Posts by JedRothwell

Quote from anonymous

If Mizuno says he valved off the D2 as an ongoing source of chemical energy, I believe him. Can we move on. This will be proven by the replicators.

(Please note that for the future publication I would suggest making this fact explicit in the published paper.

It is right there in Table 1! It shows the pressure. Do you see anything like 101,000 Pa? How could he keep it at 1000 Pa if he did not valve off the D2?? Leave the needle valve open and it will fill to whatever the pressure in the tank is. Of course you have to shut the valves to keep it at 1% of atmospheric pressure.

What a weird comment.

Quote from anonymous

Situation 1: (Emissivity 85% calibration unit) -- If the heat is radiated out of the surface of the stainless steel cylinder (reactor or control) more of it makes its way _without being absorbed_ through the air in the convection chamber to the walls, thereby bypassing the air.

The manufacturers claim it is the best reflecting insulation money can buy. Anyway, if some of the heat escaped without being reflected back, that would mean we underestimate the excess heat. It would mean there is more excess heat than we think, not less. Who cares? We have established that it produces at least 5 times more than a resistance heater calibration at the same power level. Calibrating with the resistance heater produces a balance of zero, so we know we are capturing all of heat from resistance heating.

Do you suppose cold fusion heat has some special quality that allows it to escape from the reactor in a way that resistance heating does not? That seems kind of far-fetched. Why would the ratios of conduction to radiation to convection be different with cold fusion, after the heat passes through a steel wall?

If the cold fusion heat has some means of going through the steel wall and bypassing the air in the calorimeter box, I suppose it would make the outside of the box walls hotter. That is not observed. Do you think the heat keeps moving, through the insulation and right out of the room, like a gamma ray? (By the way, gamma rays are not detected.) If the steel walls of the reactor and the air in the box do not stop the heat, and it does not reflect back from the bubble insulation, why would it stop outside in the room air? I suppose it would keep going right out of the solar system.

Quote from anonymous

The insulation on the inside of the calorimeter chamber is not a perfect reflector and is likely more absorbent than the optically transparent air at IR wavelengths.

It is the best reflecting insulation you can buy at Home Depot. It is shiny, like a mirror.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

[THH: I believe you misunderstood me.]

Specialty of the house.

Actually, I understood THH perfectly. So did Robert Bryant. THH repeatedly claimed the D2 in the cell might cause the heat. He wanted to know how much was absorbed in the reactant. Robert and I repeatedly told him there only enough for ~1 s, but he kept saying the same thing. If he had meant a leak from the D2 tank, he would have said that. He just now made that up, I suppose to save face. I pretended it was my misunderstanding, because that's the proper form in an academic discussion.

Also, a leak from the D2 tank is only marginally less preposterous than 3 mg producing 9 million times more heat than is possible. No one with experience doing experiments would seriously propose such a thing. Such a leak would be obvious in many ways, some of which I listed above. It would immediately bring the experiment to a halt. Such arguments are only intended to confuse the issue and make people think there may be problems where no problems exist. This is trolling, not a serious scientific discussion.

No one misunderstood anything here. It was perfectly clear, just as it was when THH proposed that drops of condensed water become invisible, move up against gravity, and that magically cancels out the energy needed to evaporate them. Okay, he didn't put it that way, but anyone can see that is what his hypothesis adds up to.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed - perhaps you can find the place I claimed that? I believe you misunderstood me. I said that if the experiment was done under constant pressure conditions, and therefore connected to a D2 reservoir, catalysis of D2 with leaking O2 was possible.

Ah, I misunderstood. However, the paper clearly shows this did not happen. The pressure is shown in Table 1. It would be obvious if this were happening. There would be flames and smoke. The sheath heater would burn up and stop working. The pressure would rise to 101,000 Pa (1 atm). Mizuno would stop the experiment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

In that case the amount of D2 involved is unbounded

Actually it is bounded by the amount of D2 in the tank, which would not last 100 days at these power levels. The tank was small when I was there.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed, this is an old argument and may I suggest it is not relevant to this thread.

