Posts by JedRothwell

    In addition, you yourself are on record saying that power was sometimes measured on the input side of the PSU. That would, obviously, give a different answer from measuring it on the output side of the PSU.

    Only as reality check. All of the measurements in the spreadsheets and papers are measured between the power supply and the reactor.

    Measuring power going into the power supply is a way to ensure there is no mistake. It is an extra precaution. Those AC plug-in meters cost about $50 so there is no reason not to use one. You measure the power supply overhead by turning off all power to the cell. Of course the overhead increases a little as power increases.

    Multiple meters belonging to different people have been used to confirm the power measured between the power supply and the reactor. They all agree with one-another, and with the spreadsheet data. It cannot be they all agree, they are in reasonable agreement with the AC meter the power supply is plugged into, yet they are all wrong.

    My point is that these numbers are different than Mizuno's. The velocity profile is nowhere near flat. Using the same fan and a tube 1 mm less in ID than his.

    No one disputes that. It is obvious that your system is quite different from his.

    It shouldn't be rocket science to attach a cardboard tube to a fan outlet with electrical tape. The tube is squished to match the fan outlet as best as possible.

    Apparently it is harder than you think. Bear in mind that Mizuno spent months working on this calorimeter, and he got expert advice from various people.

    Regarding rocket science, Goddard's early rockets are nothing more than tubes -- like your tube. They look pretty simple. Some experts at NASA decided to replicate them in honor of an anniversary. They thought there would be nothing to it. I saw a video of their work. Launch after launch failed, with rockets blowing up, fizzling out, or going out of control. These are the best rocket scientists on earth and they cannot figure out how to make a simple tube rocket from 1926. Think about that.

    And here is another tube technology: the Newcomen engine. Years ago, a group of experts in England made a large scale working model of it. Half scale? I don't remember. You might think that a machine made in 1711 can't be complicated, and a group of modern experts should be able to master it quickly. You might think so, but you would be wrong. They had to rediscover many things about it that Newcomen must have known, or he never would have got it to work.

    The results should be similar to Mizuno's, without resorting to bending the tube enough or crushing a venturi into it in order to level out the velocity profile, unless Mizuno did also somehow.

    Should be? Says who? Mother nature disagrees. The NASA people should have had no trouble making Goodard style rockets that work. They had every recorded detail about the rockets, the fuel and performance at their fingertips, and they had supercomputers and a hundred years of aerospace engineering. But they could not do it, because things are always harder than they seem.

    Mizuno's data and my analysis of his spreadsheets leave no doubt whatever that he is correctly measuring the flow rate. He could not do that unless the flow rate is the same all across the orifice. Several other people have confirmed his instruments are working right by comparing them to their own instruments. Instruments do not lie. So there is no chance Mizuno is lying to us. Unless you want to argue that first principle physics don't work -- and that 3 power meters and 5 thermometer belonging to different people all agreed yet they were all drastically wrong -- you must agree that Mizuno has found a way make the flow turbulent and well mixed. There is no question about it. (Plus the other anemometer agreed.)

    I do not know exactly how he did it. You don't know either, apparently. If you spend enough time, or if you communicate with him, you may discover the reason. But it seems trivial to me. It is only a small part of the experiment. It is hardly documented. It has no bearing on cold fusion per se. Anyone can think of ways to mix the air and make the flow rate uniform, so why not just do that your way, and stop worrying about how he did it? This is very minor part of the experiment. Any method will serve the purpose, so use any method you like.

    After you replicate his conditions, you can check to see whether his 7 points are sufficient. Or, you can the simple arithmetic I did, and be even more sure they are sufficient, from the data alone.

    THH noted that excess heat correlates closely with input power. Mizuno also showed this, in Fig. 8. That is the same mesh in the same cell, so it is perhaps not surprising that it produces the same output under the same conditions. You would never see a second mesh produce exactly the same output.

