Quote from AlainCo

Story of Ivermectin really looks liek many other drugs, or some fearmongering stories on pollutants...

Good result at huge dose, dubrious at realistic dose.

https://www.isglobal.org/en/he…in-and-covid-19/2877257/0

It have to be tested seriously, and prove it does not kill more than its cure.

I don't hold my breath...

I follow the work of Xenothera, which is slowed by my bureaucracy... like vaccines...

Display More

The FLCCC alliance of Paul Marik, Pierre Kory only recommend two standard doses of ivermectin on day 1 and day 3 as soon as you feel sick (presumably with covid19). This will stop covid in its tracks. Here is the preprint of the meta-analysis which shows high success rate (typically between 70% and 100%) over 24+ studies and 7000 patients:

https://osf.io/wx3zn/

quoting from the preprint:

"Our current review includes a total of 7,300 patients from 24 controlled studies [15 RCTs (n= 3,080)]; with 12 published in peer-reviewed journals including 4,054 patients."

The vapor is invisible, anything visible is steam (microscopic droplets) that originally was vapor that has condensed and given up its latent heat of vaporization to the air (or radiative cooling to the room). The temperature of the steam and the vapor match the temperature of the boiling water so there is no transfer of heat from the vapor back to the boiling water. Boiling water does not create microscopic droplets (steam). Boiling water creates invisible vapor that then condenses into visible micro droplets (steam). Twentyfive years ago I did an experiment that verified this in a big test tube. I was trying to refute criticism of vapor/steam/droplets controversy with P&F. The energy/power in the lost water vapor matched the resistive heater power.

If that were the case, they probably would notice all the water on the floor and if it is captured on the weighing scale in a shallow walled trough/pan then that water never is mistakenly considered as leaving as vapor. They have been doing this for years, so it is not casual. I watched the water splashing out in their latest video but I'm assuming they minimized that splashing during the actual COP experiments or it was captured in the surrounding weight scale pan. Also, it is very plausible that they intentionally tried to show excessive boiling during the posted video as a way of indicating power.

youtube video is from dec 12 and titled:

VALIDATION AND PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS

link:

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Two outlet thermocouples, two inlet thermocouples, of which all four are from a matched set of five thermocouples, all of which agree when the tips are all in the same spot. A third outlet temperature sensor is built into the Bosch BME280 atmospheric pressure/temperature/humidity sensor. Two other stand alone RTD sensors with digital displays plus a mechanical thermometer monitoring the air temperature around the calorimeter (but these are not recorded).

The “extra temperature” is there when no heat source is active in the box.
In other words everything is at room temperature.

Easy enough to fiddle with anyways, since the two inlet and two outlet thermocouples are connected to a dedicated thermocouple datalogger with a live digital display for all 4 channels, (and then that digital TC data goes to the main datalogger along with recorded voltages, currents, BME280 data, etc.

I'm writing this without knowing exactly how you set up the measurement (its faster for me just to throw out ideas) - but here are ideas for the "extra temperature"

1. radiation cooling of inlet air (because it is near a window or a cold room) and/or radiation heating of outlet air (closer to a hot room or furnace).

2. does fan power explain it? I think you said it doesn't.

3. does the "extra temperature" only show up when fan isn't running? if so, data without fan running should not count because fan reduces thermal gradients

4. make sure you are happy with the amount of thermocouple area exposed to the air flow because it should be as much as reasonably possible.

5. if it persists, then you can zero it out and hopefully it is small and doesn't interfere with the excess heat measurement

Quote from magicsound

Good work, and although there may be room for further improvement, air flow calorimetry is generally thought to have reduced precision compared to other techniques.

About ±0.5°C is the best stability I've been able to get from type K TC's. It seems to me you may have established a calibration constant and reached the precision limit for the system. That said, in the power domain 12 watts is a pretty big difference. That's about what I established for the Glowstick system, using just differential thermometry in open still air.

Paradigmnoia: You probably know this - just pointing this out:

For room temperature measurements, Type J gives better sensitivity - and if you use multiple thermocouples, you can average the readings which will give more accuracy with less drift.

If you can, use multiple RTD's or the most accurate is thermistors. But thermocouples are the easiest to set up obviously. Watch out for room temperature conducting up the TC probe and affecting the reading. Need a good amount of length in the air flow to counteract that.

Ivermectin is the real deal, it is a very safe drug and the data for its use on covid19 is phenomenal, here is a summary of the data done by Dr. Pierre Kory and his team (Paul Marik etc.). I plan to get a prescription for it because I want it ready when I feel sick without having to go back and forth with my doctor about getting it.

https://covid19criticalcare.co…CC-IVERMECTIN-Summary.pdf

The crater pictures in that Aug 2020 German paper titled "Electrical Breakdown Spots in Metal-Aluminum Oxide-Metal Structures" are similar to Ken Shoulders EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects)

https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…shoulders-transcript-pdf/

I got the German paper from Sci Hub. To get it, go to the wikipedia article on Sci Hub to find the current location of the Sci Hub website. After getting to the Sci Hub website, just put in the title of the paper.