Well, SOT brought it up. I see no harm in mentioning it again.

Quote from THHuxleynew

There are people who agree with you - some of whom read here and are interested in replicating these experiments. There are others interested in that who are more skeptical than you.

There are also people who do not agree with you at all.

The people who do not agree don't count. They have no expertise and they have not published any papers supporting their views. They have not shown any errors in any major experiment. So, by the standards of science, they do not exist. We should only count people who have done a serious analysis and written a paper demonstrating they have mastered the science well enough to judge it.

The fact that a professor somewhere thinks a result is invalid means nothing. The professor has to publish a rigorous paper showing why the result is invalid. No one has done that in history of cold fusion.

Quote from THHuxleynew

They address the issues raised by those (like me) who are more skeptical and therefore end up with stronger results

No one can address the issues you raised. They are imaginary. You claimed that a few milligrams of deuterium might burn without any oxygen, and it might burn for over 100 days at ~100 W. You are wrong by a factor of 9 million. You claimed that a fan might suddenly produce half as much wind with the same input power. That is impossible, and even if it did happen, there would still be massive excess heat.

On this forum, you have not found any valid problems with this experiment, or any other.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

You're welcome to site Prof. Gerischer's impression but that was appx 28 years ago. I wonder what his thinking is now if he's still above ground.

He died long ago. However, I remained in in touch with him while he lived, and with every other expert who made a serious evaluation of cold fusion. Not one of them changed their minds. On the contrary, in the 1990s better experiments were done, more definitive proof emerged, and all of the experts became more confident about their conclusions.

Furthermore, the "skeptical" view that cold fusion is not real has withered. No skeptic ever published a paper showing errors in any major study. No one other than Morrison and Shanahan even tried to do that. The others said: "my theory says cold fusion can't happen so it is wrong." Or: "in the experiments people did X Y and Z," when in fact no one did anything like that. All of the skeptical papers were wrong, as I said. Not a little bit wrong. Not debatable. They were all preposterous nonsense. That's my judgement. You can read them and see for yourself.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

[A.S.: Because when scientists do that, even with an expensive IR thermometer people like you complain.]

You perhaps didn't really read or somehow you failed to understand what I was asking for. The hostility is also apparent and totally unwarranted.

Perhaps you would not complain, but people like you always do complain. It happens a lot. Not to put words in Alan's mouth, I believe that is what he had in mind.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Attitudes do matter and they contribute to the reality that nobody knows after 30 years whether or not LENR and cold fusion are really phenomena of any potential practical value or whether they are real at all.

On the contrary, many experts know that cold fusion is a real phenomenon. For example, Prof. Heinz Gerischer was a leading electrochemist and the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry. He reviewed the evidence in 1991 and concluded “there [are] now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in metal alloys.” For a distinguished professor "undoubtedly overwhelming" is emphatic. He couldn't be more emphatic.

With one or two exceptions, every expert I know of who has looked carefully has concluded that cold fusion is a real phenomenon. Many other scientists have said it is not. They are not experts. They know little or nothing about the subject. Their logic is faulty and the facts they quote are mistakes. You can read their papers and books and see for yourself. See Morrison, for example:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

There is no dispute here. Or, to the extent there is a dispute, it is between experts in the subject who have the facts and laws of physics to support their views, and thousands of replications, versus ignorant outsiders such as Morrison who write nonsense that violates elementary laws of physics. It is easy to tell who is right.

Quote from anonymous

he reactor is a air cooled "radiator", in the sense of a car or airplane radiator. Radiators reject (transport out) heat by the 3 ways: conduction, convection, and radiation. If the radiator is polished silver, it rejects less heat by radiation than if it is painted black. Less heat by radiation means more heat by conduction and convection. Because most of the heat is being rejected by convection, but some of the heat is being rejected by other means (i.e. your 77% heat capture efficiency calibration at 360 degrees implies 23% is being rejected by conduction or radiation).

