Posts by seven_of_twenty

Quote

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter.

Alberto Wonderful idea. But not instead of the calorimeter. In addition. BTW, the current result is so large that any error which would account for it must be large as well, says Captain Obvious.

JedRothwell

Quote

"At room temperature and atmospheric pressure (standard ambient temperature and pressure), palladium can absorb up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen."

- various sources

So the amount of palladium metal in the reactor is very small, at least in the most current design? And forgive my ignorance but does nickel absorb or otherwise bind hydrogen?

(probably beating a cadaverous equine)

Quote

Cheat!

Always.

Quote

Alan - since this experiment uses an unusual catalyst, and runs at quite high temperatures, I don't see how we can assess how quickly D2 + O2 reacts. If there is enough D2 ingress for that to cause the excess heat (which I doubt) then surely the discovery of catalytic oxidation of D2 on a specific metal surface (not at all an unusual thing) is a simpler solution to these results than LENR

So is deuterium added in any appreciable amount to the experiment during a run? I didn't see anything that says so apart from that the pressure is maintained something below 600 Pa if memory serves. It's hard to imagine a leak so large that significant amounts of deuterium are flowing in. I didn't calculate it but 3kW, actually 2.5kW added, especially for an appreciable duration, would require a lot of burning deuterium.

BTW, here is a relatively cheap and easy way to estimate the output of the 3kW device ( JedRothwell never answered how this was done ). Purchase one or more commercially available high temperature heat flux sensors and apply them to the reactor surface. That can't be all that expensive. Maybe there are Chinese ones? I think Omega sells them also. At least measure the temperature at the reactor surface. How hard can that be?

ETA: I didn't see the above message while I was writing this one

Quote

The numbers shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are derived by input minus output measured in the flow of air, because that is the most accurate method, but they are confirmed by other methods

I'm not done reading the papers so tell me, are those data available in papers or elsewhere? If not, you should consider adding them. I am curious about outside surface temps reached by the reactors.

Quote

I think the way forward is to have others replicate this. People with more money and a safer lab should use different kinds of calorimeters. I would love to see someone run an R20 reactor with 500 W input and kilowatt level output, in a calorimeter that can measure that much. Mizuno and I have been discussing how to do that. He may not be able to do it safely -- in which case he shouldn't. We have extrapolated from lower power and from open air tests to get a crude estimate, but a direct instrument reading would be the cat's pajamas.

I agree and I strongly suggest you contact Earth Tech. If they can't do it, they will know who can.

With the results on hand, you should also be able to interest some of the usual suspects with money. You might even be able to get Gates if he really is the one doing LENR funding as suspected but not proven. But first, Earth Tech for sure unless they no longer have interest but that is doubtful.

It should be pretty obvious that Mizuno is not getting 3kW long term output by burning deuterium, not to mention that he isn't adding any.

Birger : It's doubtful, if I read JedRothwell correctly, that Mizuno will have the resources or stamina to construct a new calorimeter. But if one is used, I think the next logical step is a fluid cooled Seebeck effect "envelope" calorimeter. These are easy to calibrate, capture almost all heat leaving the experiment, and are essentially based on "first principles." The downside is making them but Storms published a comparatively easy method and they can also be made out of commercially available heat flux transducers though that could be more expensive. An approach with slightly less accuracy but more practicality and lower cost is to make the envelope out of any convenient material and apply heat flux sensors at strategic places but covering only a small part of the surface of the envelope.

This paper is typical of an article about Storms' Seebeck calorimeters but there are better construction instructions somewhere, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…017fceea48d730660303f.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor

I do not expect Mizuno to do anything like that unless an unexpected deficiency is found in his experiments.

3 questions and sorry if the answers are obvious to some:

1. Was the 3kW output with the 300W input simply estimated by human sensation or was some other method used?

2. Is the only difference between a blank/control reactor and an active one the presence or absence of deuterium?

3, Dr Richard wrote:

Quote

It would also be sensible to have measured the temperature of the Pd/Ni mesh directly

I am also curious about this. At 3kW output, the interior of the reactor and the mesh should be very hot.