The nickel mesh acts as an insulator and more heat will exit both ends of the vessel (as opposed to going through the middle of the vessel having no mesh inside). I haven't yet figured out how much the mesh changed my calibration constant for the vessel (I have 8 thermocouples clamped to the outside of the vessel) but will do that this week. But I'm guessing it changed the calibration constant >15%.

Quote from Alan Smith

Ponder the problems of this system.

Vacuum in particle accelerators.

The CERN accelerator complex contains a total of 104 km of pipes under vacuum. Of these 104 km, 50 km pipes with a total volume of 15 000 m3 with pressures from 10−6

to 10−9 mbar. The other 54 km correspond to the LHC pipes that need to reach a pressure of the order of 10−10 to 10−11 mbar

Display More

I found this for the LHC ... note the low temperatures which means the outgassing is much reduced:

A vacuum thinner than the interstellar void

Ultra-high vacuum is needed for the pipes in which particle beams travel. This includes 48 km of arc sections, kept at 1.9 K, and 6 km of straight sections, kept at room temperature, where beam-control systems and the insertion regions for the experiments are located.

In the arcs, the ultra-high vacuum is maintained by cryogenic pumping of 9000 cubic metres of gas. As the beam pipes are cooled to extremely low temperatures, the gases condense and adhere to the walls of the beam pipe by adsorption. Just under two weeks of pumping are required to bring the pressures down below 1.013 × 10-10 mbar (or 10-13 atmospheres).

and ....

Two important design features maintain the ultra-high vacuum in the room-temperature sections. Firstly, these sections make widespread use of a non-evaporable "getter coating" – developed and industrialized at CERN – that absorbs residual molecules when heated. The coating consists of a thin liner of titanium-zirconium-vanadium alloy deposited inside the beam pipes. It acts as a distributed pumping system, effective for removing all gases except methane and the noble gases. These residual gases are removed by the 780 ion pumps.

Quote from magicsound

After extensive testing, it was found that the source of outgassing at 100 watts and above was the SS304 thermowell with its internal heater cartridge. The MR2 cell was then rebuilt without the thermowell tube.

The external heater coil is identical to the one used by Mizuno. Following bake-out the cell reached 1.2E-5 Torr vacuum and no leakage seen following 12-hour soak. Gas plumbing was moved to the far side of the vacuum manifold. Cal1 is now underway, with streaming at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcKIYzOrPZs

do you agree with this guess: It wasn't a leak in the thermowell or at the weld of the thermowell but it was the high temperature of the thermowell that outgassed lots of gas. In other words, the thermowell gets much hotter than the vessel itself and therefore the stainless steel material of the thermowell does the outgassing.

I'm using a commercial voltage feedthrough (uses ceramic/metal brazed seal) to get power to my heater.

https://www.lesker.com/feedthr…dthroughs/part/eft0523093

as you know, your external heater will reduce the temperature that the nickel mesh experiences vs an internal heater.

Quote from mizunotadahiko

Mizuno:

Before 2017, the correction formula was made with the reactor temperature. Similarly, for the calibration data, a correction formula was made with a reactor of the same shape and weight, but the accuracy was poor and it was not accurate. Therefore, the heat dissipation from the box was used for the correction. As a result, the accuracy became extremely good.

The newer the data I give, the better the accuracy and precision. Furthermore, it became possible to express any type and weight of furnace by a general formula with correction.

When Mizuno says "Therefore, the heat dissipation from the box was used for the correction. " Does he mean there are thermocouples (or similar) on the outside of the box that are being used to estimate the heat emitted by the box? Or is he using the temperature of the flowing air (from the air flow calorimetry) to estimate the heat emitted by the walls of the box to the environment. Either way would work but the former would be more accurate (and be a more complex experimental set up).

Quote from JedRothwell

Maybe I misunderstand the question but . . .

Output heat is always smaller than input power for a while.

look at the gray line (no correction for heat loss) in the graph and see that it is higher than the red line (output, corrected for heat loss, I assume) for the first 30 minutes of the 5 hour run. At one point in that first 30 minutes, the uncorrected value (gray line) is about 130 watts while the corrected value (red line) is 50 watts. It is a little weird - but seems to be a tempest in a teapot. I'm sure there is a simple explanation.

it's hard to know why the red trace off by that much in the start up of the run. It's only the first 30 minutes of a 5 hour run that you are referring to. I could speculate but I don't think it is too important because no one is using that data to claim over unity. It could be a simple offeset time error when the data was put into the spreadsheet (cut and paste of data at the wrong time stamp) or smoothing average functions in the spread sheet causing problems. It's a curiousity to bring attention to and ask that it be investigated but it isn't anything near a show stopper.

