New Live chat of Bob Greenyer. Really interesting overlook of the theoretical approach of Parkhomov applied to Mizuno's reactor.
AHEs at NEDO-Kobe. A much simpler explanation is OCEs (Ordinary Cooling Events)
Here is my answer to the question I asked to the L-F readers before the Christmas holydays (*).
(btw: HNY everybody!)
In the paper presented on last September at ICCF22, Takahashi et al. observed that:
In Fig.4, we show temperature evolution data for the #1-2 burst event. Obviously, the behavior of TC4 is very strange with many oscillatory down-spikes….
… The oscillatory TC4 fluctuation looks chaotic as you see in Fig.7.
This is regarded as an indication of strong local AHE, which makes H-gas turbulence by generation of chaotic up- and down-stream-paths of convection gas flow in RC.
As new findings, the H(D)-gas turbulence effect in reaction chamber (RC) under strong AHE power becomes strong in our C-calorimetry system, when we have met strong local AHE power evolution in RC. This gas turbulence effect cooled the RC upper flange and generated chaotic temperature evolution of TC4 upper flange temperature and mostly decreased oil-outlet temperatures monitored at TC1 and TC2. …
Origin of AHE can be regarded as some nuclear origin …
Well, IMO a much simpler explanation of the TC4's oscillatory fluctuation is provided in the following JPEG.
With reference to the right side of the JPEG, there is no need to postulate the existence of any nuclear AHE to explain the oscillatory behavior shown by the TC4 signal on many graphs of the most recent paper published by Takahashi et al. (1). The sequence of down spikes can be easily interpreted as the effect of Ordinary Cooling Events (OCEs) due to the intermittent operation of an Air Conditioning (AC) unit installed inside the cabin which hosts the Kobe's calorimeter. The on-off cycles are triggered by the ambient temperature settings. During the ON-phase, the MHE reactor is hit by an air flow at high speed which increases the convection heat exchange coefficient h on its external surfaces, by a factor many times higher than natural convection level. Due to the experimental set-up, this increased h causes a rapid cooling of the H/D gas pipe, which is welded on the upper flange of the Reaction Chamber (RC), whose temperature is measured by TC4. This flange is probably insulated from the rest of the RC cylinder by a non-metallic o-ring, so that its temperature is much more sensitive to the temperature of the external pipe, rather than the temperature of the rest of the RC cylinder. Successively, during the longer OFF-phase of the AC cycles, the coefficient h decreases to the level of natural convection and TC4 slowly go back to the higher base temperature. These alternations determine the typical behavior of these down-spikes, each one is formed by a rapid and shorter segment of a decreasing exponential branch, followed by a slower and longer segment of a rising exponential branch. They are just a manifestation of the cooling (and heating) law known since Newton's times!
As for the specific graph presented on the JPEG and extracted from page 15 of the most recent presentation of Takahashi et al. at JCF20 (1), the 2 periods of wider oscillations correspond to possible working hours. So, the larger amplitude of TC4 oscillations can be due to a wider values of the temperature settings of the AC unit during the presence of personnel in the cabin. During nights and the days with no human intervention inside the cabin, the AC cycles exhibited a regular pace triggered by a narrower settings of the on-off thresholds.
The NEDO-Kobe oscillations of TC4 are very similar to the power oscillation presented by Celani at NIWeek2012 in Austin, TX (2a) and at ICCF17 in S.Korea (2b), which are shown on the left side of the JPEG. There are a couple of main differences. As shown by the red curve, during the test, held at the beginning of June 2012, a fan heater was cyclically activated to avoid T_Room decreasing below 22°C during the nights. During these cycles, the T_Ext_Glass and the T_Room are in counterphase, ie, while the fan heater is ON, the first decreases and the second rises. This apparently contradictory behavior shows that the value of T_Ext_Glass, which was directly used to estimate the power output (black curve), is heavily affected by the velocity of the air flowing around the hot glass tube, which increases the coefficient of convective heat exchange and causes large drops of the glass temperature.
Conversely, during the warm days of June, the temperature in the lab rose to 25-27 °C and the AC unit was activated. In particular, during the 2nd and 3rd days, the large and frequent oscillations of the T_Ext_Glass temperature (red curve) and the Power output (black curve) are easily explained by the swinging of the louvers of the AC unit.
In conclusion, the ordinary cooling effects due to a discontinuous operation of the HVAC units are able to easily explain the oscillatory behavior of the curves presented as AHEs by Celani in 2012 and Takahashi in 2019. The same trivial phenomenon is also able to explain the results obtained by Saito et al. when they tested the Mizuno's cells at Hokkaido University of Science (3).
