Posts by Daniel_G

At Mizuno's suggestion before patents were filed a mutual decision was made to use a generic lab photo downloaded from a Google image search (This is not my expertise and had no idea there would be copyright issues, my bad) in the previous homepage. Since patents were filed the site was updated with actual photos. Nowhere in the previous version did it say that the photos were Mizuno's lab. That is not deceptive. Protecting IP is a key part of our fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders.

I will not discuss this issue further, nor any false claims that we have been deceptive. We have not.

Mizuno now is facing the battle of his life. Let's all show some respect, take a deep breath and think before hitting the REPLY button. At the appropriate time Mizuno will probably add some clarifications but we currently have no further bandwidth to deal with imagined, baseless claims. Mizuno's company will continue to raise funds and move the technology forward from the lab to commercial applications as stated in our website. Commercial considerations preclude me from being more transparent at the moment. This is no longer an academic research but a commercial operation so please understand the entire team does our best to be as transparent and professional as possible given the limitations we face.

What Mizuno needs right now is your thoughts and prayers. Let's show some maturity. Thank you for allowing me to be a part of this valuable community forum, the vast majority of its members which have been nothing but helpful.

Here is the manual of the device used.

https://files.yamato-net.co.jp…/pdf_manual/dh650_eng.pdf

Jed, you seem to have misunderstood or perhaps I didn't state clearly. This data is nothing more than an early report of something exciting. The "rest assured" comment was in reference to the ongoing and planned replications not the current report. It means that top level corporate and academic researchers will replicate and do it properly.

Yes I did mine with Numbers as well. Strange error. I reentered the data into a new spreadsheet and got the same result. Crazy. The above numbers were done on Excel and are correct.

I agree the equation is wrong. New computer/software... Thanks for catching that! Here is the actual data:

y = 0.3513x + 34.844

R² = 0.9843

Funny the R^2 was correct but the equation was not.

I already stated that more robust calibrations are being done with sufficient replication to be able to calculate error bars. I also stated that this was an early report.

Yes we have a few reputable partners assisting.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is a dangerous assumption. First, we have not discussed any errors, purported or otherwise. We don't have enough information to do that. Second, you can always have an error. People have made gigantic errors. Rossi managed to confuse 1 MW with 0 W. (I do not think he actually confused them -- I think he knew better, but many people looking at his results did.)

Yes, it should be. Something is wrong if it is not. The problem may be unimportant, or it may be serious. Until you find out why the calibration is not linear you need to be careful. You cannot be fully confident of the results.

Firstly both myself and Mizuno do not agree that there is any a priori reason to expect linearity as stated previously. If we go forward under your assumption that is should be linear, we can calculate the expected magnitude of error due to non-linearity. The result is +/-2%, not 200%.

To mention Rossi's 1MW and 0W in this context is not only unhelpful, but ludicrous on its face. Dr. Muto's scientific and personal credentials are unindictable. The equipment used is top quality scientific equipment. The experimental concept is beautiful in its simplicity and could very well represent a major leap forward in low temp/high COP LENR research.

As professional scientists we not only accept but actually encourage critical reviews of data and methods but please do us the favor of actually doing the calculations (the above took me <10 minutes) before making any claims. 2% non-linearity is insufficient to explain a 70C/214W difference from dummy to test reactor difference. To even suggest that it could is not a valid or logical scientific argument.

Mizuno also mirrored my opinion that he sees no a priori reason to expect linearity in this data. However we ran the numbers based on this assumption and <2% non-linearity is certainly quite low but again I am not sure what the meaning of this is. A more robust series of calibrations will be done or rather are being done now and something will be sent to peer review for publication so please be patient while this is done.

R^2 of over 0.98 and you guys are saying this isn't linear! Exactly what R^2 would you accept? In the statistics that I studied a 98% linearity is pretty damn good. The temperature specs from this very well known scientific equipment maker is +/-3C at 300C and +/- 5C at 500C. There is a 70C difference in temperature between dummy and test reactors. The experiment was very simple. They are able to control input power manually and measure temperature. Input power is the independent variable and temperature is the dependent variable. Calibration runs were done with a dummy reactor and test runs were done with an active reactor. The phenomenon is repeatable and it is a large effect.

Again, we thought this data is exciting enough to send an early stage report to our friends and supporters in this forum and rest assured proper scientific technique is being followed and more robust calibrations with sufficient replicates to calculate error bars will be done in multiple locations and multiple teams with high quality equipment.

Finally Mizuno specifically asked me to express to Jed first of all and the rest of the forum that his personal situation does not allow him to participate directly in this forum at this time as his personal situation is rather difficult at the moment, so I am doing my best to remove that burden from him and communicate with our friends in this community. In Eastern culture it is not customary to be so open with personal problems but in the West this is expected and is seen as probably "rude" for not responding to emails, etc. Trust me Mizuno is not being arrogant or rude. He's dealing with a life and death situation of close family and doing what any educated and cultured Japanese would do (keeping his personal misfortune private and focusing on taking care of his family).