I believe you are confused. It makes no difference how the heat leaves the reactor. Conduction, convection or radiation all end up heating the air inside the calorimeter chamber. We measure the temperature of the air as it emerges. The air flows through, cool going in, warmer coming out. The way in which the reactor heated that air cannot be detected, and it makes no difference. Every joule of heat coming out of the reactor must end up heating the air. It is not possible for any heat to leave the reactor and not heat the air, because the chamber is well insulated with reflective insulation (see the ICCF21 paper).

Some of the heat from the air ends up escaping from the walls of the calorimeter chamber, rather than being captured by the emerging air. We know how much. See Fig. 2. That is the "heat capture efficiency" of this calorimeter. The heat capture efficiency from the reactor to the calorimeter chamber is 100% at all times, in all conditions, with any type of reactor, no matter how the heat emerges from the reactor into the air (conduction, convection or radiation).

I think someone asked about the placement of the thermocouple outside the cell. It should be in contact with stainless steel reactor wall which is in contact with the mesh. So the temperature is close to that of the mesh. Do not put it far away from the part of the reactor that touches the mesh.

I should correct Fig. 13 to show this more clearly.

The temperature of the reactor wall is far higher with excess heat than with 50 W of resistance heating. As I recall, it is around 40 deg C during the 50 W calibration, and 380 deg C with 250 W of excess heat. This high temperature next to the mesh indicates the anomalous heat is coming from the mesh.

The reactor temperature is important for the analysis, and it proves there is excess heat. There is no way 50 W could make it so hot. It is also much hotter than you would expect from the O/I ratio of 5:1 (250 W out, 50 W in). That ratio was measured with the air flow calorimetry. The air-flow is correct; the reactor temperature ratio of ~10:1 is not accurate. In other words, the reactor does not work well as an isoperibolic calorimeter. This is because the reactor surface temperature is not uniform. We don't know how non-uniform it is. Mizuno has not yet investigated this in detail.

Quote from anonymous

Why is the finish not the same on the control vs the active reactor? (See figure 6, red box -- reactor is dull. Emmissivity of weathered stainless steel is 0.85 vs. polished stainless steel 0.075)

This throws off the calorimetry which is clearly a combination of conduction, radiation, and convection on different components of the rig.

No, it does not. The calorimetry is done by measuring the air temperature at the outlet, and subtracting the inlet (and ambient) temperature. The conductivity, radiation and convection of the reactor has no effect on this. The size and shape of the reactor has no effect. The whole point of an air flow, liquid flow or Seebeck calorimeter is to eliminate such effects. The heat is measured after it leaves the reactor, not while it is leaving.

If you use the reactor surface temperature to do calorimetry, then the issues you raise might have an effect. Not much of an effect. There is no way they could cause a 250 W error.

Quote from anonymous

3) Absent (2) or (1), we need to estimate the change in the thermal conductivity from the reactor our thru the supply line (either because the control reactor doesn't have a supply line, or because the control reactor doesn't have D2 in the supply line).

No we do not. That's ridiculous. That could not change by 250 W! The supply line is a little bitty pipe. And if that were the problem, it would show up in calibration.

You people are suffering from acute speculation-itis.

Quote from Alan Smith

JedRothwellis checking out the heater position, and when he has confirmed it, will let us know I'm sure.

It is smack in the middle, as shown in the photo in Fig. 16. Here's the question. When it is shipped it is wound in a circle. See:

https://www.monotaro.com/p/7075/6017/

That will not fit into the reactor. So it has to be squished down, I suppose, or twisted, as shown in Fig. a and b below. The wire is flexible but it holds the shape, according to the specifications. Mizuno said it should be right at the center. So I suppose he squishes down the circle, or twists it. I asked him how he does it. He has not had an opportunity to respond. He has been busy, and out of touch.

I sent him this illustration of how I suppose it is shaped:

Quote from Alan Smith

Actually it was me.

More power to you.

Quote from JedRothwell

Since we don't know what depth is best, this random selection of depths may help.

The trick is to find out what parts of the surface are activated. Perhaps an IR camera could do this.

Quote from nickec

What might this look like? Would it glow?

Nope. It is around 380 deg C. Visible incandescence starts at ~550 deg C.

