Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizunos results are a mistake
In reply to JonesBeene's message of Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:05:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] > > >Yes -- It is almost certain the magnitude of the effect he claims could not >be so far wrong as to negate most of the strong anomalous thermal signal. > >But what about other kinds of testing? (non thermal) > >Is there any data from radiation testing, mass spectrometry (appearance of >helium) spectroscopy (Balmer line broadening), film, silver activation or any >kind of non-thermal anomaly which would bolster the case? > >Surely there must be some other kind of evidence ? Radiation can't be too severe, he's still alive. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
JonesBeene wrote: But what about other kinds of testing? (non thermal) > > > Is there any data from radiation testing, mass spectrometry (appearance of > helium) spectroscopy (Balmer line broadening), film, silver activation or > any kind of non-thermal anomaly which would bolster the case? > I don't know. We haven't discussed this. His sensitive radiation meters and SEM were smashed. The thing I would most like to see is a series of SEM photos during preparation. The mass spec is still working. He may have results from it. I haven't heard. You can't do this without a mass spec. Regarding the damaged equipment, people contributed a lot via GoFundMe. This was a lifesaver. The research would have been over in Sept. 2018 were it not for the contributions. Unfortunately, it was not enough money to fix the SEM. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
Yes -- It is almost certain the magnitude of the effect he claims could not be so far wrong as to negate most of the strong anomalous thermal signal. But what about other kinds of testing? (non thermal) Is there any data from radiation testing, mass spectrometry (appearance of helium) spectroscopy (Balmer line broadening), film, silver activation or any kind of non-thermal anomaly which would bolster the case? Surely there must be some other kind of evidence ? Jones PS - It would be easy to imagine that Mizuno knows a great deal more about the nature of the gain that he does not want to share at this particular time. In a way that reticence is completely understandable. Forget the commercial aspects, forget patents – that is all secondary to a dedicated scientist like Mizuno. If he has a the strong explanatory theory to go along with the experiment - and it is correct – there is little doubt that the Nobel Prize in Physics will soon follow. He may simply need time to firm up the formalism. From: Jed Rothwell Here is an edited version of a message I posted at LENR-forum: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6013-mizuno-reports-increased-excess-heat/?postID=113176#post113176 “SOT” and “THH” are denizens of that forum. Someone at LENR-forum wrote, "I think [Mizuno and Rothwell] probably have made some kind of mistake." I don't think so. I have seen many, many mistakes. I have made many myself! They do not look like this. I cannot imagine what error it might be. But that's the thing about errors: you cannot imagine them, so that's why you make them. SOT has repeatedly emphasized the large power of this experiment. I countered by saying the signal to noise ratio of previous experiments was better, even though power was 0.3 W, 0.5 W, or 5 W (Miles and McKubre). Their instruments were so much better, they could measure this low power with more confidence than Mizuno measures 250 W. That's true from a strictly scientific or technical point of view. However, SOT makes a valid point here. It is true that the higher the power, the less likely a mistake becomes. High power automatically increases the signal to noise ratio. (Up to a certain point it does, until you have to move to a different calorimeter, which may have a whole new set of problems.) In the paper, I made a point similar to this, on p. 5: "1. A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat." It is dead simple to confirm a 10°C temperature difference. Mizuno, I, or anyone with experience would do that with the thermometers and the Omega handheld thermocouples. We would do it several times a day. The inlet temperature is the same as ambient. It is shown on the thermometers hanging on the wall. You can see at a glance it is correct. You can measure the outlet temperature by holding a thermometer in the wind coming out of the calorimeter. So, I do not think there is any way that measurement is wrong. I do not think the blower could be running much slower than it does during calibration. That fact would stand out boldly on the screen. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously, in the data that scrolls down from the HP gadget. THH insists the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20%. Or was it 50%? Both numbers are impossible. The blower fan would not slow down that much; the motor would burn out, and the fan would stop dead. The input power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat. THH raised another issue. He claims the actual air speed might be much slower than we think, both during calibration and during active runs. I showed that is incorrect, because the calibrations produce a reasonably close balance, and furthermore the heat losses from the calorimeter chamber that we estimated from input power minus output captured in the air flow (Fig. 2) are confirmed by other methods. You can confirm them yourself with the numbers in the ICCF21 paper, p. 8. However, for the sake of argument, even if the air flow rate is far lower than we think, as long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, there would still be excess heat. Not as much as we think, but there would still be some. In my opinion, there is no chance that the temperature difference or the air speed (or both together) could be wrong by such a large factor that 50 W looks like 300 W. That is out of the question.
[Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
Here is an edited version of a message I posted at LENR-forum: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6013-mizuno-reports-increased-excess-heat/?postID=113176#post113176 “SOT” and “THH” are denizens of that forum. Someone at LENR-forum wrote, "I think [Mizuno and Rothwell] probably have made some kind of mistake." I don't think so. I have seen many, many mistakes. I have made many myself! They do not look like this. I cannot imagine what error it might be. But that's the thing about errors: you cannot imagine them, so that's why you make them. SOT has repeatedly emphasized the large power of this experiment. I countered by saying the signal to noise ratio of previous experiments was better, even though power was 0.3 W, 0.5 W, or 5 W (Miles and McKubre). Their instruments were so much better, they could measure this low power with more confidence than Mizuno measures 250 W. That's true from a strictly scientific or technical point of view. However, SOT makes a valid point here. It is true that the higher the power, the less likely a mistake becomes. High power automatically increases the signal to noise ratio. (Up to a certain point it does, until you have to move to a different calorimeter, which may have a whole new set of problems.) In the paper, I made a point similar to this, on p. 5: "1. A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat." It is dead simple to confirm a 10°C temperature difference. Mizuno, I, or anyone with experience would do that with the thermometers and the Omega handheld thermocouples. We would do it several times a day. The inlet temperature is the same as ambient. It is shown on the thermometers hanging on the wall. You can see at a glance it is correct. You can measure the outlet temperature by holding a thermometer in the wind coming out of the calorimeter. So, I do not think there is any way that measurement is wrong. I do not think the blower could be running much slower than it does during calibration. That fact would stand out boldly on the screen. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously, in the data that scrolls down from the HP gadget. THH insists the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20%. Or was it 50%? Both numbers are impossible. The blower fan would not slow down that much; the motor would burn out, and the fan would stop dead. The input power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat. THH raised another issue. He claims the actual air speed might be much slower than we think, both during calibration and during active runs. I showed that is incorrect, because the calibrations produce a reasonably close balance, and furthermore the heat losses from the calorimeter chamber that we estimated from input power minus output captured in the air flow (Fig. 2) are confirmed by other methods. You can confirm them yourself with the numbers in the ICCF21 paper, p. 8. However, for the sake of argument, even if the air flow rate is far lower than we think, as long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, there would still be excess heat. Not as much as we think, but there would still be some. In my opinion, there is no chance that the temperature difference or the air speed (or both together) could be wrong by such a large factor that 50 W looks like 300 W. That is out of the question. The results reported at ICCF21 were closer to the margin. The likelihood of an error was higher. The two papers are: ICCF21https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf ICCF22 https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf
