Well-controlled by Mother Nature and some rather poor insulation. At least it isn’t drafty.
In other words, not well controlled. Being drafty is the pitts. It makes the measurements imprecise. Reasonably accurate but imprecise.
JedRothwell
Verified User
- Member since Oct 11th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by JedRothwell
-
-
Having different gases and/or different gas pressures would cause huge variations in calibration.
Not with an air flow calorimeter after a while. With different gases (or a vacuum) the heat come out of the reactor more quickly or more slowly. This changes the shape of the initial curve. But after everything stabilizes and the curve flattens out, the power level will be the same. It is the same no matter what gas is in a cell, or with a bare resistance heater and no cell.
-
exactly it looks like that, a kind of magic he got a LENR starting around room temperature and behaving like a standard electrical heater, can we expect something better than this?
I do not think so. I would say it looks like excess heat starts up fairly soon at a very low level, and then increases with temperature. It causes the total heat output to increase faster and to a higher level than with the calibration runs. Remember that this is not a direct measurement of the reaction or the reactor temperature. It is a measurement of the heat coming out of the calorimeter. There will be a considerable delay, and the heat will be muffled by the steel reactor and the calorimeter components.
To avoid these discussions about thermal inertia, it would have been better to log only end temperatures where the temperature is stabilized in time at a given input power.
I do not understand this comment. You can see the end temperatures. Just ignore the data before the data before the curve reaches a peak and stabilizes. Note, however, that it does not always stay at a stable level. See especially Fig. 6, p. 10.
-
Is someone able to mark on my pic where the LENR start?
It is there the whole time. Or it starts up gradually, close to the beginning. I believe you are expecting a sudden onset. Some experiments show a sudden onset, but others do not.
-
can also be different input power.
The input power is the same. The output power is different; there is excess heat. That's the whole point. Granted, that could be wrong, but it is the simplest explanation for the difference in the curves.
the 3 curves match perfectly standard electrical heaters with relative different power.
it is hard to find a LENR reaction here.I do not see why you say that. There is excess heat from the cold fusion reaction nearly the whole time. There is no sudden onset. This is what other reactions look like.
-
1) I am assuming that the power outputs in the new MizunoTsupplement.pdf were generated using the same airflow calorimetry techniques as the earlier Mizuno papers? Is this correct?
It is similar, but the instruments are better, and the environment is much better controlled.
2) Calibration in figure 3, page 7 is in 'arbitrary units'. What's the conversion from arbitrary units for "Air In" an "air out" to temperature in degrees C, i.e. how high a rise are we seeing?
Actually, I wrote "arbitrary units." The Japanese version did not have any label. I do not think these are converted; I think they just used a range of numbers that worked for all values; i.e. temperature, voltage, pressure . . . Maybe they multiplied one to make it fit? I don't have the actual spreadsheet available on this computer, so I can't tell.
3) Are there photos available in the as tested configuration (including surface polish to know emissivity and surface area are both about the same) of the the control unit vs the active unit?
I do not think they are the same. But surface polish etc. cannot affect the inlet and outlet thermocouples, or the external temperature measurements used to confirm them. Mizuno ended up using a variety of control cells, including ordinary resistance heaters, and heaters of various sizes. There was no measurable difference between them. That's the beauty of flow calorimetry. The temperatures are measured some distance away from the reaction, so they are not directly affected by the reaction, and not affected at all by the reactor size, geometry or surface.
4) Why is the input air hotter for the first 10000 or so seconds?
I don't know. I guess the room was hotter. I guess the environmental controls could be better. Anyway, there are fewer short term fluctuations.
5) I am assuming the airflow is the same for control vs active run. Is that correct.
Yes. It wouldn't be a control run otherwise!
6) Do we have available the raw input and output air temperature of the control run and the active run.
Only for the 500 W tests.
-
Why does it take 80000 seconds to reach steady state with the 500 W calibration, and it reaches steady state in 20000 seconds with 500 W input with excess heat?
I assume that is the effect of excess heat. It heats up faster. Or it might be because the calibration reactor heats up slower than the active reactor. I do not think they are exactly the same, as they were in some of Mizuno's experiments.
if the spring outside the cylinder is the heating resistance, the temperature matches perfectly its position more than the mesh position.
Yes, I think this is a calibration run. You can see the reactor is not placed in the calorimeter, so even if there were excess heat, you wouldn't know that.
no trigger point at any graph, hard to believe it.
What "trigger points" do you expect? What other cold fusion data shows them? F&P triggered the effect with a heat pulse, but I do not know of others who had discrete trigger methods or points.
-
One question: doesn’t the output power graph of the 72W calibration run look weird with a decreasing slope?
Yes, it does look weird. I don't know what to make of it.
I have the other graphs. I will look at them more closely to see if they have something similar.
It seems it worked far better at 500W. Can they do 500W again?
That does seem to be the sweet spot. I think they are going to step through a whole set of power levels again to see if that shows up again. I assume this is the optimum temperature, not the power lever per se.
-
I added some information from Saito et al., including a schematic of the equipment, and calibrations and excess heat tests at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. See pages 6 - 12:
-
A new book published by Elsevier gathers the latest results from leading scientists in the field CMNS and their thirty-year study of cold fusion
I am afraid this book is overpriced. I doubt many people will buy it.
(Note that I am a contributing author and copy editor.)
-
-
On January 2, 1992, cold fusion researcher Dr. Andrew Riley was killed in a tragic accident at SRI. His sister Jane Riley recently planted a memorial tree to him. See:
Former mayor dedicates tree to brother 27 years after his death
-
And,as has been argued here, of those who have looked seriously at the evidence on LENR numbers may well still be against me! it is difficult to know.
