Mizuno USPTO Patent Application - June 2, 2016

This patent will take a while to fully digest, but here is an interesting passage about the first embodiment of Fig. 1 (from paragraph 60):

"Incidentally, the electric current which flowed in the electrode pair at this time was 30 [mA]. In other words, an electric power becomes 30 [W]. The amount of heat generated by the above input became 1 [kW], and the heating value with respect to the input reached 33 times."

This mechanism is interesting
". Specifically, when hydrogen atoms are introduced into the metal nanoparticle, a concentration of hydrogen in the metal nanoparticle increases, and when the concentration of hydrogen increases, the property of the electron in the metal nanoparticle further changes; and a mass of the electron becomes a large value.
The heavy electron forms an atom with a hydrogen nucleus, and when the heavy electron becomes an extranuclear electron, a radius o
f an electron orbit shrinks, and the internuclear distance between heavy electron hydrogen atoms also shrinks. As a result, the probability of the occurrence of the nuclear fusion reaction between the heavy electron hydrogen atoms increases due to the tunnel effect in the reactant 26, and it is facilitated that the nuclear fusion reaction occurs. For instance, in the case of the metal nanoparticle formed from Pd,
when the mass of an electron increases to twice, the probability of the occurrence of the nuclear fusion reaction due to the tunnel effect increases by 10 digits, and it can be facilitated that the nuclear fusion reaction occurs.

did they measure the mass of the electron?

Quote from robert bryant

when the concentration of hydrogen increases, the property of the electron in the metal nanoparticle further changes; and a mass of the electron becomes a large value.

Using the word "mass" unqualified is unfortunate because the word on its own is usually be taken to mean invariant mass. Normally, physicists follow Einstein's convention when discussing the dependence of the mass of a particle upon its energy content. As a general rule the mass of the electron means invariant mass and the term relativistic mass is used when the mass increases with kinetic energy.

Independently of this regrettable reference, to suggest that the mass of the electron can change - by someone as influential as Mizuno - is disastrous for the LENR field. Such a controversial statement should be supported by some evidence. The same applies to other theories such as Piantelli's one of H- anions entering the electronic structure of Ni atoms. More generally, hypotheses written in scientific articles should prevail over the extraordinary claims made in LENR patents.

Quote from JulianBianchi

Independently of this regrettable reference, to suggest that the mass of the electron can change - by someone as influential as Mizuno - is disastrous for the LENR field.

Among speculative statements uttered by well-known LENR researchers in conference proceedings and patents, Mizuno's suggestion that the mass of the electron changes is one of the more benign ones. If I put some effort into it, I could probably dig up literally hundreds of proposals more far-out sounding than this one, which would make careful physicists very frustrated to read. Speculation is rife. If Mizuno can jeopardize LENR research with this speculation in a patent, it is in a dire state.

Your larger point, about speculation, is well-taken. In contexts like conference proceedings it should be possible to present experimental evidence which has a solid basis, in one part of a paper, in language entirely devoid of the experimentalist's favorite theory, and then in the discussion section go into speculation beyond one's training about what might be going on, without casting doubt on the experimental sections. Papers in peer reviewed journals have a higher standard, of course. Mizuno is an experimentalist. I don't know why he feels the need to enter into a discussion about heavy electrons in a patent, which doesn't need a theory and just needs to work.

Quote from JulianBianchi

Independently of this regrettable reference, to suggest that the mass of the electron can change - by someone as influential as Mizuno - is disastrous for the LENR field. Such a controversial statement should be supported by some evidence. The same applies to other theories such as Piantelli's one of H- anions entering the electronic structure of Ni atoms. More generally, hypotheses written in scientific articles should prevail over the extraordinary claims made in LENR patents.

and

Quote from Eric Walker

I don't know why he feels the need to enter into a discussion about heavy electrons in a patent.

