Daniel_G Member
  • Male
  • Member since Apr 10th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Daniel_G

    Cydonia, the evidence is exactly the opposite of what you say. Where do you get such data? As countries develop and become richer they have fewer children. Poverty correlates with a much higher birthrate.

    Irregardless of what the current theories say, the data is quite clear. Lower pressure, more excess heat. Period. It is going to take a lot of time and money to understand the "why" but we clearly understand that "what" now.

    No, that is out of question. The reasons are given in the papers, and I addressed that question specifically in the presentation. Reasons:

    1. The bottom of the calorimeter is well insulated.
    2. A wide variety of reactors have been calibrated in the calorimeter, ranging from 50 kg down to 300 g. They all produced the same Delta T temperature in the air flow. You cannot tell them apart.

    Jed, this is very good science but you are including experience and issues that are not written in the paper. If it was my paper, I would make the argument about the calorimeter and DeltaT, etc. at various known input powers and run the statistics. My comment is not that the science that Mizuno is doing is not correct, its that the paper should be written to incorporate your experience and data so that the paper becomes more rock solid.

    Jed


    Why can’t you run calibrations with the resistance wire on joule heating at 50-300W levels, say every 50W or at the very least run one with an empty reactor but with 300W joule heating? That would remove a lot of doubt by having an accurate calibration at a level that the calorimeter is supposed to be measuring. Just a good practice to have calibration points outside the point of measurement.


    Daniel

    Yes I see my math was wrong and you are correct in the first point. Please accept my apology.


    As for the flow development I agree the difference from Umax to V is going to be less than 10%. If I had time to run this on FLUENT, I could give you an exact number but if you study the charts available, the development of the flow profile in 5xD is going to be very low and that's why I agree with the <10% figure. Perhaps if I have time next week I can run the simulation but the air coming out of the fan is going to be very turbulent and the measurement point at 5xD is not going to allow the flow to develop at all. I think based on this we can agree that the COP figure given in this experiment is still far beyond any possible error in the flow measurement. Right?


    Output heat was stabilized at 303W @ input of 50W so if we assume the worst case scenario, and multiply the 303W measured output by 0.815 we get 247W so the lower bound for the COP reading would be 247/50=4.94, still far and above anything that could be explained chemically, especially if this reaction continued for days as Mizuno is showing.


    Just for fun, if we assume that the flow is both laminar and fully developed, Avg. flow is going to be ½ of Umax and then the measured 303W (ignoring calibration) would become 150W, which still gives a COP of 3 which is still very good by LENR standards so I guess I don't really understand why we are spending so much time on this issue. The measured COP is so high, the result is still robust in light of all the possible errors is it not? Or am I missing some part of your argument?


    Oh and the empirically measured data all the way up to 3mm from the outside wall seems to follow the undeveloped flow theory so can we agree that this was a good exercise, but any such flow error would only reduce the COP from the reported 6 all the way down to 3, all other things being equal and although this is nowhere near being valid from the empirical data, even giving you the maximum benefit of the doubt, the COP is still far above anything that could be accounted for through such errors.

    @THHuxlynew, your calculations seem to be erroneous. Here is a copy of my fluid dynamics textbook:


    For Equation 36, you use f-(100Re)^(-⅛) and that gives the ratio of Umax to V of 1.24 but if you use the correct equation that reduces to only 4%. Also note one more important point. The pipe diameter is 6cm and length estimated to be about 30cm so about 5xD only so the flow is nowhere near being fully developed. Even the 4% figure which gives for something like 60xD or at least starts to get close there will be much, much less for a distance only 5xD from the entrance.


    In conclusion, the flow error due to Umax:V ratio is <<4% and probably <2%. To this you only need to add the uncertainty of velocity measurement from the actual anemometer used.


    QED

    1) the Shanetsu insulation used in this paper is rather poor relative to the state of the art insulation (Vacuum insulated panels). This product (https://www.turvac.eu/0/Products/WhatisVIP.aspx) gives extremely low thermal conductivity (3~10x the product Mizuno used) (3,5mW/mK), with just 20 mm thickness, U value less than 0,22 W/(m2K) can be reached. This would allow more precise calibrations at higher temperatures and more capture of the reactor heat in the air flow.


