Summary: Who is actually doing a replication attempt?

I welcome any and all co-conspirators. You can contribute money, time, mockery, constructive and destructive criticism, raw material, human contacts, and time with pets.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/mizuno-r20-replication/donate

https://www.paypal.me/spkezrocks/100

https://www.paypal.me/spkezrocks/1

https://www.paypal.me/spkezrocks/1000

+1 (586) 751-8758

[email protected]

Thank you for bumping this thread, David.

p.s.: I have emailed Dr. Mizuno and had private message Q&A with Alan Smith, Jed Rothwell, and other interested/interesting parties.

p.p.s.: You may find this interesting:

https://www.linkedin.com/messa…read/6526241478497357824/

"...

• replicating Tadahiko Mizuno's newest experiments.
• Robert Godes sent the following message at 10:10 PMView Robert’s profileRobert Godes 10:10 PM

No we are not. That is a great experiment it is easy for and the University to run in verify the existence of LENR. Brillouin is focused on bringing a product to Market, and this experiment is not scalable For product development. We are focused 1st on solving the materials issues to raise our cop and stabilized manufacturing process. We are also upgrading our calorimetry to allow us to run continuously at higher powers using mass flow instead of system identification. Mass flow is much easier for people to understand and this has been one of our biggest issues to bring a new investors on bored [sic].

..."

Mizuno is spawning a large number of replicators. There are probably at least 10 (20? 30?) non-professionals working on replicating it, in addition to the 10 or 12 reactors he directly sent out to skilled people.

With the equipment I'm setting up, I can replicate the recent Parkhomov result for a mere $200 more.

With the vacuum gear I already have, I can probably make a DC magnetron sputtering system for an additional $200. ($40 microwave, argon bottle, some high amperage diodes, a sturdy glass mason jar, a high voltage feedthrough, and a sheet of that orange vacuum gasket material). Apparently you can get disposable argon bottles in the UK for 15 pounds, but those don't exist in California. There might be a system for renting bottles from welding shops?

I can probably do a primitive replication of Holmlid. Low efficiency coincidence muon detectors can be build for <$100. High quality CosmicWatch detectors with big scintillator bricks can be built for $175 (they claim $100, but that is if you're building 100 of them). You need two of these for coincidence.

Between Parkhomov, Mizuno, Holmlid, and others, the field is starting to go exponential.

I got a small (40 cu ft?) Argon bottle from my local Matheson welding supply, around $50. I’m in northern Cal.

A call for help! I'm looking for a Youtube video in which Bob Greenyer showed a simple arcing experiment, using two graphite spectrograph electrodes, presumably to demonstrate transmutation of C + O to Fe. I didn't get to see the end of the video, and now I can't find the URL. Can anyone give me a tip?

For those of us replicators without large budgets or adequate laboratories:

At ICCF22 I had a chance to speak with Renzo Mondaini, who posted some simple but interesting experiments a few years ago on YouTube. Talking to a few other participants, I was surprised to find that these videos aren't well known at all, except perhaps in Italy. Mondaini calls his experiments "electrolytic cold fusion", which they may or may not be. The transmutation results seem convincing, however.

A particularly impressive demonstration is this synthesis of sulfur, which he claims happens via O + O -> S, on

I've done this in my kitchen. I'm not enough of a chemist to vouch for the results, but when I described them to Lutz Jaitner, he thought the blue solution that one gets in a few minutes could very well be copper sulfate. Quite a lot of sulfur must be produced, and it's mysterious where the binding energy might come from. All the same, for me it's worked every time. There are simple chemical tests for sulfate, which I mean to carry out at the next opportunity.

An even more fascinating result is shown in the video below at 28 minutes, one that ties in with the RF measurement at 327MHz reported by Mitchell R. Schwartz at ICCF22.

I asked Mondaini for details about this experiment, and he told me that to confirm the measurement shown in the video, he purchased a small amount of highly purified H20 (no D2O) and repeated the sparking electrolysis, getting the same spectrum as is shown in this video. Unlike Schwartz, he said he did not need a special antenna; a piece of wire about 20cm long was sufficient. No radio astronomers came knocking, fortunately. With a USB radio dongle and a computer program for software defined radio, it should be possible for nearly anyone to see the 327MHz line appear. The USB dongles cost around US$30 and can be usde from 100kHz to 1.7MHz; the receiver programs typically include spectrum analyzers. I'm sure the radio astronomers in your neighborhood would be thankful for the grounded double Faraday cage that Schwartz recommends.

WARNING: Lutz Jaitner has warned me that the experiments with underwater sparking could produce EVOs or something similar, echoing the warnings we heard from the Russian groups. I have decided not to try to replicate any of these until I have reliable information about effective shielding against the "strange radiation".

