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

Posts by Bruce__H

    No Clifford algebra its plain mechanics at the end. You can find it on my Researchgate account. It has already been linked twice here.

    But it is nothing for old school folks that think in field only terms and believe in charge/mass as an axiom.

    Further you have to understand the Biot-Savart Operator and Faraday law in 6D...

    I am unable to understand your Researchgate paper. Have you ever encountered anyone who understands your SO(4) theories?

    The proton and also the electron structure are not rings at all. The basic orbit is the Clifford torus. The topology of the fields is very complex as e.g. the proton magnetic moment is not formed by the internal binding charge is the charge that binds the 3/5 wave structures and also forms the external potential.

    I still don't understand the idea of these orbits. What 4-dimensional space do these orbits exist in?

    IH claims that the device described in the patent does not produce excess heat? Was this known before?

    Does this mean that IH personnel tested a claimed working apparatus and found it not to be functioning as claimed? Or does it mean that IH personnel attempted to manufacture the device and couldn't get it to work?

    ... it’s clear there’s no heater power into the reactor, it is heated externally by the oven heater, otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.

    That's what I thought. But if you look at the question Paradigmnoia asked (#3087), and the way Daniel_G answered it (#3088), it sounds as though Daniel is saying that there is some sort of heater directly on the reactor.

    I agree that it doesn't make sense. But if there is no heater directly on the reactor then why is the calibration graphic that Daniel_G displayed labelled "Heating experiment using a heat-resistant wire" (as translated by JedRothwell in #3003)?

    I'm confused.

    Of Course the heater power only.

    Thank you for your answers, but I'm afraid that I have not grasped the overall configuration of the equipment used in the experiment.

    There is a heating circuit for the oven as designed by its manufacturer. Are you saying that, separate from this, there is another heating wire applied to the reactor that is used to heat it up?

    Let us call the power used to drive the heating coils installed in the oven by its manufacturer the "oven input power". And let's call any power used to drive a wire applied directly to the reactor itself the "reactor heater input power". Which of these are you calling the "heater power"?

    If you look at the link to the maker of the machine I posted they have both heating and cooling curves published in the brochure. The device is programmable. Control reactor does not contain nickel mesh, otherwise identical. The power input is set, and the equilibrium temperature is recorded after the temperature is stable. Power is the independent variable. Temperature the dependent. All of this was stated in previous posts.

    I meant the heating and cooling curves, during the experiments, of the reactors ... not of the oven as a whole.

    The picture I get is that the control and test runs are performed with reactors that are as closely matched as possible except for the presence/absence of the mesh, but are not physically the same reactor . Does the identity of conditions extend to gas composition and pressure?

    Perfect control conditions would have been to include a nickel mesh that is faux-burnished somehow and to have the operator blind to control/active conditions. Just saying. don't know what difference that would make but then that is exactly why you run controls ... because you don't know what difference it would make.

    Is the input power controlled as a step function? Or is there some sort of interaction between oven set temperature and input power? Something that might change from run to run?

    Do the nature of the control- and active-reactor heating curves differ in some way other than equilibrium temperature? For instance, is the control heating curve exponential in nature but the active heating curve nonexponential? Same questions for cooling.

    In what way do the control and active reactors differ? Is the control reactor literally the same piece of hardware as the active reactor with some crucial difference made?

    How does one actually perform a calibration reading or an active-run reading? Is temperature treated as the independent variable or is input power the independent variable here? If it is input power, does that mean that the oven has been modified in some way?

    Is the heating timecourse of the control reactor exponential? What about cooling?

    Same questions as above for the active reactor.

    What is the timecourse of input power for control and active runs?

