Posts by JedRothwell

    On the face of it, your statement should be correct.


    Extensive testing with a variety of different reactors and resistance heaters, including bare resistance heaters, shows that my statement is correct. I am not making this stuff up. I am not speculating. I am telling you what the data shows from three air flow calorimeters (two from Mizuno and one from Saito), and from many water flow calorimeters.



    I have some concerns about the exterior heating method, since it is directly heating the air as much as, if not more than, the reactor or dummy.


    Why would this matter? It is not clear to me what "directly heating" means in this context, but whatever it means, how can it transfer more energy over time? I can see why it might heat up the air more quickly, if it emerges from the reactor sooner, or if there is less thermal mass. But over the total course of the reaction the heat balance will be exactly the same no matter with any heater. The heater does not measurably affect the inlet or outlet thermocouples. They are not directly exposed to the calibration heater or the active reactor.



    Anything that increases the outlet temperature will appear as increased power, all else being the same.


    How can any configuration of the heater increase the outlet temperature? This would not "appear" as increased power; it would be increased power. It would be a perpetual motion machine. The terminal outlet temperature must be the same at a given power level for any heater, with any geometry. If it is not the same, I suppose the outlet thermocouple is directly exposed to the heat source, or there is some other problem. The whole point of calibrating with different kinds of heaters is to ensure there is no problem of this nature. I have never seen a problem of this nature, but anyway, if there were one, calibrations with different heaters should reveal it. If you don't think so, what test do you propose to show there is "direct heating"? How can we detect this?


    (Some people here -- not you -- have a bad habit of suggesting there might be thus-and-such a problem, but when I ask: "Okay, how would you detect this problem? What test will reveal it?" they do not respond. That makes their assertion not falsifiable. Meaning it is not true or false. If you cannot describe a test to demonstrate a problem, that problem does not exist. It is imaginary.)

    The expectation that the mesh is a homogenous device is contrary to my hypothesis..

    My hypothesis is that there are thousands of hotspots which switch on at different temperatures..

    but at higher temperatures a lot more switch on

    and encourage others cooperatively to switch on


    All cold fusion metals fit this profile, as far as I know. They are never uniform. Every method that has been used to identify active areas -- such as IR cameras or looking for melted or transmuted spots -- has shown that the reaction only occurs in scattered areas, and these areas turn on and off. If anything is wrong with these results it would be that they are too uniform. The heat is too stable. Except in Fig. 6.

    frankly, or there is a measurement error or a cheating,


    Please explain what benefit might accrue from cheating. What motive would there be? It isn't as if people get funded or otherwise rewarded for reporting a positive cold fusion result. On the contrary, that usually leads to attacks. University administrators threaten to fire the researcher; funding is withdrawn. People like you accuse the researcher of cheating. If anyone is going to cheat, it will be in the other direction. That is, the researcher will see excess heat and then cover it up with and say there is no heat, the way they did at MIT and NEDO.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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):


    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.


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

    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.