    However, point taken. This bothers me, too. In the upcoming presentation I address it. I show the slide of the R21 reaction which has spontaneous fluctuations in output power lasting 1.5 to 3 hours, which are correlated with loading. I wrote:

    "The reaction is normally very stable. Too stable. It makes me nervous. I get a bad feeling that this might be an instrument artifact, producing what looks like a fixed percent of input power. Fluctuations like this give me more confidence that the effect is real. It is hard to imagine an instrument artifact would introduce periodic fluctuations on a random time scale. It is even harder to imagine it would correlate with loading and deloading, which is estimated from the gas pressure. The pressure gauge is not affected by temperature. So the temperature fluctuations and pressure are independent, and correlated, which I think rules out an artifact."

    What do Tr125, Tr225 etc. mean?

    Those points are completely different from Mizuno's. You are nowhere close to replicating his conditions. You cannot draw any conclusions about his calorimetry, or whether his 7 points are sufficient to characterize the whole surface.

    On the other hand, I can draw conclusions based on first principles. As I did. Unless you doubt the input power and temperature measurements, you must agree that Mizuno is measuring the flow rate correctly, and it has to be uniform. As I said, he would get the wrong answer otherwise. Calibrations would show either much less heat recovered than input at 10 W, 30 W and 50 W, or much more recovered. That's what calibrations are for. They show the instrument is working, or it is not working.

    (THH has claimed the input power measurements cannot be believed, however many meters have confirmed them. He must think the 3 power meter are all wrong to exactly the same extent, and in a way that exactly compensates for 5 thermometers and the 2 anemometers, so that by some fantastic coincidence, the answers always come out right, and the heat always balances up to 50 W. That would never happen in the life of the universe.)

    THH might conclude that Mizuno's data is somehow wrong, and Mizuno's anemometer is not working because your results are so different from his. I trust you have more common sense than that. Obviously you are both measuring correctly. You cannot make a hot wire digital anemometer misbehave enough to cause such giant differences. Go ahead and try! Clearly, you two are looking at physically different systems.

    There are countless graphs and illustrations of laminar versus turbulent flows, and they all show the former has varying flow rates, and the latter does not. Both exist. Such textbook phenomena are not questionable or odd or somehow unbelievable, contrary to THH's synthetic doubts.

    I am certain that the temperature of the air in the outlet tube is well-mixed. The air basically goes through a blender before being ejected from the fan.

    It can't be! If it were well-mixed the flow rate would be the same everywhere you measure it. Some of the streamlines of air are moving faster than others. They cannot be mixed together if they are moving at different rates.

    Also, when you measure differences by location, those difference persist. Right? Don't they? That's the usual situation. That means a streamline is forming and sticking around for a while. Not mixing.

    If the numbers changed from second to second, and yet there were large differences in the air flow rate, that would be mind-boggling. That would take Maxwell's demons or something.

    I think we will be better served if someone else attaches a 65 of 66 mm ID 25 cm long (or 20 cm long or whatever it is) tube to the same type of fan as Mizuno's, does a bunch of traverses with an anemometer, and either agrees with my results or agrees with Mizuno's.

    That would not prove anything! Your flow is laminar; his is turbulent. If the new results agree with Mizuno's, that person has a turbulent flow. If the results agree with yours, the flow is laminar. These are two physically different systems. That's all there is to it.

    You have asserted that 7 measurements are not enough. That can be tested. First, make sure the flow is turbulent, by measuring several points. These 7, or some other 7, or 40, or whatever. After you confirm the flow is turbulent and the flow rate is the same everywhere, then go back and measure the 7 points Mizuno measured. Put them in a spreadsheet and look for significant differences, and do statistical tests to see if this sample is sufficient to characterize the entire orifice surface. If it is, Mizuno was right, and 7 points are enough. If it is not, and if more points show better R-squared values (or some other test), then you are right. But not by much, I guarantee. I proved that above, by running the equations the other way, and deriving the flow rate from the input power and temperatures. It cannot be a coincidence that my answer agrees with Mizuno's so closely. If there were any significant differences in the flow rate from one place to another, and if those 7 points were not sufficient, he would get the wrong answer. His answer would not agree with mine. That is not the case, so you will not find a significant problem, no matter how hard you look.