    In 2019 Mizuno and Rothwell described their excess heat results and, unusually, described their fabrication and measurement methods in enough detail to enable replication. The challenge was immediately taken up by various groups independent of Mizuno and Rothwell. Of these, MagicSound's work has been the most thoroughly described and plainly counts as a careful and competent attempt to replicate the original findings. So far without success. Other groups have tried too and there have been claimed successes, but to my knowledge none of them have provided much evidence. The recent communications from Daniel_G describe work that falls into a bit of a special category because it is not really from an independent group. It also, so far, is not well described. One thing that it has in common with Mizuno and Rothwell's work is that the heat measured as coming from a specially prepared reactor is large in direct comparison with that from a control reactor. Depending on how well-matched the test and control conditions really are (very well for M&R, unknown for Daniel_G) this makes it hard to argue that unexpected features of the calorimentry procedure or test enclosure explain the excess heat. It is therefore now too bad that this recent, semi-independent, replication attempt is destined to remain ill described for the near future -- because ill-described equates to not real so far as science is concerned.

    There have been a lot of replication attempts over the past 20 months. Are there any successful ones that have also been well-described?

    Daniel_G is using "2% non-linearity" in the wrong way here. When you fit a straight line to some data and find that R^2 = 0.98, this does not mean either that the relation between the independent and dependent variables is actually (or even mostly) linear or that the 2% gap is an measure of nonlinearity. Instead, that 2% is intended to measure the stochastic variability around the fitted line that is not explained by variation in the independent variable. The only real way to measure the extent of nonlinearity is to fit a curved line to the data and see how much that reduces the unexplained scatter.

    A thought experiment will clarify. Suppose that the true relationship really is linear and that at each level of input power you add the same amount of scatter in temperature readings. Depending on how much scatter you add, you can easily get R^2 = 0.98, or R^2 = 0.50 or even R^2 = 0.20 ... all from a perfectly linear relationship between input power and temperature.

    Its a technical point. I'm not sure how important it is to the physics of things here. There appears to be only a single temperature measurement per input point in the data so far and more observations at each input would make it clearer whether this is a nonlinear relationship or a linear relationship with unexplained scatter.

    I think that the relationship should be linear at all except the most extreme temperatures.

    Rather than improve the calorimeter, it is lossy as can be, and has a massive thermal sink in the box itself

    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.

    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 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.

    Latest on Mizuno replications, is that 2 weeks ago Muto was reporting 1kW in/3 kW out using incubator style calorimetry. Just today he is seeing 2.4 COP.

    Mizuno's wife is seeking experimetal cancer treatment outside Japan...made much more difficult by travel restrictions, which understandably has made it difficult for he and his business manager to keep the LENR community informed. Their apologies.

    By "incubator style calorimetry" do you mean the same insulated-box-with-flowing-air calorimetry as used by Mizuno?

    If so then for Muto it cannot be true that the uncompensated output power equals the input power as I complained about with Mizuno's system. Not with an O/I power ratio of 2.4 to 3. As far as I can see, no compensation factor can produce an I/O ratio of more than 2. So Muto's uncompensated output power must be greater than the input power. I wonder if this is actually so.

    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 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. .

    I wonder if much of the apparatus that Gordon and Whitehouse describe in their slide presentation is really necessary for seeing an effect. They hypothesize that the LEC current they measure is due to energetic charged particles emanating from a Pd-H or Pd-D co-deposited on the working electrode. They also mention in passing that their LEC generates current even if the interstitial space between the working and counter-electrodes is air. If all this is true, then shouldn't one be able to measure radiation simply from a co-deposited surface held in air? Looked at in this way, the rest of the LEC is simply just a way to measure energetic particles radiating from the prepared lattice and so could be replaced by commercial sensors with known characteristics.

    Gordon and Whitehouse calculate that at 180 degC the current from their LEC corresponds to ~ 6 x10^13 Bq (assuming singly charged particles). Given the layout of their device, this implies that the co-deposited surface is emitting at something like 10^12 Bq/cm^2. Even at 80 degC, the LEC current they report corresponds to something on the order of 10^10 Bq/cm^2 .... a signal that could be measurable without the need to construct the whole LEC apparatus.