    2) for replicators with sufficient funding a mass flow meter such as this (https://www.sierrainstruments.com/products/oem-probes.html) would help put to bed about 70% of the discussions here. This device provides 1% accuracy in air mass flow and 0.2% in repeatability. This slight modification would leave zero doubt about velocity profiles and turbulent flow, etc. since it measures mass flow not velocity. Also the turndown rate is 1000:1 and dynamic range is 0 to 20,000 SFPM so this device should allow replicators to measure a higher power level at higher temperatures accurately all the way up to 3000W.


    If someone is successful replicating exactly as in the paper, if it were me, I would improve the air mass flow measurements and improve insulation with VIP technology and run the experiment again.

    When you google cold fusion investment right now google returns Woodford Fund goes bankrupt due to Rossi investment and the nature paper that fails to show any anomalous heat. First of all no real investment fund makes a single bet that will bankrupt the firm. Secondly thousands of valid peer reviewed papers are simply ignored. It’s a war out there right now. They are scared. Mizuno’s replications will be the key for this technology to make it out of the development stage and into the commercial stage.

    • Personally I most distrust the airflow measurements. Getting this wrong by 50% would explain these results. We do not actually know where the air speed was tested. Lack of data here means we cannot check this.
    • I think the middle of tube air speed, air temperature, can easily be determined. Airflow is more difficult because flow velocity profile will be non-uniform, reducing to zero at edges of a pipe and higher in the middle. Mizumo talks I think of checking airflow at different points around the reactor. that does not help, and also does not answer the velocity profile question. This could make the +50% apparent results, if ignored.
    • The other uncertainties seem well bounded by me and although we would need careful and detailed results I feel these are less problematic

    For about $20 I can buy a mass flow sensor from any modern car with a pulse or voltage output with a total uncertainty of around 1.5% (hot wire/hot film-type). Also, RTD measures a difference in mOhms in order to resolve temperatures, normally I use NTC thermistors coupled to an Agilent 34970A and we can get total uncertainty of temperature measurements to about 13mK when using triple point and gallium cell calibrated thermistors.

    Robert, just like an amplifier circuit, high gains give tendency for more instability than low gain circuits so I agree with what THH wrote.

    Accuracy isn't free. But again since its a mass flow meter not a anemometer that measures velocity, there is no issue about laminar vs. turbulent flow profiles, etc. Another idea is if people all buy the $20 car engine mass flow meters and multiple replicators could share the cost of the Sierra device to calibrate their $20 flow meters.

    You are welcome to look at the specifications of the manufacturer. Power cannot, by definition, be measured as voltage or current, alone as it is the product of both. I used to run an engineering company that is a global leader in caloric measurement and metrology. I have no interest in any instrument company. The $20 device, if you followed the discussion, was objected to about its calibration issues in different sized pipes than what it was designed for so I suggested the Sierra solution.

    Although I am new to this field I have been a long time anti-psuedoscience and and anti-pseudoskeptic proponent. Real science always accepts skepticism. Not only accepts but actually good skepticism actually causes real science to thrive and go forward. Just my observation that I see SOT's comments fair and balanced. Those on all sides of this debate would do well, for everyone's benefit, to treat skepticism with professionalism and not resort to sarcasm which is just a passive aggressive technique to belittle the skeptic. Address the scientific issues with professionalism. Resorting to sarcasm actually only belittles the person being sarcastic. Just my two cents...