Hey robert bryant , what are you? The peanut gallery (another antique expression)? Is it OK with you if I study the papers while asking questions? Or would you prefer I write "axing questions" to keep it modern?

Meanwhile I have the recurring question for JedRothwell about any system that makes lots of heat. Has Mizuno considered a system in which much of the heat is returned to the reactor through a control scheme so as to keep the reactor at the desired temperature? If he did that, the large heaters could be mostly or entirely shut off and the reactor would be essentially or at least almost "autonomous" or "self sustaining". If operation in a mode in which input power was extremely low could be maintained for long periods, there would be almost no other possible explanation other than some sort of nuclear process. Conversely, if you returned a lot of heat to the reactor (more than the heaters supply), removed power to the heaters and the reactor failed to continue running, you'd know something was very wrong about the original observations. And I am still fascinated by the room heater. I think that would be the first thing to replicate.

Yes, I know it's more complicated to feed back heat, especially in a controlled manner. But for such an experiment, you would not need the calorimeter and you could use the larger reactor, compensating somewhat for the difficulties. Has this suggestion been considered?

Quote

If you are saying that 250 W is more interesting than 1 to 5 W, and it is more exciting, I couldn't agree more! It seems more likely to lead to practical technology. It is more promising. Also, the method is so simple, Mizuno and I both wonder if we are seeing things.

I agree with that (quick, hold the presses for those who recognize that antique expression).

A quick question. The higher power level (3kW) was simply estimated by comparing the reactor's heat output to a standard electrical heater? By what means? Human senses? At least one could have used a thermometer at a measured distance. I suppose it doesn't matter much since the experiment done in the calorimeter has a result which is so high.

Look, JedRothwell , I will make it really simple. McKubre, Miles and Storm's results confuse me more than enlighten me. Mizuno's recent claims have way more power and a way larger power ratio than is needed to rule out noise or subtle experimental errors. They are the first claims of that type I have ever seen. Either Mizuno is correct and has found a way to performing robust LENR with lots of excess heat or he has made a pretty gross error. In the latter case, it will then be a matter of localizing the part of the experiment liable to big errors and figuring out how to modify or redo it to eliminate those. That is interesting. In addition, from what I saw of the papers thus far, they are pretty clear and probably due to your labor, the English is clear and the descriptions are understandable.

Arguing about incomprehensible graphs or charts and lots of vaguely reported "one of" experiments which have never been replicated or properly validated, most for low level results is of no interest to me as I said many times. Mizuno, on the other hand, meets every criterion I could think of for major interest for me. And this is entirely consistent with everything I've written before. I have been highlighting Yoshino for years because although they seemed to get nowhere, the claims, apparently in the form of projections that never happened, were similar.

Is that clear enough even for you? It only remains to make sure the result is real and valid and can be reproduced by others - believable others. I suggested some. You do read before you reply with an angry defensive rant, don't you? Sometimes your replies to me are so tangential and hostile, I wonder if you bother.

Quote

What is the point of proving of what and has been proven many times already. Every design is a departure from the previous one. I am concerned. Randy was and still is my favorite of all, but my faith is weakening.

Conclusions about scientific matters and technology claims should never be about "belief" and "faith." Rather and obviously, it should be about facts, evidence, and good reasoning. Mills has never produced any device which did not require a huge amount of power to make some sparks or glow. Big deal. Mills promised power stations with his discovery, two decades ago. Why in the world would anyone believe Mills today? BTW, did you see the fat cables at the bottom of the current silly gas making kludge? I don't suppose they're structural support, do you?

Quote

Oh. Okay. Tell us who has debunked a mainstream cold fusion experiment. Be specific. Who did this, and where was it published?

Or are you just going to say "nonsense" with no proof of your claim?

I said "mainstream." Rossi was never mainstream. He never published in any journal or proceedings. Others who worked with him such a Levi did put out some papers, although they did not publish them as far as I know. Anyway, have you found any errors in their work?

Forgive me for not going round and round with you for the umpteenth time about the above. I'd rather spend the time on Mizuno's engaging report.