    Somewhere in this forum, THH asked about Table 1 in the ICCF22 paper. He wanted to know if the totals are adjusted for losses from the calorimeter walls. Yes, they are, but feel free to un-adjust them. The worst recovery rate is ~75%. So, multiply total output by 0.75 and you get the answer without accounting for losses. In most cases, the recovery rate is 80 or 90%, so this will reduce the output too much for most of the results. So what? Even with that, you will see that the heat is easy to measure and significant even when you measure only the heat in air flow.

    It is possible that Mizuno only showed the 7 points in the diagram because plotting many more traverse points would just make an ugly blob on the graph, but at this point I don't believe that the 7 points, (if those are the only ones), are sufficient to characterize the velocity profile in a tube that close to the fan

    You have no reason to doubt that. Those same 7 points in your graph are indisputable proof that your flow rates are not uniform. If you measured only those 7, no one would argue that it was actually uniform and you happened to pick the only points in the whole circle that are off. That would be ridiculous. So, if you can prove that with only 7 points, why do you doubt that he proves the opposite? It makes no sense.

    Fix the problem. Then measure those 7 points, or any other 7, or 77 if you like. They will all be the same.

    IN SHORT, you need to replicate his results. You need to show those 7 points being the same. THEN maybe you can demonstrate that 7 points are not sufficient. I don't think you will succeed, but you cannot even start now, and you have no basis to judge. Make those points the same first, replicate his results with those 7 points first, and then find out if it is sufficient, by measuring other points.

    You have that backwards. When the flow varies considerably, it is laminar. When it is turbulent the flow rate is uniform.

    To be a little more specific, I expect you have a laminar flow with moving streamlines. The fluid is not mixed, so layers of it move faster than other layers. Then they jump around. This happens with badly designed water flow calorimeters. You move the temperature sensor a little, or tap on it, and the answer changes. That's not an instrument problem. The temperature really is different in one part of the pipe compared to another. tapping disrupts the streamlines. Leave it alone and after a while the temperature will change abruptly as the streamlines decide to move. To fix that problem with a water flow calorimeter, you install an inline mixer or Venturi. Since you have the same problem with your air flow fluid, fix it. Stir it.

    After you fix it, take 7 measurements in the same pattern as Mizuno's. You will see they are the same. Take 7 more, or 7 times 7. They will all be the same, I guarantee. As I said, with your present configuration and the data you already have, when you look at the 7 positions Mizuno used, you can see that your flow rates are not uniform. You have confirmed that your instrument is different from his. It ain't working. You don't need to measure all the other points. Fix it, make those 7 the same, and the others will fall in line.

    I have just measured the flow and it varies considerably. It is turbulent.

    You have that backwards. When the flow varies considerably, it is laminar. When it is turbulent the flow rate is uniform.

    I get those two mixed up all the time!

    There is no doubt your flow is laminar and Mizuno's is turbulent. I am sure you are both making the measurements correctly. Because after all, it isn't that hard to make them. Modern electronic instruments are hard to fool. Let us take these readings at face value. Your physical setup and equipment different for some reason. So what? Who cares? Make it the same and move on.

    You cannot do calorimetry with the configuration you now have. If this thread is about "Airflow Calorimetry" then make it right and do air flow calorimetry. Don't fret about a trivial problem that you can fix easily, probably by smooshing the cardboard tube down to make it into a Venturi. After you see a uniform flow rate, carry on!

    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.

    The difference is negligible. The Ohio U. data does not even show that. It does show variations with temperature. I ignored them, but Mizuno has them in the spreadsheet.…tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

    It would improve accuracy of the airflow calorimeter if RH was measured on the inlet and outlet, to get a better specific heat calculation.

    I didn't bother to include that either, but Mizuno usually does.