(2a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5rcEvsek0 [at 4:06]
you can’t seriously be proposing that the excess heat is caused by the Air conditioning system, are you?
I doubt the examinators Will get past the “hydrino” but good for them to keep attempting to patent.
Here we go.
There might be thus-and-such a problem.
Specifically, a difference between active and cal runs that results in 30% less heat output from the calorimeter on cal run than on active.
All that is needed for this is for the reactor, or possibly some elements inside the reactor with thermal bridge to outside, to be much hotter during cal conditions cf active. As Jed points out an equilibrium is reached in which the heat out is still the heat in (roughly). However this can be with different temperature of the reactor and therefore different heat loss. The reactor temperature depends on the cooling of the air, the internal heater temperature depends on configuration and internal gasses (relevant if this thermally bridges outside the reactor.
How would I check? Increase by factor of 2 the insulation everywhere and see whether apparent heat excess reduces.
The way these results scale makes them look like some such issue to me, but it is easy enough to check and provide convincing support if they are real.
again an hypothetical scenario that in no way can be applied to the configuration reported.
1) "No H2 will Escape". H2 is not "escaping" like a high pressure leak, it would be diffusing from an area of higher H2 density thru the steel to an area of lower h2 density in the surrounding air. But with a sealed volume at 0.1 Torr (my recollection of the reactor pressure when it is valved off, i.e. 1e-4 ATM), we are talking about next to nothing in fuel available. But because the valve is shut with a total volume of say 2 liters and a energy density of 140 MJ/kg and mass density of 0.09 g/L, total energy is around 1e-4*2*.09*0.001*140 MJ = 2.5 joules. The fact that it is valved off means even if the H2 slowly diffused over 1e4 seconds, then its 2.4e-4 watts, i.e. 1/4 mW, i.e. nothing.
2) "We can ignore gat thermal conductivity because..." I agree we can almost certainly ignore it, because it hardly would effect the calibration. The only thing that could effect the calorimetry is if there is another path for heat that has less thermal resistance in the active run vs the control. In this case, the path could be the loading tube if it still has H2 in it which is an excellent conductor. However, the loading tube inner diameter is only around 5 mm judging by the photos, so there is not much of a path for heat conduction thru the H2. I can't quickly compute that but I think it is next to nothing. Thus, unless someone can prove otherwise analytically, I think an identical rig loaded with 0.1 Torr of H2 instead of air or a vacuum has essentially the same calibration.
As I said, nit picking. There is no evident way in which such a large difference in temperature with the same electric energy input can be explained by anything conventional. You could explain a fraction of a Watt difference this way, but not a tens of Watts difference.
I notice he mentions (towards the end) the danger of carcinogenic hexavalent chromium leached from stainless steel electrodes. Easy to spot in a clean electrolyte solution, it is bright goldenyellow- the colour of kager beer. Avoid this by using mild steel, or (my preference) lead electrodes.
Ok Alan, in this case Bob is talking specifically of the BG2000 machine he was able to get after an attendee to the Global BEM conference offered it to him. It’s one of the original China made by Norinco Brown’s Gas welder HHO producing units that seems to have used chromium steel in the sets of electrolytic fins, hence the worry about the potential for dangerous amounts of hexavalent chromium in the HHO to be generated.
Bob has now posted a new video with some safety measures he wants to implement regarding his concerns about how these experiments can be dangerous to the experimenters.
I am reading Parkhomov’s book. Bob does a great effort to relate many seemingly unrelated aspects of LENR experiments and finding the common thread between, and also adding the missing cold neutrinos piece proposed by Parkhomov to understand this common thread.
He also warns about the risk of the experimental work related to this awareness and how it has potentially taken many lives with cancer.
Well, Paradigmnoia , we will be all ears. In the mean time, and for avoiding you unnecessary toil, can we ask JedRothwell , to request the replicators more information about the comparation between the calibration and active runs? Specially if is the same reactor/heater/internal gas and pressure, and if a mesh is present in the calibration run or not.
That would help a lot.
The support is that the power curve looks just like a resistance heater.
If charcoal was burning inside (your earlier example) it would not self ignite at room temperature, and then scale its heat output to an electrical heater input, and it would continue to burn if the heater was turned off.
I refer to support of the alegation of measuremente error/cheating. The interpretation of the results is open to debate, but this is questioning of the data and the intentions of the data.
An insinuation of incorrect interpretation of the data is completely different than an insinuation of measuring error/cheating. Measuring error would be that when 100°C is reported the actual temperature is not 100°C, Cheating would be that the entire data set is either fabricated or performed with intention to deceive.