Quote

Comparing Mizuno to Rossi is like comparing Warren Buffet to Bernie Madoff. Mizuno is teaching us how we might finally achieve replicable LENR, Rossi is teaching us how to attract fools and suckers into a cult of idiocy

I think it's simpler than that. We don't yet know for sure what if anything Mizuno is teaching. What we know is that he gives every impression of being honest and well intentioned while Rossi is an obvious and flaming crooked conman.

JedRothwell

Quote

You wouldn't think of challenging THH when he tells you that drops become invisible and rise against gravity, or that a measurement is 20% wrong when anyone can see it is not.

I am still plowing through all the responses. I have limited time. I don't recall assigning any significance to what THH has said so far and I did not see the part about drops nor do I care.

Quote

I do not know which claims you have "debunked," but you have not debunked a single mainstream cold fusion claim.

I don't know if you consider Rossi a mainstream claim but he sure bamboozled you and McCubre and a significant portion of the self-styled geniuses on the Vortex email list. And I helped to debunk him and prevented a few specific individuals from losing money with him and contributed to a major company no longer partnering with him. Unfortunately, Darden didn't listen to any skeptic and he got what he got. I have never addressed a claim about CF from electrolysis. I am skeptical especially about Brillouin and BLP based on "smell" (intuition and observation) but they do not provide enough clean data or independent testing with which to debunk. I debunked many other scams unrelated to cold fusion but claiming to make energy on the cheap and yet other dangerous claims. It's inappropriate here but if you want, I can send you a list by email.

Quote

No one has, ever, in the history of the field. Since cold fusion is the subject of this forum, your skills in debunkary apparently do not apply.

Blech. Nonsense.

Quote

Your claim of having debunked has no relevance to this discussion, unless you also debunked the laws of thermodynamics, Faraday's laws, and the other physical laws that cold fusion is based upon. THH apparently feels it is impossible to measure the heat from electrochemical reactions -- you will see that is what he is saying after you shovel off several feet of bullshit and rhetorical tap dancing -- so he must think Faraday's laws are wrong. Do you agree? Is that your level of debunkary?

You're being bombastic as usual. If anyone is going against nature here, it's the folks who make up their own laws. Axil comes to mind but there are others.

Quote

You tell us you haven't even read about these experiments, so I do not see how you can debunk them.

That is such a dumb remark. First, I am in the process of trying to work through the Mizuno papers and the comments but I have limited time. Second, I have no desire to debunk Mizuno. I fervently hope his data bear out and he is correct. I'm sure you will find that hard to comprehend because you are so incredibly biased against any critique at all of cold fusion experiments you happen to believe in. I have no plans to comment on Mizuno's work until I have spent much more time with the papers with the exception of obvious infelicities if any I find along the way and of course questions about parts I might not understand. I already made a few hopefully constructive remarks in general about calorimetry and about how heating a room is a sort of surprising and Rossi-ish claim. I also roundly defeated your lame attempt at moronic sarcasm intended to characterize skeptics as loonies and idiots --so far, that's all. Get off the high horse. There is always a danger of falling off.

Quote

Did you ever think that some skeptics could be paid to be "skeptical" in this hub that deals with technologies that can overshadow many?

If you know how I could get paid for being " 'skeptical' in this hub " please let me know. I've been part of various successful debunkings over the past ten years and have yet to see a single payment. Where should I send my bills?

I have only skimmed the papers so I will have few comments yet on them. I have also been slogging through the many comments. I am trying to find time to accord the papers much more attention. But the quotes below annoy me and I will answer those immediately. I understand that JedRothwell worked very hard with Mizuno under an unpleasant time difference and other difficult conditions. I understand that Jed has a big emotional investment in the project and is quite certain it will be the final definitive proof of cold fusion/LENR that everyone has been seeking. I understand that in the past his feelings were hurt by critical comments from me and others. Because of all the hard work he did, and his well meaning nature, I won't reply in kind to his sarcasm and insults. I will, however, respond in detail to his ... well ... mostly absurd remarks.