Jed resistance heaters are made of heat resistant wire. The words are interchangeable in this case and most certainly non-mutually exclusive.

As for dangerous assumptions, please go back and reread what I wrote. I said these results stimulated us to redo these types of experiments with professional researchers from both academia and corporate partners.

I didn’t say the results were conclusive, but they are interesting enough to us for spending more resources in pursuing this.

You can’t just hand wave 240% error away. If any of you have some concrete suggestions of where to find 240% error please do let us know.

Not sure why you would expect a linear relationship from power input to temperature. There are air leak loses, conduction losses, radiative losses which are exponential and each playing differently weighted roles at different temperatures. While I concede the data looks a bit imprecise, how can you explain a 70C temperature difference with a maximum temperature reading uncertainty of less than 5C?

Its getting to the point where it may become dangerous (COP >2) at relatively low temperatures. If temperature are raised and the previous known phenomenon of exponentially increased power output with increased temperature holds, we may be approaching the "run away" zone. Systems have to be modified for safety before we proceed.

Interesting discussion but I think most are missing the forest for the trees. First of all the COP is 2.4, well beyond any kind of purported error. Secondly this high COP was achieved at a very low temperature relative to previous data wrapping a resistance wire around the reactor and using air calorimetry. This is not a peer reviewed published result but these results are illustrative of what is possible when the reactors are placed in an environment with a uniform temperature applied to the entire reactor surface. Experimental methods can be improved and teams are working on this now. Some of our academic and corporate partners are adapting their experimental methods to see if we can replicate these high COPs at lower temperatures. The calibration data is not linear (not sure if it "should be") and I am not sure how statistically robust the calibration process was (it should have error bars if done properly) but the temperature difference between control (90C) and active reactors (158C) is massive. The experiment in question was done by students under Dr. Muto's supervision. Professional researchers are now attempting a replication. Confirmation of large amounts of excess heat using different instrumentation and different methods does make Mizuno's claims for excess heat more robust.

I just spoke with Mizuno and he asked me to contact the forum and apologize for the delay in his reply. He is quite overwhelmed with personal matters. Dr. Muto's experiment was done with the following equipment: https://www.yamato-scientific.com/product/show/dh650_2/

This is more or less a convection oven with a powerful recirculation fan. Calibrations were done to relate heater power to temperature with a dummy reactor.The dummy reactor at 150W input, gave around 90C. With the active reactor, the temperature increased to 160C, equivalent to 364W with dummy reactor. I hope this clarifies the experiment. We have several partners around the world attempting to replicate this.

@Ascoli, nichrome wire resistance varies greatly with temperature. There is not any logical reason to expect control and active heaters to have the same resistance nor is it necessary for calibration to use the exact same heater. Resistance heaters convert electrical power to heat and the electrical power is measured easily. Calibration of a colorimeter do not require identical conditions or heaters to work properly.

@SOT has reiterated my argument exactly. We both agree the postulated argument goes the wrong way but @THH is saying that if there is an adjustment based on the PSU inefficiency that then that could show up as excess power. I think Jed has cleared the this issue already as the power in is measured between the PSU AND also checked at the source as a “reality check” so no possible source for error here. QED.

@THH, I have a question for you from a theme that seems to be popping up now and again after reading your posts. At multiple times you mentioned possible discrepancy about input power measurement of Mizuno not clear if its measured before or after the PSU. Yes, I agree it would be nice if input was measured after the PSU but 100% of all PSU's have a finite efficiency so even if it was measured at the line voltage outlet level, that would over-estimate (not under-estimate) the input power unless you think the PSU efficiency is over 100%. So, yes I agree that these things should be cleared up but in terms of any possible error that would under-estimate input power, this one is a non-starter. Can we agree upon that in principle? As Jed says, there is nothing easier to measure than input power.

In terms of the flow velocity profile, if Paradigmnoia is having problems with mixing, I suggest stuffing a high-porosity sponge filter like what you can buy at K&N, etc. that will remove any vortices, etc. from the fan before the air enters the tube. These would have minimal pressure loss and should solve most of these profile issues being discussed.

Just a little confirmation of physics and pardon me if I missed something here but the specific heat of air calculation you are using assumes dry air which I am positive is not the case. It would improve accuracy of the airflow calorimeter if RH was measured on the inlet and outlet, to get a better specific heat calculation. Has this been done? Even if both temp and RH were measured at one point together, one could calculate the actual specific heat with a psychrometric chart.

I don't think the 0.3MPa is the reactor pressure. They say they inject 0.0002 moles of D2. If you assume a 3L vessel volume, that gives about 168Pa of pressure which is in the correct zone. The 0.3MPa seems to be a mistranslation.

Anyway, the 0.0002 moles of D2 gives 57.2J of heat if burned (heat of combustion) so the 47,000J output from this experiment is 783 x the total chemical energy of the D2 injected into the device.