With all due respect to you both, and I agree with some of both the statements above. But, let me add, "effective mass" is a widespread and pervasive concept in condensed matter theory. Such massive electrons (or diminished mass variants) have real manifestations in quantum photonic devices now in daily use. The inference of effective mass variation is often inferred from simple measures such as specific heat. The measures are well established and often have vectorial components. While such QM concepts have been difficult for mainstream physics to completely integrate, it is likely not "disastrous" for the CF / LENR field. Quantum theories that explain condensed matter behavior have been working well for over half a century now.

Some physics experts may, or apparently may not, have much familiarity with non-relativistic explanations of variation in electron mass. If we take Peter Hagelstein's analysis in JCMNS at face value, to give but one example.

While it is best to consider that effective mass of electrons may be one key to understanding CF / LENR --- So far, few have shown much interest in actually determining the consequences of massive electrons with respect to LENR / CF.... other than such relativistic analyses-- which generally tend to negative conclusions in spite of the often well-meaning intentions.

One fundamental tool for understanding effective mass is the deBroglie relation lambda = h/p. Where lambda is the wavelength or the RMS positional uncertainty of position of an electron (or other massive particle). And where p is interpretable in the Newtonian (p = mv) or the relativistic sense p = γm_ov. That is, relativistic momentum given as m_ov times the Lorentz transform factor of (1- v² /c²)^-2 or put another way where this relativistic gamma factor = 1/(1- v² /c²)².

Further there are n-dimensional vectorial representations, but the basic relations remain for each spatial dimension.

It is not often mentioned, but there is a form of singularity in the deBroglie relation, not at extremely high velocities, but when an electron is constrained toward rest. True rest for an electron is thought not possible, but constraint toward rest is. Constraint of position not only increases certainty of position but also decreases uncertainty of velocity. The net result is increased variability in mass (the mean mass of an electron in a Penning trap is "known" to around 9 digits or more--but the crucial experiment of tightening the trap may not have been conducted, yet?). Simplifying, and taking a near rest velocity, lambda = h/mv, solving for mass gives m = h/v x 1/lambda. As v tends toward zero, and lambda tends towards zero, electron mass uncertainty tends toward infinity. It is a simple argument and only has meaning in a particular vectorial orientation.... as far as I know. But, on the other hand, particle-particle reactions, such as those often seen or suspected in LENR, are likely to be inherently vectorial, whether induced by changing charge gradients or thermal agitation or phonon field imposition, or other factors such as phase boundaries. I should add that oxide / metal boundaries also suffice, these being regions where electron mobility itself is in phase transition.

Good arguments can be made that effective mass can and does participate in reactions of all types (physical, thermodynamic, nuclear, chemical, photonic etc.), whether that mass variation is relativistic or quantum in source. The most widespread practical applications today are likely to be found in research in semiconductor and catalyst development. The field of condensed matter theory may have been begun by geniuses such as John C. Slater (MIT) but has become its own field, often published and described as condensed matter quantum physics or more simply condensed matter theory. It is likely no accident that Slater joined MIT in 1930 shortly after Karl Compton became president there.

Quote from AlainCo

Is someone planning to replicate Mizuno/Clean Planet patent ?

I could be wrong, but my impression is that this patent was filed before issues were found with Mizuno's calorimetry, and so the effect may not be as robust as claimed. I believe that Jed Rothwell made quite a few comments about the calorimetry and also has some knowledge about what was done later to correct this etc. It would be interesting to get his comments regarding this patent and/or later work by Mizuno et al.

Effective mass of an electron in condensed matter is NOT a constant, any solid-state physics text will explain that. A heavier electron effective mass means that nuclei of a deuterium molecule would be closer thus
have a higher fusion probability, check out "muonic fusion".

Mizuno's calorimetry in late 2014 was wrong. I described the problems in detail here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf

He later improved the calorimetry. He sent me some data, photos etc. It looks better to me, but I do not have enough information to discuss it.