The experiment at 9 minuntes, in which the glass jar breaks and melts, is probably nothing remarkable. As it softens and melts, the dissolved metal ions in bottle glass make it conductive, so I have read.

Quote

It all boils down to confirm if its really copper sulphite and suplhate what is being formed.

The tungsten will oxidize to tungsten bronze which is also blue in colloid solutions in similar way like copper salts..

I'm glad to see that there's some interest in these experiments. I came back from ICCF22 thinking that someone should put together a book of simple transmutation experiments for high school chemistry teachers. That could change some things!

I should mention that Mondaini speaks little English and I, little Italian, but when I interviewed him on evening at ICCF22 some other Italians at the table evidently knew his experiments, even corrected my vague recollections of them, and added some comments about them; one graciously served as interpreter. I don't think a fraud would have been accepted at that table.

It's been three years since I did the CuSO4/SO3 replication. What I remember is that I used demineralized water (VDE 0510 => < 50uS conductivity) from the drugstore, KCO3 from Caelo & Loretz GmbH (Germany) containing 100 ppm SO4 (max.). SO3 isn't mentioned in the analysis on the container. A German teaspoon of KCO3 weighs 2g; so that gives <0.2 mg of SO4 which is in the solution from the start. I also used 1.5mm copper wire from the hardware store. Electrical wire is made with what's called electrolytic copper, both for ductility (as Mondaini mentions) but also for low resistance, since impurities rapidly raise the resistance of copper -- so the wire is an unlikely source of SO4.

I used a regulated analog DC power supply, running 12V and maybe 1A. The electrolyte solution turned light blue, then got increasingly dark, and there was also some precipitate that formed as flakey stuff on the anode, just as in the video. The solution remained completely clear; the color was certainly what I remember from my school age experiments with copper sulfate for copper plating; and there was no gel formation that I noticed.

I'll have to get someone to sell me some BaCl2 and HNO3 and try the chemical tests. Unfortunately, German apothecaries think anyone buying "chemicals" is doing it to build bombs. I don't have a mass spectrometer, but neither does the high school chemistry teacher. When I was in high school, the chemistry teacher would have said with overarching confidence that the BaCl2 test is going to fail. Well, let's see. Is there anything else in the mix that could give a false positive? Are there better tests for sulfate and sulfite?

As for the 327 MHz in Mondaini's radio spectrum: If the 327MHz line is good enough evidence of deuterium for radio astronomers, it should be good enough for the chemistry teacher. If there is no deuterium at all in the solution, where can the signal come from? (The galactic signal, unamplified, is much to weak for Mondaini's spectrum analyzer, I'm sure.) There has to be newly created deuterium, doesn't there? I'm hesitant to do this experiment, as I mentioned, for fear of "strange radiation", but I welcome thoughts and advice.

Another experiment for doubting chemistry teachers is a variant of the famous John Bockris experiment, in which he claimed to have shown (I think) that 3C + O -> Fe. Using pencil leads in air, I have produced magnetic powder, but I've since learnt that pencil leads often contain considerable amounts of iron oxide, which can get reduced in an electrical arc. I have some graphite electrodes on order from China that claim to be 99.99% pure graphite; if anyone knows how believable this claim is, please comment. A simpler and safer classroom demonstration of transmutation is hard to imagine.

If chemical way is probable, it could only be with radical species (non-zero electron spin see Meulenberg model)) and oxygen is indeed a diradical. too.

During replication of the CAN electrolysis experiment earlier this year, I detected a RF signal at 228 MHz, shown below. This was probably from a stray LC resonance of the apparatus wiring, stimulated by the fast high current impulse from the sparker. I only mention it because a similar kind of resonance in the Mondaini apparatus could result in the RF he detected.

AlanG

Thanks for the links. I didn't know these are aircraft frequencies. Obviously these are things that would have be be checked. Mondaini says he is an electronics technician, so I presume he knows what he is doing. I would try moving the wires around, inserting small inductances here and there, etc., to see if that changes the strength of the 327MHz line (to exclude resonances in the setup). If not, and if varying the sparking current gives a concomitant variation in the strength of the 327MHz line, wouldn't that be pretty convincing evidence for deuterium in the arc? It'll be a while before I can do this myself, however.