    I also did not bother to include heat losses from the walls. I assumed that 100% of the input power was recovered in the air flow. That is impossible, but for a first approximation at low power it works okay. How do we know it works okay? Look at the numbers I computed. I said these are STP, from the O.U. site. You can see that my result is remarkably close to Mizuno's.

    My purpose was to show that the flow rate is uniform across time and across the orifice. That is what I did. I was not looking to compute the flow rate to 6 significant digits.

    The 2019 CMNS paper claims the blower was run at 6.5 W (page 9 ) and yet the traverse plot (figure 9, page 6) shows a peak power evaluated of 5.5W at 5.0 m/s.

    I believe that is a misprint. In any case, all of the data I have for calibrations and excess heat runs shows the blower at 3.8 W. Smack in the middle of the Fig. 4. traverse test. I am sure Mizuno did it that way on purpose.

    That could refer to a previous blower. There were two or three defunct ones lying on a shelf when I visited. Those things seem to break often. He said he decided to spring for the best quality one he could find, this time. I guess he was tired or recalibrating every time the blower blew. Needless to say, you have to recalibrate and do the whole traverse song-and-dance when you change out the blower.

    He went through an entire calorimeter, plastic box and all. It is sitting off in the corner, being scavenged for spare parts, I assume. Mizuno had shelves, drawers, boxes, and piles of "spare parts" (a.k.a. broken stuff) including 1950s vacuum tubes. I kid you not. As Ed Storms says, you can't do experiments without lots of broken stuff. He said that periodically a new civilian director comes into Los Alamos, and orders people to: "Clean up this mess! Get rid of that junk!" So they toss out the broken machines, and no one can do an experiment again. Experiments are made from broken machines. Along the same lines, pilots describe an airplane as "a collection of spare parts flying in formation."

    I was making any assumptions - other than that Mizuno is honourable

    Who cares about that? Other people have measured the input power, temperatures and air flow rate with their own instruments. They get the same answer. We don't need to depend on Mizuno's personal integrity. Instruments do not lie.

    You don't even need to measure the air flow rate. When I was in Sapporo I confirmed the temperatures and power levels are correct, with the previous configuration (water flow). As did several other people. As I showed above, when you confirm input power and temperatures, you can then work backward to derive the air flow rate. You get the same answer Mizuno's anemometer shows: 4.1 m/s. And you know that has to be uniform for the whole orifice, or it would not agree. That's first principle proof. It works with a calibration, of course -- not with excess heat. That's the beauty of calibrations.

    Your traverse tube may not be as smooth as Mizuno's

    or as springy

    Smooth cardboard of something

    I think it is most likely the numbers from both are correct. Those anemometers are reliable. The numbers are random in paradigmnia's data. It doesn't matter which points he measures. There will be a spread. Select 7 at random, average them. Take 7 others, and you will get a different average. The seven that correspond with Mizuno's 7 are quite different from one another. There is no doubt the air is not well mixed and the flow rate is not uniform. So, the conditions are not the same. That happens a lot in experiments. There is no point to trying to replicate the precise conditions of blower and paper tube in another country. (Or is this the very same brand of blower?) Blower motors, fans, and whatnot are bound to be different. For normal applications with a blower, there is no need to make the flow rate exactly uniform. That's not the purpose of a blower. It is intended to keep things cool. The manufacturer does not strive to make the flow rate uniform. It just has to move the same amount of air per watt of input. So, if this particular blower and this particular tube don't make the air uniform. So, rather than futz around trying to make them look like Mizuno's -- by guess and by golly -- just put in a Venturi or a mixer. Problem fixed. Go on to the next phase of the test, which I assume is air flow calorimetry. Who cares how Mizuno achieved uniformity? He has been working with blowers for many years. He probably knows various ways of doing it. So, you figure out one or two ways, and then go on to confirm your calibration numbers add up the way I showed above. If you don't see:

    Energy kJ/s = Weight kg * specific heat kJ/kg*K * temp K

    Something is wrong. It ain't working. If you do see that, it is working. Test a few more power levels to be sure, and you are on track.