Quote from Bruce__H

I don't think so. Look at Figure 10 of Mizuno and Rothwell J Cond Matt Nucl Sci 29:1-12 (2019), then equation 2 of the same paper. The equation they fit to their calibration data is fractional power capture = O/I = 0.98 - [5.0811E-4 x T] where T is "the reactor temperature"

I looked at this: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf

and figure 10 is the thermal power fractional capture number (less than 1). In figure 10 the first data point is around 25 C which is the room temperature. The capture ratio at 25 C is claimed to be .967 according to equation 2. Quoting from the paper linked:

Figure 10 shows the reactor temperature vs. the heat recovery rate. When there is no input power, and the reactor
body temperature is 25◦C, the recovery rate should be close to 1. When the reactor body temperature is 100◦C, the
recovery rate is 0.93; it is 0.82 at 300◦C, and 0.78 at 360◦C.

Any constraint that looks like it is "1" at 0 C is coincidence.

Quote from Bruce__H

And I particularly don't understand why the correction factor used in the 800W plot should ever be is less than 1 when Mizuno and Rothwell's procedure seems to be to find fractional efficiency by fitting a straight line to their steady state calibration data and (apparently) constraining the line to pass through 1 at reactor temperature = 0 Celsius.

I'm guessing that it crosses at a delta T of 0 Celsius (in other words, a temperature difference of 0 Celsius).

It's not crossing at 0 Celsius (freezing water temperature). The delta T is between the room air and the tube air flow temperature.

I don't know how they did the math in that particular graph you are referring to.

But whether the factor is above or below 1 on start up is different for every set up. The factor will be below 1 after some amount of time after starting for all set ups. There are lots of factors ... power emitted, surface area, reactor thermal heat capacity, calorimeter box thermal heat capacity, air flow rate, shape of the reactor vessel, shape of the calorimeter, insulation thickness etc.

There's no real need to be concerned with such a small portion of the full run. Someone could spend weeks running different control (i.e. null) experiments trying to make an equation to decrease the error on start up and that would be wasted time. It's better to do a long run and then the start up portion with its errors will be a tiny percentage.

the equation for start up could be complicated and involve the factors of time, heat capacity of the vessel, heat capacity of the calorimeter - in other words as complicated as you want to make it (though best is just to keep it simple and reduce the start up error to an acceptable level). The evaluated equation can be above or below the value of 1.

One way to do the mathematics of flowing calorimetry (ignoring the startup issue above) is to make a calibration chart of thermal power captured in the flowing air at steady state with the control reactor (no nickel mesh, no D2, no Pd) and this chart would always show a fractional value (i.e. less than 1) because some heat escapes through the wall of the box. This fractional value is a function of the power into the control reactor.

So for example: 130 watts of electrical resistor input, 100 watts measured in flowing air and 30 watts emitted by box at steady state. The fraction captured in the flowing air is 100/130 = 0.769.

When running active reactor (with nickel mesh, D2, palladium etc.) , if 100 watts is seen in the flowing air at steady state then the total emitted power is 100/.769 = 130 watts. The key is to note that the fractional capture value changes as a function of power emitted by the reactor and is mostly (perfectly?) valid at steady state. If the temperature is fluctuating/increasing/decreasing then it is a judgement call when using the steady state fractional capture value. In most cases it is adequate and certainly adequate for long runs.

On top of all that, when the input energy is turned off and the temperature returns to room temperature, the thermal power in the flowing air can be integrated over time to give the total amount of energy created by the reactor.

The heat recovery graph that shows the percentage of thermal wattage lost through the walls of the box versus input power (for the flow calorimetry that Mizuno does) is made from steady state conditions. Fast changes in temperature of the atmospheric air inside the box at start up leads to errors in the output watts. So there is going to be errors in the output power graph that can be acceptable if they are small portions of the overall trend. It would be time consuming to determine the appropriate equation to reduce that start up error - but it could be reduced with enough effort. I don't think it is necessarily worth the time if the runs are long enough.

sure, use the turbopump to decrease the deuterium pressure and kill the excess heat. But Mizuno says there is some excess heat even at very low pressures, I don't know how low.

Also, importantly ... I want to check my calibration at the same temperature (such as 350 C) with a gas having the same heat transfer characteristics as deuterium but doesn't produce excess heat. If I could use Argon then I would.

My control (null experiment ) calibration with stainless steel mesh didn't use as much mesh as I will be using in the active nickel experiment. I expect the mesh to change the heat flow inside the vessel with more heat flowing to the top of the vessel. So double checking the calibration with the active nickel and a gas that temporarily kills the excess heat effect would be very useful.

if helium can't be used because it permanently kills the reaction then Argon is the safest choice unless Mizuno has a better idea.

I would want a gas that has similar heat transfer characteristics and helium (mass number 4) fits that bill. Argon is ok because I can calibrate with it and I already know the calibration offset relative to D2 (I'll determine that and post it here someday soon). Argon has a mass number of 40 that compares to D2 which has mass number 4.

If a small amount of nitrogen mixed with the D2 temporarily killed the reaction (but not permanently) then that would be useful to know.

I don't use flow calorimetry. I use the average temperature of 8 external thermocouples clamped (using big pipe clamps) onto the vessel. I then calibrate it using Argon and D2 gas with a small amount of stainless steel mesh (as a non-active control) inside. I calibrate at different temperatures and pressures between 50 mT and 4 Torr. I do wonder what my calibration constants would be if I had used more non-active stainless steel mesh. I may have to do that after I try the activated nickel.