Display MoreFirst, let me make it 100% clear I am not upset by your speculation about lying or cheating. That is always a possibility. It should always be considered. But look at our situation. There is no motive for us to lie or cheat. We just gave this away with no strings attached. I published additional Q&A. What benefit would accrue to us if we were lying or cheating? No one would be able to replicate, and it would be forgotten in a few months. There is not a dollar to be made or any status to be gained by lying.
If I had posted a message saying, "send me $1000 for a copy of this reactor!" you might suspect we were in it for the money. Whereas in fact, Mizuno may not be able to respond for requests for materials at cost, because he is very busy for personal reasons. I am scrambling around trying to find a U.S. supplier of Nickel-200, 180 mesh. (I think I found one and will report back if I have.)
You say, "I think they probably have made some kind of mistake." I don't think so. I have seen many, many mistakes. I have made many myself! They do not look like this. I cannot imagine what error it might be. But that's the thing about errors: you cannot imagine them, so that's why you make them.
Seven_of_twenty has repeatedly emphasized the large power of this experiment. I countered by saying the signal to noise ratio of previous experiments was better, even though power was 0.3 W, 0.5 W, or 5 W (Miles and McKubre). Their instruments were so much better, they could measure this low power with more confidence than Mizuno measures 250 W. That's true from a strictly scientific or technical point of view. However, seven_of_twenty does make a valid point here. It is true that the higher the power, the less likely a mistake becomes. High power automatically increases the signal to noise ratio. (Up to a certain point it does, until you have to move to a different calorimeter, which may have a whole new set of problems.)
In the paper, I made a point similar to what seven_of_twenty says, where I wrote on p. 5:
"1. A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat."
It is dead simple to confirm a 10°C temperature difference. Mizuno, or I, or anyone with experience would do that instantly, repeatedly, with the thermometers and the Omega handheld thermocouples lying around the lab. We would do it several times a day. The inlet (ambient) temperature is right there on the thermometers hanging on the wall. You can measure the outlet temperature any time by holding a thermometer in the wind coming out of the calorimeter. So I do not think there is any way that measurement is wrong. I do not think the blower could be running much slower than it does during calibration. That fact would stand out boldly on the screen. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously, in the data that scrolls down from the HP gadget. THH insists the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20%. Or was it 50%? Both numbers are impossible. It wouldn't slow down that much; the motor would burn, and the fan would stop dead. The input power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat, and that excess heat continues for weeks.
As long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, it wouldn't matter if the actual wind speed is much slower than we think. You can do a comparison without knowing the actual wind speed, as long as you are sure it has not changed. The temperature difference and the wind speed are all you need to confirm there is excess heat. In my opinion, there is no chance that either (or both together) are wrong by such a large factor 50 W looks like 300 W. That is out of the question.
The results reported at ICCF21 were much closer to the margin. The chance of an error was much higher. In that sense, seven_of_twenty is correct that higher power matters, as I should have acknowledged previously.
Jed, I wasn't speculating about lying or cheating. I was responding to seven_of_twenty who thought I was implying that! I have no reason at all to doubt your sincerity or Mizuno's. What's great about this current research, in contrast to several similar high output claims of the past, is openness and sincerity. We'll find out more when there are replications (or failed) as it should be.
There are lots of things Mizuno could do to learn more about what's going on. If he were to take out half of the the fuel, what would you expect? Can he remove the same fuel and reinstall it and have it work? If so, his actual working fuel could be divided and sent to others for replication.