    This thread is titled "Mizuno Airflow Calorimetry." So do calorimetry. Calibrate! This is not a game of pin the tail on the donkey where you try to guess what the tube and configuration looks like in Sapporo. That is not documented. It is not the sort of thing that needs to be documented, because the data speaks for itself. Figure 4 and the calculations I just did give you the answer. There is no doubt your blower and tube give a different answer. There is some physical difference causing non-uniform flow rates. It is not an instrument artifact. You really do have different flow rates. So what? It is a trivial matter. Make them the same and get on with the next step. Don't sit there questioning whether Mizuno's anemometer is working. You can see it is! I can give you more numbers from the 10 W calibration, but what's the point?

    The traverses shown by Mizuno only cover 1/2 of the diameter, on two 1/2 traverses. I have already shown that is sketchy.

    No, it isn't. If you measure 7 point and they give the same answer, you know for sure that every point between those 7 is also the same. Anything between point 1 and 2 will be the same. Or 3 and 4. That's 1/4 of the surface. How likely is it that points to the left and points below are different? I would say zero to none. In any case, the method I just used, working backwards from calibration numbers, shows that the flow rate was 4.1 m/s, just as he said. That could not be a coincidence. It is not likely that it was 4.1 m/s at all 7 points, yet if he had measured 2 more they might have been 5.0 and 3.2 (averaging 4.1). That is implausible.

    As a practical matter, the flow does not shift suddenly 1 cm away from a point. I think your data shows that. So those 7 cover more than 1/4. What I mean is:

    Given that all these measure 4.1 m/s: The points between 1 and 2 have to be 4.1. It is extremely likely the points at the same radius as 3 and 6, falling in the top right quarter are also 4.1. Seriously, why wouldn't they be? A point 1 cm to left of 5 is going to be 4.1. It can't shift that much. Basically, the whole thing is covered.

    If you manage to make the flow turbulent and well mixed, and you then measure 7 points in this configuration, I will bet you then find all the others agree. (Okay, there is some variation, as shown in 4.) That's the test you should be doing. Replicate the same level of turbulence first, then test it. Your orifice is obviously giving a different answer. To put it another way, if you take only the 7 points Mizuno measured, and read them off of your data, you see they are different. You have not replicated his conditions. Look at points he labels 1 and 2, in your figure. They are 4.8 and 5.1 m/s, which is a larger difference than he measured.


    You can be sure 4.1 m/s is the right answer for the entire orifice. The data shows that, unless you think 3 power meters and 5 thermometers all got the wrong answer. The same wrong answer! -- which never happens. The only question is, could Mizuno have measured 4.1 m/s if there there were points outside those 7 with other values? Nope. If the unmeasured points varied as much as the ones you observed, they would not average out to 4.1. They would be some other value. Try averaging different groups of 7 from your measurement. They do not agree to the nearest 10th m/s. If the other points on the surface were different, the average would be some random value other than 4.1 m/s. It can only be 4.1 m/s if the flow is uniform, and we know for sure it was 4.1 m/s.

    It is now suggested that processes in the Universe that are believed to have taken place only once and which are neither possible to repeat nor to study independently should be removed from science and be considered like creation as belonging to the sector of personal belief only.

    That is hilarious. There is some truth to it. But if we do that, what are the cosmologists supposed to do for a living? Work at a fast food joint?

    The point is to test Mizuno's calorimeter parameters with a replication of it.

    You don't need to do that. I did it above, just by looking the spreadsheet numbers. It is a lot easier to apply some basic physics than go to the trouble of doing a test.

    After all, you are not trying to prove that top quality digital instruments work according to the manufacturer's specifications. Are you? That's pretty much a given. If an expensive hot wire anemometer says the flow rate is the same everywhere across the orifice, and another anemometer agrees, do you seriously doubt it? That's is 99.9999% a sure thing. It is a waste of time questioning that. The useful thing you can do is recreate it. If your method and configuration is a little different, who cares? What difference could it make?

    So how long is his outlet tube?