A valid criticism would be debating if the methodology employed by the replicators can really detect excess heat.
One can argue that the calibration is performed in a way that invalidates the comparation with the active run. I see no evidence of that, besides nit picking at irrelevant minutia as if the calibration runs with a mesh inside or not (which I dont know but think is irrelevant in terms of explaining the different output of calibration vs active runs), assuming the gases and pressures inside the chamber are the same in both runs as is reported.
Can you explain to me how the same electric energy, applied to the same resistance can produce that much different temperature output in the same reactor, with the only difference of the addition of a few miligrams of Pd rubbed in a few grams of nickel mesh inside the reactor, comparing the calibration vs the experimental run? Do you think that somehow magically the heater becomes more efficient just by having the mesh inside?
If you can explain that without telling thet the experiment is fake, then I am all ears.
frankly, or there is a measurement error or a cheating,
Support your insinuations, or otherwise you are offering grounds for being banned.
We don’t tolerate this kind of statements unless is factually supported.
To avoid these discussions about thermal inertia, it would have been better to log only end temperatures where the temperature is stabilized in time at a given input power. The same can be done with the active run. Calculate a curve through the calibrated points (temp. Vs power) and use this equation to calculate the power at the logged active points temperatures and subtract that from the input power in the active points. The result are excess power points that can be plotted against input power or temperature. It is a bit more work, but a lot more clear to show.
Anyway I think this whole debate is spurious as is only supported by the denial of the possibility of LENR being real.
Would we present this as the results of burning charcoal inside the same reactor no one would doubt the calibration vs active excess heat that would come from the charcoal.
If the only difference between the calibration run and the active run is the presence of the treated mesh inside, even if considering that the calibration run has not any mesh inside (I really don't know, but I say that even if that´s the case), any conventional explanation for that amount of excess heat can be safely ruled out. That leaves only unconventional possibilities.
I think the last live chat performed by Bob Greenyer addressed many cautions need to take when doing this kind of experiments. It covers a lot of ground but is all related and this paper of Parkhomov is commented on its implicances.
He also talks and drives a parallel between EVOs and Matsumoto’s Itonic matter as a sort of “frozen hydrogen” which is also interpreted as ultradense hydrogen.
I think this live chat has a lot of good tidbits.
I added some information from Saito et al., including a schematic of the equipment, and calibrations and excess heat tests at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. See pages 6 - 12:
It seems it worked far better at 500W. Can they do 500W again?
I think Edo Kaal is a member of LENR Forum, albeit I can't recall his user name ( Edo perhaps?), If I am not mistaken. I became aware of his model rather recently but it has several years of development, and as anything alternative to mainstream, it has met resistance in spite of it being very well laid and very intuitive.
I think that is more desperate and humiliating than dishonest, but I don’t like it one bit.
Reporting of experimental observations without a supporting theoretical frame, or at least an hypothesis, seems to be anathema nowadays and its a dreaded thing. A few days ago I posted in another thread a 1927 letter to “Nature” that was a mere experimental report of transmutation, a true genuine report of an unexpected observation, that you could see the author was struggling to be sure he was not fooling himself and trying to reproduce and also to understand. This kind of publications, it seems, is no longer possible.
Holmlid has been able to keep publishing because he had a good reputation and also has been able to produce an hypothesis for explaining his work, even if few accept that hypothesis. Only one of his papers has been retracted by the publisher.
Cardone et al also have been able to publish for a long time because they started analyzing cosmic phenomena and from there they developed a theoretical frame from Einstein’s relativity that, in their own words, allowed them to predict a series of phenomena that should express under certain conditions being one of those conditions the cavitation bubbles. I think they have only been able to publish their controversial experiments due to their theoretical framework derived from mainstream ideas.
Its really sad to see that a LENR paper needs to employ classic hot fusion terms and theories just to be accepted and published in a Physics Journal, and by doing that loses most of the meaning and practical implicances.
Chemical release of energy when burning H is 286 KJ per mole. The patent abstract says “greater than about 300 KJ” so the improvement over chemical ain’t that impressive, perhaps this was on purpose?
Have to admit that I am not a big fan of the so called "Yule Tide", but I am a big fan of great people even, if and when we are not on the same page. So I take the Season Greetings as an opportunity of saluting great people in my sphere of life. Therefor a big hug goes for you Alan Smith, my favorite Londoneer, and to all the great users of this forum, even those we often disagree, which make this a very comfortable, and lets admit it, very fun, corner of the web.
And just because I send this to most of my friends almost every year, allow me this transgresion