Quote from gamay

A heavier electron effective mass means that nuclei of a deuterium molecule would be closer thus
have a higher fusion probability, check out "muonic fusion".

Yes, however the masses of electrons typically deviate by a factor of up to three to four in QM photonic and semiconductor applications and theory.

Muons are 207 times the nominal rest mass of an electron, and thus can reside about 207 times nearer the nucleus. This gives a much greater cross section for fusion (analogous to inverse beta decay, or "internal e_^- capture") and hence is the originally named "cold fusion". But it is difficult and expensive to make muons---- with half lives in the microseconds.

But as I have mentioned here occasionally there may be much simpler alternatives to muons.

Quote from AlainCo

I remember of the issues discussed by JedRothwell on some Mizuno/CleanPlanet experuments.
I remember of an hybrid adiabatic and isoperibolic calorimeter, with problem with ambient temperature change...

JedRothwell first confirmed the Mizuno findings and after he was back in GB he had to repeal... The arguments in his repeal-paper are obviously unscientific in a way that a knowldedgebale person can see that he was forced to do so...

Thomas Clark linked the paper some months ago... (interesting enough that he knew about this...)

He (Rothwell) did so with appreciable honesty after GSVIT highlighted the issue. It's a small world so no wonder T.C. knew.

https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…-used-by-tadahiko-mizuno/

Quote from Wyttenbach

Thomas Clark linked the paper some months ago... (interesting enough that he knew about this...)

It merely shows that 'Thomas Clarke is a dedicated player at this Forum, and has been intensively reading and posting here for about a year, although his membership here slightly predates my own (October v. November 2014). There are different flavors of "agnostic" here, in my estimation, just as in religion. Clarke demands that everything be up to standard, that is meets falsifiability criteria, does not unnecessarily invoke unknown processes, uses redundant and complementary instrumentation with skeptical caution, follows principles of replicability, redundant documentation, and so on and on.... this is typical of academic reviews of scientific papers in strongly edited and reviewed journals. His perspective is very instructive to "believers" and the questions they may likely need to answer from the wider scientific community while CF / LENR is in "purgatory".

On an optimistic note: Patents may well be the path to respectability and perhaps to escape from scientific / engineering "purgatory". And in fact patent literature, in chemistry at least, once far outweighed peer-reviewed journals as a source for information on chemical research. Now with venues such as ArXiv and the like, and numerous online journals, this weighting may be beginning to shift. Nevertheless, I suspect the growth in patent activity still gives something approaching a 10 to 1 page number advantage to patent literature worldwide, relative to online or hardcopy "peer-reviewed" venues.

In the US at least, "small entities" that is individuals and smaller companies pay considerably reduced fees if they qualify. It is a fact here that 'holding' your exciting results can be very risky.... Reading about the Gordon Gould / PatLex triumph over adversity in the biased US patent system of the 1950s is a recommended eye-opener, and shows the other side of good notes and application "disclosure" working to the eventual immense financial benefit of Gould and his advocacy team of attorneys PatLex.

Laser Nobelists Schawlow and Townes likely had interactions and access to Gould's ideas on lasers. They, with the immense resources of Bell Labs, were able to be first to show "reduction to practice", a key factor then and now. But Gould was able to retroactively receive several patents decades after his application was blocked in the 1950s due to US security concerns (Gould had "leftist" ideas and sympathies it was claimed--- and it was the "cold war"). The keys to Gould's triumph were his copious and detailed notes and their submission in support of his patent claims-- publication per se was NOT necessary, but timely patent application with abundant disclosure was vital, the US courts ultimately ruled.

See, for example: https://www.aip.org/history/ex…r/pdf/BrombergExcerpt.pdf

Quote from Wyttenbach

The arguments in his repeal-paper are obviously unscientific in a way that a knowldedgebale person can see that he was forced to do so...

Thomas Clark linked the paper some months ago... (interesting enough that he knew about this...)