I need to post a caution to anyone trying to replicate the Mondaini experiments. After some simple chemical testing, it appears to me that in his oxygen to sulphur experiment (Video 3), Mondaini jumped to some unwarranted conclusions. What is almost certainly happening is this:

by electrolysis

Cu + 2H₂0 → Cu++ + 2OH- + H₂ (the evolved gas at the cathode)

then

2 Cu(OH)₂ + 2 K₂CO₃ +H2O → Cu₂(OH)₂CO₃ + 4 KOH + CO₂

Wikipedia shows Cu₂(OH)₂CO₃ as a light blue precipitate like that which forms on the copper anode in my experiment. I don't see any gas evolved at the anode, so I imagine the CO₂ is simply dissolving in the alkaline solution. In acidic solution nearly all of the precipitate dissolves; what remains looks like copper oxides.

Mondaini may be just talking off the top of his head about visible sulfite and sulfate; from his laboratory analyses we don't know the absolute mass of the sulphur found, so it may in fact be very small. I was not able to precipitate any BaSO₄ from the electrolyte after neutralizing to pH 6, and sulfite test strips were negative. The barium chloride test should be pretty unequivocal. I will try sending some electrolyte and precipitate to a laboratory, but I'm not very hopeful. If there is sulphur, it's very little, or it's not present as SO₄--.

I just hope I'm not playing Cal Tech trying to replicate Fleischmann & Pons.

Quote from BruceInKonstanz

I just hope I'm not playing Cal Tech trying to replicate Fleischmann & Pons.

Actually, they did a great job replicating. Their comments about electrochemistry were on the mark, in my opinion. The only problem they had was, they kept recalibrating after the heat appeared. So they kept resetting it to zero. If you don't do that, you will be okay. It is a strange mistake! As Gene Mallove put it, "don't stand on the scale when you zero it out." See:

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

The people at the NHE did the same thing. You can see that clearly in the figures on p. 17 here:

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

Here they are. This is the same data. First, the version from Mel Miles, and the NHE version:

In the NHE version, there is no earthly reason why the data point in the red circle should be at negative 30,000 J. That's ridiculous. If the calorimeter was really that bad, they should have tossed it out and started over. It wasn't that bad! There was nothing wrong with the calorimeter. The analysis was nuts. All you have to do is assume there is no heat when the experiment begins -- rather than assuming there is no heat 20 days into the run -- and Shazam! it all makes sense.

As I noted before, the NHE technique of arbitrarily setting the zero 20 days into the run did convince Ascoli. He is an easy sell. Any hypothesis that "explains away" a positive result will convince him, no matter how ridiculous.

I will replicate the Mondaini experiment soon, I'm gathering supplies, with additional instrumentation.

What weight % of sodium bicarbonate and potassium bicarbonate should we use?

It would be very interesting to also measure it with heavy water and perhaps with different mixtures of heavy and light water. There is reason to believe deuterium triggers at a lower voltage.

We can do it with different antenna lengths to help ensure that a resonance or different wavelength sensitivities is not a factor.

Also interesting to test different cathode geometries. He uses what appears to be a cylindrical (welding) rod. We need to know why the plasma occurs near the surface of the solution, but not deeper. Electrons congregate on sharper points of conductors; a sharp pointed cathode might trigger plasma at greater depth. With the less-sharp cylindrical cathode, perhaps the electric field is being diluted over a larger volume when the rod is deeply submerged, which might be why the plasma does not trigger at depth. We need to exclude the effect of hydrogen+oxygen reacting near the surface, if it is actually possible to do so. One way to do that is to immediately start at high voltage, before the gases have time to transport through the solution, and try to obtain the plasma effect before the gases can transport. Can we use a membrane to prevent mixture of the gases?

Thoriated vs. non-thoriated tungsten rods. Thoriated rods are sold for welding, I think it's because the alpha particles make it easier for arc discharges to form. Ultra dense hydrogen may neutralize the radiactive thorium. We can measure the rod radioactivity before and after extended electrolysis, however this requires alpha particle measurement which is more difficult than gamma and beta.

Putting a radioactive element (uranium ore being cheapest, it emits alpha and gamma) in the solution and running it for a long time (like in the Ohmasa experiments) might be able to reduce the radioactivity of the solution. This would be more convincing with a granular or large grained powdered radiactive substance, because the substance won't transport out of the solution via vapors. It would be nice to observe visually that none of the granules is missing on the bottom of the solution, while the radioactivity has significantly decreased. I am not sure how we can sustain the electroloysis for many days without it evaporating. Ideally the solution would be hermetically sealed and chilled to prevent boil-off? According to some theories, we don't need electrolysis to take place, we simply need to fire electrons at hydrogen with the right energy.

We can repeat it in a faraday cage, as has been mentioned.

Schwartz mentioned software defined radios on ebay, I just ordered one (HackRF).

Calorimetry is another obvious measurement.

Also interesting: a bell jar under partial vacuum, with a pool of light or heavy water (possibly with electrolyte) acting as an anode, and a cathode to fire electrons at it.