No, it isn't difficult to know. It is one of the clearest and most indisputable discoveries in the last hundred years. The energy release exceeds the limits of chemistry by a factor of 10,000 in some cases. The heat sometimes ranges from 20 to 100 W in continuous reactions lasting weeks or months, where a chemical reaction would not last five minutes. Such high power cannot be an experimental error.
The details of the nuclear reaction, and theory, are difficult to know. But the fact that this is a revolutionary new source of energy could not be easier to understand. Anyone who has burned a stick in the last million years can see that.
You claim it is difficult to know because you are blinded by an irrational desire to deny reality. I cannot say whether this comes from your ego, or fear of novelty, or a perverse desire to make yourself look smarter than Martin Fleischmann. Your belief is irrational and without foundation. To maintain it, you have to come up with ever-more outlandish nonsense, such as your hypothesis to explain away the boil-off results with macroscopic yet invisible drops of water that violate gravity. You have to deny scientific principles and methods going back to 1780. You have to believe that replicated experiments mean nothing, correlation means nothing, and the scientific method does not work.
-
Best and more precise explanation of the Dunning Kruger effect I have seen so far, and funny, too!!!
Cleese is a visiting professor at Cornell, and a friend of Dunning, as he noted. He is brilliant, and good at teaching.
-
In my case, I will have something of value to show for my efforts. I see nothing of value coming from your efforts. So, please tell me what value do you intend to achieve?
I think many skeptics do this as an ego trip. They want to show they are smarter than cold fusion researchers. Or, they want to sit at the cool kids table in junior high. Or as they say in Japan, there is safety in numbers. If you are going to join in a fight, be sure to pick the stronger side.
THH and especially Ascoli think they are smarter than Fleischmann, Bockris or Miles. They are mistaken. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect, explained here by John Cleese (of Cornell U. and Monty Python):
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
We who are studying LENR are well aware of the errors and do not need coaching . . .
Yes. And not just the errors. Researchers know about the difficulties, the limitations of the instruments, and so on. For example, THH mentioned that the amount of helium in some experiments is minute. It is sometimes less than the atmospheric concentration. (Although it is higher than atmospheric concentration in other experiments.) This is true, and it is important. It is worth discussing. But here is what irks me about THH. He does not seem to realize that Miles and others addressed this. They discussed it in detail. They took steps to ensure that the helium is not contamination, despite the low concentration. In fact, as Miles pointed out, if it were contamination leaking in, it would be at some random level, likely far above what is measured. You cannot leak in such tiny amounts of helium. Furthermore, the mass of helium correlates with the total heat release, in approximately the same ratio as D+D => He fusion, measured in many different tests. If it were leaking in from the atmosphere, it would not be in this ratio. In that sense, the low concentration actually bolsters the results. That is counterintuitive.
Miles and the other authors explain this. THH should read their explanations carefully before commenting on the low concentration. He should acknowledge that the issue has been addressed. He doesn't have to agree with Miles, but he should not act as if he is the first person in the history of cold fusion to realize that the low concentration may be a problem. All of the other genuine issues he raised were also addressed, decades ago. He also listed some bogus problems that cannot arise, so they do not need to be addressed.
Miles addressed this issue in other ways. He had three different labs measure the helium in single-blind tests. He did not tell the people measuring helium what the other two labs found, yet the results agreed. It is unlikely all three made the same mistakes in many tests.
If THH wants to make useful contributions, before he starts listing one problem after another, he should read the literature carefully to see if the problems he comes up with have been addressed. Granted, it is a lot of work reading the literature, but there is no point to critiquing an imaginary version of the research. If he wants to take a shortcut and avoid reading all those papers, he can read my summary of Miles' work, written in 2004. As I said, we have known about these issues for a long time.
-
This is what DR Rossi says the 23 do.
What is your point? I say he is probably lying. The fact that he claims these people are doing one job or another does not make it less likely it is a lie. He can make up imaginary jobs as easily as he makes up imaginary people.
This does not bolster his case. It is not a reason you should believe him.
-
Anyone who has read Miles and others who replicated the helium results will know this is bullshit. I will not argue the details, because you won't read them anyway, and even if you do, you will repeat this same bullshit.
For people who want to learn about helium, see for example:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
All of the issues raised by THH are either wrong, or they were resolved by Miles and others decades ago.
There are also examples of helium above atmospheric concentration, which negates another of his points.
-
PS Ed Storms pointed out some errors and omissions, such as the fact that heat and helium are correlated. That is a long story and I'd be happy to discuss it. The correlation evidence is interesting and I was very interested in the U of Austion (??) rumoured replication attempts. The trouble is that He at such low levels (concentration lower than many lab envts ) is tricky to be sure about. But good careful replication can surely deal with that.
Anyone who has read Miles and others who replicated the helium results will know this is bullshit. I will not argue the details, because you won't read them anyway, and even if you do, you will repeat this same bullshit.
-
I think anyone:
(1) with reputation to uphold(2) not associated with LENR field
Oh sure you think that. Yeah, right. The problem is, as soon as they confirm the result, you will condemn them as "LENR insiders" and "true believers." Researchers at over 180 labs replicated cold fusion. In March 1989, not a single one of them believed it. They hadn't even heard of it. Over the years, one lab after another published positive results. You, now, reject every one of them as "insiders." If 180 others replicated, you would reject them. The moment anyone confirms, that disqualifies them. That is what you and all the other pathological skeptics say. I have been hearing that bullshit for 30 years. Please try to come up with something more original.