I agree a slightly different size should make no difference. I don't see how it could. Mizuno recommended using about the same mass of material, in a stack 3 meshes high. Or higher. The amount of Pd deposited probably matters, but I expect it varies a great deal from one sample to the next.

Handmade samples are bound to be highly variable, with a random distribution of material. That might actually be an advantage at this stage in the research. As I wrote elsewhere:

The mesh geometry may be important. A mesh will have Pd in one area, then no Pd, then more Pd. It will have many edges where Pd ends, and Ni is exposed. Mike McKubre suggested that D may be coming in through these edges. In contrast, a flat surface covered with Pd may have few edges or gaps.

A mesh will also have very uneven coatings of Pd. Thick in some places, thin in others. If there is a specific depth of Pd which works best, there will be places which have just the right depth. Other places will not have it, so they will not be activated. If the depth were more even throughout the material, it might all be at the wrong depth. Since we don't know what depth is best, this random selection of depths may help.

It will also have variable amounts of NiO left on the surface or pushed away. Again, if it turns out this is important, it is good to have a sample with a broad range of NiO thicknesses.

Assuming the thickness or the distribution of materials on the surface is important, my guess is that if you could manufacture a sample with some high tech tool used in semiconductor fabrication, that produces a precise configuration of materials at specified depths very evenly distributed, you would pick the wrong depths, and the device would not work.

Quote from Alan Smith

20 Mizuno mesh squares should be with me by Mid-July.

I just sent a purchase order in Japanese to Inada Kanaami asking them to deliver 30 meshes to my house in Atlanta. I will call them on Monday morning. Frankly, I do not expect them to respond. Companies like that are often unable to deal with overseas orders. We'll see.

Their website is very difficult to navigate. I could not find this product anywhere, so I sent a message in the "Contact" page instead.

http://www.inadakanaami.jp/

I will report back if I get some.

People seem to be having difficulty finding this material.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Maybe if your budget is "shoe string." But there is no lack of good liquid flow meters using various technologies (impeller, ultrasound, thermal sensor, etc. etc.). The siphon is perfect for calibration but pretty awkward for continuing measurements!

It is the opposite of shoe string. This is the expensive method. McKubre and Storms used it. It is more precise and it eliminates many potential sources of error. It is not particularly awkward for continuing measurements. You record the weight in the siphon at all times and ignore decreases in the weight. It is a piece of cake to program.

Quote from Curbina

After all these years of Free energy claims reviewing, I have learnt that calorimetry (and energy balance in general) is full of pitfalls and sources of potential error.

That is a false lesson. The skeptics greatly exaggerate the pitfalls and errors. People have been doing calorimetry for 240 years. It is one of the oldest and best established experimental methods. People in the heating and cooling (HVAC) industry do it a million times a day. No one has ever suggested they have difficulty, or their results cannot be trusted. Factory machinery does calorimetry automatically in millions of machines. If it did not work reliably, the machinery would fail.

This is sort of irrelevant, but Norman Cook and I were the only two non-Japanese people in this field who could attend a conference in Japanese and understand it. Or give a lecture in Japanese. (With difficulty! But I have difficulty in English too.)

Quote from Jack Cole

If you don't keep it the same, you can't make very many conclusions about the original study. Your results would also be weaker if you get a null result. You won't know if your alterations caused the problem, or if the original experiment made an error.

Worse that that, you won't know if you made an error. You should establish a baseline before exploring variations. First make sure you can produce the effect. Then try whatever variations you like. If it stops working, go back to the baseline.

If the researcher does not confirm it is working in the first place, the material may not be good. Perhaps it is too contaminated, or without enough Pd deposited, or something else is wrong. There is no point to exploring with material that does not work.

Quote from Jack Cole

Personally, I don't understand the obsession with flow calorimetry. Water is the worst. There are are more points of error and failure.

I disagree. Water flow calorimeters work well and they are reliable. Things like the flowmeter can be a pain in the butt, but there are ways to measure the flow rate with high precision without a flowmeter, such as a siphon on a weight scale. That's what Storms and McKubre used, as I recall.