Bruce__H Member
  • Member since Jul 22nd 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Bruce__H

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    You have to remove everything it makes, as fast as it makes it, or the temperature will rise until something fails. (Removing includes losses to the environment.)

    Not completely true, but true enough!


    For a heat source that increases exponentially with temperature (e.g., the advertised LENR heat) there should be a range of input energies that result in steady-state temperatures. But put in a bit too much energy and the system, just as you say, will tip over into a regime of temperature runaway until the mechanism destroys itself. I am puzzled as to why we have heard nothing about such a regime. It should be a big source of practical trouble when operating the reactor.


    Even the stable states are trouble because if the LENR mechanism activates exponentially with increasing temperature it also deactivates exponentially with decreasing temperature. This means that COP should be rather modest unless you push the system point at which thermal runaway occurs. So the whole thing is a bit of a difficult balancing act.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Yes agreed that MagicSound has always proceeded in a selfless way with maximum transparency. It’s sad to see the results fall on the negative side but at least three outside validators have gotten positive results from Mizuno’s methods.

    Daniel, please remind me who these 3 outside validators are. I'd like to pull together their results and post them here all in one place.

  • The Playground

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    ...

    • The Rossi IP was how to make this Lugano reactor and its fuel. IH replicated it.
    • IH were happy - the reactor delivered a stable COP=3 (could be made higher by upping the temperature).
    • They built lots of them.
    • Then, one day, IH forgot to fill some of these reactors with the fuel. They were blanks. They tested them with a set of real reactors (thinking they were real) and discovered the same COP = 3.
    • IH were unhappy - but sure Rossi could explain the inconsistency. They called him in. He refused, saying that they must be wrong.

    The tale is even better than this!


    IH did build lots of reactors. They built abut 50 of them and gave them to Rossi to use in the 1-year 1MW test in Doral, Florida. But Rossi was wary -- any reactor that IH gave him might be a trick one, filled with fake fuel to expose his shenanigans! And worse, each reactor IH made was equipped with its own pump and sensors that would automatically store voluminous data about time, temperature, pressure, volume of water turned into steam, and so on. It was a disaster! Something had to be done.


    And so Rossi acted. The day after the 1-year 1-MW trial began, and the day after Fabio Penon (magnificently named "Engineer Responsible for Validation" and Rossi dupe) had finished his initial inspection and left the facility, Rossi "discovered" that the reactors manufactured by IH were leaky and had electrical grounding problems. Holy smoke! That's not just disappointing, that's unsafe! Those reactors needed to be shut down before they killed someone!


    And that is what happened. The day after the official start of the 1-year test, Rossi turned off the IH reactors. All of them! Never to be turned on again. And that whole darned test plant had to stagger along using only reactors (about 60 of them) that Rossi had made with his own heroic hands back in Italy. Oh dear!


    But you know what? The plant kept on working. Often at its initially rated 1-MW level. After all this jiggery-pokery the plant magically kept producing enough energy to satisfy Rossi and the credulous crowd around him. Rossi dupe Fabio Penon was angry to find that the construction and instrumentation of the plant was so altered when he arrived back for his next inspection visit. But a good chewing out from Rossi set that right. The test went on! On to success!

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Daniel_G


    I think that the images you exhibited recently (here) contain the first examples we have seen of the time course of excess energy development in one of your own trials. A lot can be determined from studying such data. Are you willing to post raw data files of your trials?


    I know I keep asking this but I have been unable to discover your present intentions on this. Previously you said you intended doing so, but the restructuring of your arrangements with Mizuno may have changed your position.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from magicsound

    Thanks Bruce. What I want to look at is the 5-minute average over the 5 hours or so of the graph. That's what I had intended to do when time permits.

    Sure thing. The plot is below. I am also appending at the bottom of this post a tab-delimited file with sample number, neutron count (difference), and rolling average as the columns. The pressure changes occurred at sample numbers 35, 178, and 449 (indicated by short red lines).




    MR6-42 neutron count 5-min rolling average.txt

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Magicsound's MR6-42 neutron count data aligned on leading edge of pressure step and averaged (over 3 trials). The plot shows average neutron count time trace for 5 minutes before and 15 minutes after pressure change.


    So far there is no real indication of neutron activity synchronized to the change in cell pressure (at 0 minutes as indicated by red arrow). The peak average count actually occurs 1 minute before the pressure change. This is probably just an accident although average counts do seem to drop the further out to the right you go. If more trials were averaged any true signal would pop out against the noise (signal to noise ratio should scale by root n).


  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from magicsound

    It's also interesting that the neutron count seems to peak whenever this happens. The increase isn't much and needs further analysis of the data to confirm, but it seems repeatable in this case.

    Interesting thought. Event-triggered averaging of the neutron counts would tell the story. If your data acquisition system does not do this conveniently for you then I could do it by hand from raw data files if you care to post them.


    Edit: I just saw your most recent post. Sounds as though you are set to do this yourself. Please ignore my offer if it doesn't suit you.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I still think the Pd/Ni/H system is a good system for the physics lab to study LENR mechanisms. The best we can do is to share experiences and compare results so we can learn together.

    I think this is a good initiative. Although other systems are being developed, the Pd/Ni/H system is still a good one for research and replication.


    To this end, at one point you were considering releasing raw data for experiments involving Pd/Ni/H reactors. Is this still possible? Is it something you still intend to do?

  • ARPA-E LENR funded projects news and updates

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Pardon my naïveté but I tried searching Google Scholar for Duncan’s publications on LENR and couldn’t find anything.


    I think it’s great that more mainstream institutions are supporting work in this area. I’d like to read anything he’s published in the field if anyone can point me in the right direction

    Jed's repository of LENR-related papers is always a good place to try


    LENR-CANR.org — A library of papers about cold fusion

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    me356


    I have a few questions.


    General questions: How should we expect ignition of the reaction to look? Does it turn on suddenly or gradually? At a particular temperature or over a range of temperatures? What should magicsound and the rest of us be looking for?


    Specific questions: In post #3770 on this tread (link), you attached a document that included plots of temperature and input power vs time as LENR heating turns on. But they are not well described. Here are some of them ...


    1) Is the blue trace in the top panel the temperature of the reactor?


    2) It looks to me as though the top panel illustrates the first 15 minutes of a passive (i.e., non LENR) rise in temperature following a 40 Watt step change in input power. Is this in fact showing excess heat generation? What part of this indicates to you that excess heating has begun?


    3) What do the non-blue traces in the top panel show? Are they important or should we ignore them?


    4) At what point do you expect the Geiger reading to show unusual activity?

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    I note that me356 says (here) that meshes sitting in plastic bags for weeks on end has not prevented him from seeing excess heat in his own trials. So just sitting in plastic bags is not a crucial factor. Perhaps it is sitting in the plastic bags combined with the events of shipping that has disabled the mesh activity.


    Since me356 appears to have some week-old meshes on hand right now, I wonder if some of those can be shipped using a packaging method designed to prevent large-scale hydrogen loading.

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from me356

    ... I would recommend around 100 times slower filing than now. The faster hydrogen gets inside more is trapped inside the mesh.

    Why do you think that the speed of filling would make a difference to how much deuterium ends up inside the mesh? I can see how the amount inside the mesh would depend on the D2 pressure, but why do you think that the speed would be a factor?

  • MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Daniel_G


    At one point you were enthusiastic about shipping pre-prepared meshes or reactors to independent researchers (Magicsound for instance) for open validation. Has this program been affected by your no longer working for Mizuno Technologies Corp? Do you believe it will go forward?