That's ridiculous. Any knowledgeable person can look at the numbers and graphs in the paper and reach his own conclusions. I even uploaded the spreadsheets, as noted. If you think there is excess heat, I suggest you do an analysis and write a paper. Show us how unscientific "my" conclusions are. Actually, they are Mizuno's conclusions as well, even though I am the only author listed. Obviously, I worked closely with him.

When he recalibrated, the new calibration data clearly showed a mistake. That's why you recalibrate. In the original version of the paper, I clearly stated that a recalibration was needed before we could be sure. I should have waited 4 months for the recalibration. Then I would not have published the paper in the first place, and made a fool of myself.

Thomas Clarke knows about this because I consulted with him, and because he reads the papers at LENR-CANR.org.

As I said, Mizuno subsequently improved the calorimetry. I do not see a problem with his more recent work, but I have not looked at it closely, so I cannot discuss it.

Quote from JedRothwell

That's ridiculous. Any knowledgeable person can look at the numbers and graphs in the paper and reach his own conclusions. I even uploaded the spreadsheets, as noted. If you think there is excess heat, I suggest you do an analysis and write a paper. Show us how unscientific "my" conclusions are. Actually, they are Mizuno's conclusions as well, even though I am the only author listed. Obviously, I worked closely with him.

Hello Jed! I never had the intention to disqualify Your work. In contrary, we all highly estimated Your help for Mizuno!
What indeed was very irritating was Your following statement.

Retraction
Some calibrations performed after this paper was written cast doubt upon the results. I now believe that most if not all of the apparent excess heat was caused by changes in ambient temperature. This is described in Appendix A.

But:
According to Mizuno the ambient was very well controlled and calculated in!

The circulation pump produces heat when it operates, and its temperature rises. Therefore, the circulation pump is cooled with a sirocco blower. In the figure, this blower is shown as the round figure under the pump. The circulation pump is rated at 12 W.
The circulation pump also causes the temperature to rise. Some of the heat from the pump rotor passes through the pump walls into the cooling water. This amount is also proportional to the temperature difference between the pump temperature T4 and the cooling water temperature T3: (T4-T3). The amount of heat transfer in a steady-state condition is similar to that shown in equation (1). The thermal power transferred from the circulation pump is denoted by WP, and expressed in the steady state by the following equation:

Some months ago I studied the mizuno papers and had to draw the following conclusions:
Does Mizuno tell the whole story?
Is he on the Rossi trip? (He had established his own company.)

All his papers were clearly in line an the effect was showing up with no doubt. But if You know the Japanese culture as I do, then you should have noticed the following facts: Mizuno never talked about COP! (Goal: No conflicts with anybody.) He always accounted excess heat (eV up to 600 per Ni).
Mizuno never showed us the results of higher temperature runs, which, we know show much higher COP's. This was the agenda for his company.

My critic is very tight and clear. You can never withdraw a statement (paper) based on somebody's results of an experiment done (10000km away). The circulation pump cannot be the source of an unknown amount of heat flowing into the system and also the ambient could be cooled at will. (Aircondition)
If you follow the ambient T-measurements then You can see that the aircondition is switch on/off at the will of Mr. Mizuno.

Conclusion: Dr. Mizuno was very unhappy that the world had a clear picture of his success. (You mentioned once in Your report the forbidden word COP!) On the other side some people (of US/GB) were very unhappy with a clear prove of LENR...

So its up to You to tell us the “true” story about what really happened. (whether Mizuno wished a retraction or the establishment? Or both.)

(To add it once more: Thomas Clark asked the right questions about Lugano), but he draw the wrong conclusions, which looks at least for me and many others very much like professional spin. He completely overlooked the heat-flow from the E-Cat to the rods. Which in my view disqualifies his expertise.)

My experience during Phd studies included: System architecture and reliability engineering. But I'm not willing to dig for an old bone, as we no longer face the level one spin of "LENR is not real" ...