    Robert, the device I am referring to has two temperature probes, one heated one not. The device adds power to the heated sensor to maintain a 50C temperature differential between the two sensors. As it turns out, the power going to the heated probe is proportional not to velocity but to the mass flowing past the sensor (in other words the number of gas molecules flowing past the sensor. The unit is factory calibrated with the desired gas and pressure (in this case atmospheric air and pressure) and gives an accuracy of 0.5-1% in the mass flow of air which is a more direct measurement for calculating caloric flow than velocity which has to be converted to volume, and then mass by pressure and temperature. An anemometer measures only gas velocity which you have correctly pointed out is subject to uncertainties due to flow profile and Re number, temperature and pressure, etc. whereas with the mass flow meter I am suggesting all these uncertainties are removed. (Note molar mass was a mis-type which caused a misunderstanding...

    He has been replicating this for years. From reactor R16 to R20. Repeatability is excellent. Someone else in Japan already replicated, and reports it is working. Other people need to try this now. People skilled in the art.


    I do not think anyone should prepare a reactor, put deuterium into the reactants, and mail the reactor or reactants to anyone. I fear the reactants might self-heat and go out of control. It may be unlikely, but if it happened it could cause a catastrophic accident in an airplane flying from Japan to the U.S. We should not take any chances until this reaction is fully understood. I am confident that the reaction can be made safe and controllable, but that will take billions of dollars of R&D. Right now, mailing prepared and deuterated reactants is like mailing a fully charged battery or a can of gasoline. That's dangerous, and it is against postal regulations.

    Jed I don't think such fear is well placed. A self-sustaining reaction would continue to heat the nickel mesh up to its melting point and above 700C the few grams of Ni would simply melt and the reaction would stop. Assuming packing for shipping was done properly, the worst that would happen is that a non-working reactor would arrive at its destination. Irregardless of this I agree that out of an abundance of caution charged units should never be transported.

    Robert, there is a difference between a hot-wire anemometer and a mass flow sensor. These units I am suggesting detect the actual molar mass of molecules passing the sensor so regardless if the flow is laminar or turbulent, the meter still reads mass flow correctly. Yes as you suggest the absolute values need to be recalibrated but one could easily purchase an insertion mass flow meter such as those made by Sierra inst. which is relatively easy to have calibrations with atmospheric air. The total uncertainty for mass flow would be less than 1% and properly designed thermistors with triple point of water and gallium calibrations can give you about a 100C range with which you can measure with 10mK uncertainty. Mind you, we are looking for a 10C difference and our accuracy will be +/-0.01C, so when you couple this accurate temperature reading from the TPW/Ga calibrated NTC thermistors (http://www.mnv.com.sg/wp-conte…/2015/01/items-system.png) your total system uncertainty would be just under 4 sigmas from rejecting the null hypothesis. For a standard P-value of 0.05, you would be exceeding by a large margin and probably could even reach P=0.01

    THH, I appreciate your critical review of the experimental data which is all good but I am a bit baffled by real scientists with their much ado about nothing when the entire issue of air mass flow can be solved with a $20 engine part which measures mass flow of air with less than 2% uncertainty. The engineers that designed the mass flow meter can deal with Reynold's numbers and laminar flow issues, while all we need is the pulse output proportional to the flow. Also triple point calibrated NTC thermistors can measure temperature with 10mK accuracy so that should remove all reasonable uncertainty about the results here.

    OK Alan perhaps got some wires crossed in the downloading. As long as HEAD is edited as you show, I am good. Thanks for bearing with me. I hope over the coming months and years we can start off on another foot. I have been called a troll multiple times now when my only objective has been to get out the correct information. My bad on the timing of my post, so hopefully this is all water under the bridge now. Thanks for all the help. I am wondering if could add some more information that would be very helpful, and that would be to write in the list what the funds raised were (if public of course) and the valuation at various stages. Markets desire information and the more transparent we can be with such information, the easier it will be for people in this field to raise money and move the technology forward.

    FYI, you didn't actually edit out the CP/Mizuno connection:


    Hydrogen Engineering Application & Development Company (HEAD) Japan: ACTIVE

    •  Independent research unit supported by Clean Planet.
    •  Tadahiko Mizuno and Hideki Yoshino.

    Emphasis added. This is from the document I just downloaded. I just want this CP link and Yoshino's name to be removed from here. This is requested by Mizuno himself.