Interesting results. One question I have is what material is used as a gasket between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber? It is hard to believe that nothing is required to prevent leaks.
Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:18 PM To: Vortex Subject: [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