Quote

Now that our first resident pathological skeptic (PS) has chimed in, let me post this set of responses I prepared for them. I want to save Seven_of_twenty and other skeptics the time and effort of responding. Here are their objections and my responses. For once I take their side in the debate.

Sure you do.

Quote

Pathological Skeptic: I have not read the paper but I am sure it is wrong.

Me: Please don't read it.

I'm sure THHuxleynew read it and is rereading it (both papers). I have skimmed them and I won't comment specifically on the overall conclusions until I can read them carefully and they are well worth the time needed to that if I can find it.

Quote

PS: The results are not real because they have not been replicated.

Me: Actually, they have been replicated. However, anyone who replicates a cold fusion experiment is incompetent by definition, and the results are always wrong. When 180 labs replicated Fleischmann and Pons that only proved they were all wrong. 18,000 could replicate but it would mean nothing. Replications simply don't matter. They don't count! This is the Ballinger rule:

Just wrong. The results are interesting as is. Sure, they would be way more solid if they had been replicated by knowledgeable people but there is plenty of time for that if the results are valid. Of course replications matter but who replicates matters too. The work surrounding alleged replications of Rossi has never been impressive for example. And all the spoonbenders in the world won't convince me that it's a psychic phenomenon. But good, completely independent replication of Mizuno's work would be a fascinating development. Not that I think he is lying but I suppose he could have made some unexpected errors. I have not found any but I have not looked much yet.

Quote

"It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann.

Wrong again. And nobody I know said that and I don't care whether they did or not. It's irrelevant. I have no idea if Mizuno's work connects with P&F and to me, it is of very little concern. This string is about Mizuno! I've been waiting a long time to see his results with the large and powerful reactors. I have said that many times and asked about results like these many times.

Quote

"Putting the 'Cold Fusion' issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison-Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible."

- Professor Ronald G. Ballinger, MIT Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering, [In The Gordon Institute News, March/April 1991]

I don't have the faintest idea what that has to do with Mizuno (subject of this thread). WhoTF is Ballinger anyway? Why should we care?

Quote

PS: The power is too low.

Me: Yes, 3 kW is not enough. The goal-posts has now been automatically moved to 10 kW, and if that is achieved, they will move to 50 kW.

I know you think that (I have no idea why) and it would be true if Mizuno's input had been 2.9 kW. But it's not. It's <300W IIRC. I and others have always said 100 or more watts with a large power ratio (out/in) would be very convincing if the experiment was without faults.

Quote

PS: The COP is not high enough.

Me: Indeed, 10 times input does not count. Again, the automatic goalpost moving mechanism tells us the COP must now be at least 100.

Actually, the combination of a gross output of 3kW with a power ratio out/in of 10 is more by far than I ever asked for or would ask for and if proven to be valid would be wildly acceptable and truly amazing.

Quote

PS: I have a crackpot theory that large drops of water become invisible and move against gravity and that proves the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. So, you are wrong.

Me: Well okay then!

Moving right along --

Intended for who? Surely not me or THH.

Quote

PS: The calorimeter is not reliable.

Me: Right. The calibration shows that over 24 hours when average input was 50.6 W, the calorimeter only captured 46.6 W, or 50.5 W after taking into account heat losses from the calorimeter walls. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

I am a great fan of calibration and blanking and I have been since I was a young student doing simple experiments in undergraduate physics and basic electricity. I have relied on calibration my entire career in technology and science. I hated it when I had to work with some systems (biological mainly) which resisted the use of full range calibrations for one reason or other. I was one of the first to criticize Rossi and Lewan for lack of calibration and was roundly dunned by believers for it starting with Rossi himself with his immortal quote: "Why should I run a dummy reactor? I already know what it will show. It will read zero."

At first glance, the calibration for this system looks fine. I will have to examine the details to be sure experimental and control runs are sufficiently similar. I have not done that. You did mention possible future use of a Seebeck effect calorimeter. That type would be a natural for this work because the high heat output would require fewer thermocouple junctions (or other differential temperature sensors) than usual thus simplifying construction, maybe at the sacrifice of a little uniformity. There are fortunately very few ways to mess up Seebeck calorimeter measurements and there would be no argument about flow rates and Reynold numbers and sensor positions in flowing media. An added bonus would be if the calorimeter were liquid cooled, which I expect to be necessary at the claimed power level. Then mass flow calorimetry with the coolant would provide a first principles back up (though IMO less accurate and stable than the Seebeck readings). Still two birds with one stone.

