something to do with how these two types of runs are set up. That is where to look for problems. So far I don't see any.
I haven’t come across any kind of systemic error that favours ‘extra’ heat detection and that also could be introduced only to the “activated” device conditions, repeatedly, over years. There are plenty of ways to mess with the calorimeter results, but most (if not all) of them should work equivalently to calibration and active conditions.
-
I agree. And it seems to me that the number of artefacts has gone down compared with Mizuno's earlier results. This is exactly what you would expect from a lab that is working steadily to refine its procedures. But, as this lab achieves more and more control over the system it is studying, some worrying elements are ever more evident.
First, I still don't see a secure indication that this effect is temperature-sensitive. As Jed Rothwell points out, the percent excess heat should really increase as input power (and thus reactor temperature) increases ... and yet, as seen from the table shown earlier in this thread, it doesn't. Also, if excess heat generation is temperature-dependent then one expects to see an upward inflection in the time course of the temperature or output power following an upward step in input power. The entire system should show bi-stability and hysteresis with excess heat wanting to be either "on" or "off" and seeming reluctant to adopt an intermediate state. I see nothing like this in the recent, cleaner, better controlled experimental results.
Second, it continues to be weird, weird, weird that output power during excess heat runs pretty much exactly matches input power. Given that the output power in calibration runs lies substantially below input power there must definitely be unaccounted-for heat radiating from the calorimeter box and this certainly needs to be compensated mathematically when calculating total output power. But why should the uncompensated heat captured by the airflow in the calorimeter so closely match total input power all the time? It must be a coincidence. But what an annoying coincidence! It means that very nearly all of the claimed excess heat is appears due to a mathematical adjustment introduced after all measurements are done. .
Rather than improve the calorimeter, it is lossy as can be, and has a massive thermal sink in the box itself.
As shown, a box made instead of (interior) 1 inch, foil covered, polyiso board and 2 inch rigid foam insulation board (exterior) is about 1/10 the mass and has a R value of 15 leading to nearly 98% recovery from 25 to 425 W, and a reduction of the settling period to 95%+ of the final steady state temperature in as little as half an hour, depending of course on the mass and speed of the test object heating rate.
Which means that the coincidence that the excess heat values resemble the input values can be easily remedied by a layer of foam to push the losses back into the box, raising the delta T, and therefore the reported output power values will numerically increase.(Or perhaps the subsequent calibrations will run over 100% recovery, requiring adjustments to the air mass calculations.)
I had something like 88% recovery in a “TV” style, pink 2” rigid foam box that could be easily lowered over the acrylic box (with a 2 cm gap all around), and had a ‘window’ of air(!) -no foam- the full ~70 cm width and 40 cm high, to look into the acrylic box.
Standardizing the air intake, with a dedicated inlet pipe larger than the outlet and extending at least 3 cm beyond the calorimeter envelope, smoothed the quasi-cyclical temperature pulsating and eliminated the dreaded inlet thermocouple back eddy sandbagging effect.
-
Sorry, I have no idea. They just sent me some data, with no explanations other than what I published in the slides.
It makes no real difference if there are adjustments while warming up towards steady state. Artefacts like that show that the data is real.
-
I do not know what caused that odd dip at 345 W. For 345 W, the input power during calibration was very close to the input power during the excess heat test.
Those types of dips were best replicated in my experiments by some sort of manipulation of the inlet thermocouple or inlet configuration.
Possibly adjusting the inlet opening cover?
Where the gas lines etc. go in, there is a little ‘door’ to make the air inlet a circle again and provide limited access to wires... so the acrylic box can be lifted over the passing through lines and wires. -
Jed, thanks for your input.
I would like to comment in more detail but I am pressed for time at the moment. -
Is there a paper with the graph showing the lack of something happening with the tungsten lamps?
Nice to see you back.
Parkhomov recently (past 6 months?) reported that tungsten incandescent lamps were producing around 20 to 30 % excess power compared to input. This was expected by him as evidence of his cold neutrino theory, from which calculations suggested this would be the case. (It is an old LENR meme as well). The temperature of the filament, calculated by the resistance, was associated with the excess, however the best excess temperature range was reported to be 2200 to 2500 C, which as it turns out, is the typical temperature of an W incandescent lamp filament at the normal rated voltage for the lamp. Even more surprising is that experimental set-up is extremely similar to basic lamp-heats-water calorimeter experiments performed in schools for decades, of which numerous examples can be readily found by Google searches of “calorimeter experiment”.
-
And here is the compilation of the previous lower wattage results with the recent higher wattage results.
Nice.
.
The 25 W lamp, and 2 x 25 W lamps, steps sit right right on the line with the rest.
So there is totally predictable, linear response from 25 W to 425 W.
And since multiple tungsten filament incandescent lamps were used for all steps, except the 200 W calibration, the LENR of tungsten lamps seems to be absent if not discredited.
