mizunotadahiko Verified User
  • Member since Mar 5th 2020
  • Last Activity:

Posts by mizunotadahiko




    The same discussion can be made about heaters for calibration.

    So why can't we see excess heat with the calibration heater?

    Please explain this.

    The three years from 2019 were the worst of my life. In March 2021, my wife died, my cat died, the company was unjustly hijacked (in accussing), and in 2018, the company was hit by an earthquake and suffered great damage. I also thought about stopping the CF research as it is. But in the midst of misery, I have to say a lot about it. It seemed to be mentally useless just to deal with it. During that time, it was CF research that saved me. Fortunately, at the end of 2021, I got unexpected test results. Also this year, I was able to overcome four more walls. As a result of more than 30 years of trial and error, I was finally able to control the excess heat, so I think we were able to determine the conditions. I hope to be able to present at the conference.

    There is no point in discussing the theory and mechanism of the CF phenomenon, which has not been completed yet. First of all, it is important to do many tests by yourself and accumulate data. In particular, it is meaningless to discuss the upper and lower limits of this phenomenon, such as the amount of excess heat generated, the duration, materials, and temperature.

    Dear All

    Mizuno Tec. Inc is the official page. I didn't even know MTI page before. Mr. Daniel made it ahead of time, causing confusion. I also contacted Mr. Daniel and gave him a lot of attention and suggestions. Mr. D is also a page I made for me. The pager was not well managed and caused distrust and confusion to many people. I will also be careful in the future.

    Tadahiko Mizuno


    A few more words from the cook would be very helpful to understand why.



    Mizuno: You've noticed some good points. Since the output calculation used the average value, attach the original file.

    The value after calibration is always large.

    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"





    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.

    水野: 以前の試験では90%が直流電源です。交流電源も使用しましたが、加熱では試験結果に違いは有りません。直流の方が測定は楽です。

    Mizuno: 90% of the previous tests were DC power supplies. An AC power supply was also used, but there is no difference in the test results with heating. DC is easier to measure.


    This calibration data is no longer used. As I said before, the calibration test is always updated, so please be careful. Mizuno Tadahiko

    Here is the loss-corrected 120 W plus excess plot.



    I don't know the excess heat data reaching 350W with this 120W input. I reconfirmed all the data from 2017, when I started measuring the air volume, but there are none. I don't think it's my data.

LENR Partners