Quote

PS: The reactor has to be used as a room heater before I will believe it.

Me: Ah, I see you haven't read the paper. Good. It was used as a room heater. But that doesn't count because it was not purchased at Walmart.

OK, I have to tell you I found that claim disturbing, in part because it is so Rossi-esque. But I will withhold final judgement until I read more detail. Seems silly to me. Of course, room heating alone is a multi billion dollar application if the effect is real.

Quote

PS: You will have to pay a world-class laboratory $1 million to test this before I will believe it.

Me: Alas, we do not have $1 million and no laboratory would touch the machine even if we had the money. Because we live on planet Earth. This is difficult for you to understand because you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and you have unlimited supplies of leprechaun gold, and any laboratory in your world will do whatever you ask.

If the data continue to hold up, try EarthTech. If they find it convincing, and they are extremely open minded and very capable with calorimetry, I am reasonably confident they would do at least preliminary tests for free. The main problem would be getting a working device to them without damaging it and with enough operating instructions or an experienced person to help them out. Give that some thought. Maybe contact Scott or Marissa Little (I am less confident in Dr. Puthoff).

With results as good as Mizuno reports, you could get interest from any number of places, civilian and military, especially in Japan. I wish you luck with that. Now back to finding time to read. How about SRI? This is much more interesting by far than Brillouin (IMHO of course).

Sorry if typos... not proof read.

ETA: sorry if I missed it but does Mizuno have adequate protection from patents?

BLP enthusiasts? What say?

https://www.socialsciencespace…-example-of-a-bad-metric/

Quote

Furthermore, intransparency makes it very hard for outsiders to detect gaming of the system.

Also wikipedia:

Quote

ResearchGate has also been criticized for failing to provide safeguards against "the dark side of academic writing", including such phenomena as fake publishers, "ghost journals", publishers with "predatory" publication fees, and fake impact ratings. It has also been criticized for copyright infringement of published works.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27924967

Quote

ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community.

Memon AR1.

Author information

Abstract

ResearchGate has been regarded as one of the most attractive academic social networking site for scientific community. It has been trying to improve user-centered interfaces to gain more attractiveness to scientists around the world. Display of journal related scietometric measures (such as impact factor, 5-year impact, cited half-life, eigenfactor) is an important feature in ResearchGate. Open access publishing has added more to increased visibility of research work and easy access to information related to research. Moreover, scientific community has been much interested in promoting their work and exhibiting its impact to others through reliable scientometric measures. However, with the growing market of publications and improvements in the field of research, this community has been victimized by the cybercrime in the form of ghost journals, fake publishers and magical impact measures. Particularly, ResearchGate more recently, has been lenient in its policies against this dark side of academic writing. Therefore, this communication aims to discuss concerns associated with leniency in ResearchGate policies and its impact of scientific community.

100 Things Wrong With Researchgate

(try searching it for "reads")

That's all I have time for right now. (some of the above is ETA since Alan Smith 's last comment) I did not easily find any way to buy "reads" for Researchgate so it could be that they are more subtly hidden (I mainly checked Fiverr.com) or the result is simply the outcome of unreliability in the way the web site measures reads (and just about everything else). See above mention (without detail) of "ghost journals, fake publishers, and magical impact measure" whatever those are.

Quote

Either there is some way to game the Researchgate system

I am sure there is. And gaming, cheating and lying are Rossi's modus operandi. There is no way thousands of people are interested in a paper by the crook. Virtually nobody outside of the LENR community has heard about him and even fewer would seek out anything he has written.

I don't specifically know about gaming Researchgate but social media like Twitter are pretty simple to game as to numbers of reads, likes, and so on. And if you don't want to bother learning how, there are services available which will do it for you.