I agree with Brian that there can be a lot of uncertainties associated with air cooling. 3 or 4 years ago Jed and Muzino were fooled by daytime to night room temperature variations and how they affected conclusions from air flow calorimetry. Dave Robertson and I commented on Vortex-l about this issue then.
Bob Cook ________________________________ From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 5:04:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Misuno technology a simple test Ask Mizuno to run the system making excess thermal energy and then simply change the inlet and outlet air flows. The outlet is currently above the inlet and that can be a problem. This may show a dramatic drop in thermal output due to buoyancy driven convection. This easy and can get quick evidence that the calorimetry is not fooling everyone. ________________________________ From: Alberto De Souza <alberto.investi...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21 Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated. On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 9:05 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote: Alberto De Souza <alberto.investi...@gmail.com<mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com>> wrote: I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy . . . Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response: I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow calorimetry because it is not affected such temperature variations. You do have to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that. Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It complicates matters. If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing heat. An IR camera might reveal that.