    I suggest you eyeball the photo and guess. But the shape of your tube is different, and I guess your blower is different, so the length alone may not make them the same. Your's may be laminar.

    Here is a quote from an unpublished paper by Mizuno that may help:

    "The Reynolds number required to judge the boundary between laminar flow and turbulent flow is expressed by the following equation:

    Re = ρUL/μ --------------------------------------- (1)

    ρ is the density of the fluid [kg/m3], U is the representative flow velocity [m/s] (cross section average flow velocity), L is the representative length [m] (pipe inner diameter), and μ is the viscosity coefficient [Pa·s].

    . . .

    Here is test data applied to this equation: ρ is 1.165 kg/m3 at 30°C, U is a representative value of 5 m/s, the inner diameter of the tube is 0.05 m, μ is 1.8 × 10−5 m2/s. Therefore, the Reynolds number is about 18,000, which is much larger than 2300, so the flow is obviously turbulent."

    I got mine as close as feasible by scaling the blower motor. It should be within a cm in length, and it is known to be 1 mm less in ID.

    The tube looks different to me. If it isn't exactly the same blower, you may need to adjust things and use a different method. I think some blowers are more laminar and some are more turbulent. Evidently, your's is laminar. So don't sweat it. Make the tube into a Venturi and Bob's Your Uncle. Probably. If that don't work, add a mixer.

    The tube seems a little short to me. The ratio of length to diameter seems smaller than Mizuno's. I suggest you make it considerably longer and then -- as I said -- crush it down at a point about one-third of the length from the blower. To form a Venturi. That should mix the air. It may not be exactly what Mizuno has, but the point is to make the flow rate the same at every point in the orifice. Right? Pretty much the same. Who cares how that is done, as long as it works.

    By the way, you can confirm that Mizuno's flow is well mixed. You can confirm that his calorimeter read a single value everywhere across the orifice, and it continued at that value over time. You can do this by looking at the data for low power calibrations, and then running the equations backwards. That is to say:

    Assume the average for input power, inlet and outlet temperatures are correct. Use the STP value for specific heat of air (it hardly changes anyway). Assume there is no heat lost from the walls, because very little is lost below ~50 W.


    For a 30 W calibration, the averages are: 29.69 W input power, 1.75 K Delta T, heat capacity 1.005 kJ/kg*K (close enough for government work:…tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html)

    Energy kJ/s = Weight kg * specific heat kJ/kg*K * temp K

    So, Weight kg = temp K (Energy kJ/s * Specific heat kJ/kg*K)

    1.75 K / (0.02969 kJ/s * 1.005 kJ/kg*K) = 0.01688 kg/s of air

    Based on the blower power, and assuming the flow rate is uniform, and calibrating blower power to the anemometer and cross checking . . . Mizuno computes the average weight of air per second is 0.01679 kg/s. Which is very close to 0.01688 kg/s.

    It is a little lower because, in fact, there are losses from the calorimeter walls. Taking one thing and another, and adjusting specific heat to the actual temperature, Mizuno computes the output captured in air is 29.04 W, a little lower than 29.69 W input.

    Anyway, we can work back from the weight of air 0.01688 kg/s to derive the blower flow rate in m/s. Assume the orifice really is 66 mm in diameter. THH will not accept that until we measure it to the nearest nanometer, but let's just assume it is 66 mm. Run the numbers and you get a flow rate of ~4.1, which, lo and behold, is what Mizuno recorded. Okay, let us add some meaningless digits of precision to satisfy THH: Mizuno's average is 4.12171222. (Actually, no matter how many digits I provide, he will say he needs more precision; 10,000 digits would not suffice.)

    I did this for 10 W and 50 W as well. I have calibration data for 80 W, 100 W and so on, but it does not work as well, because losses from the walls become significant. We can account for these losses by deriving a function, as shown in Fig. 3. I have two functions: one to compute percent losses for input power, and another for the temperature of the reactor surface (which is what Fig. 3 shows). However, these functions depend on the flow rate being uniform and correctly measured, so you cannot confirm the flow rate with the function.