Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

  • As vortex and ECW relayed, Tadahiko Mizuno published astounding results :

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

    It is a preprint for JCMNS25



    Observation of excess heat by activated metal and deuterium gas


    ABSTRACT


    Reports of heat-generating cold fusion reactions in the nickel–hydrogen system have been increasing. The reactions mainly involve nickel with other additive elements. The authors of these reports emphasized the importance of an extremely clean system in the electrolytic tests in which excess heat was generated. Therefore, we attempted to detect excess heat after reducing impurities to a minimum by cleaning the electrode carefully and then fabricating nanoparticles in situ in our test system, without ever exposing them to air. As a result, energy far exceeding input was continuously obtained. In the best results obtained thus far, the output thermal energy is double the input electrical energy, amounting to several hundred watts. The generated thermal energy follows an exponential temperature function. When the reactor temperature is 300°C, the generated energy is 1 kW. An increase of the temperature is expected to greatly increase the output energy.
    We have recently improved the preparation of the electrode material. This enhanced reproducibility and increased excess heat. The new methods are described in an appendix.




    E-cat world published a quick summary to discuss on that paper

    http://e-catworld.com/2017/08/…-in-new-lenr-experiments/


    To be confirmed but it seems a breakthrough.


    I noticed that Mizuno explained that the deposition of Pd on Ni electrode through plasma process, prepare the reaction.

    It remind me the Cathodic Sputtering that Didier grass&al realized on their electrodes, leading after an electrolysisi to a brutal excess heat production possibly of LENR source.



    The paper is very detailed on the process, and may help replicators (even if I imagine getting help from Mizuno to replicate will be essential).

  • Palladium is know to work as a spillover catalyst. That means, it's merely inactive to cold fusion by itself, but it dissolves the hydrogen in large quantities and it concentrates it in this way. Whereas nickel is actual active catalyst but it has low tendency to dissolve the hydrogen and ionize it into a protons and hydride anions.

    This could explain, why many previous attempts for replication of original Fleischmann & Pons cold fusion experiments have failed, despite the researchers did use much cleaner samples of palladium than F&P did (or just because of it). Also Patterson, Szpak and many others did always use palladium in mixture with another metal catalysts (Ni, Ti, W and others).

  • Not to throw cold water on this promising news, but it was revealed in the Darden vs Rossi court documents (235-11, pgs 57-62):


    https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk


    that IH's Murray invested a lot of effort in trying to verify, and even replicating Mizuno, but was unsuccessful.


    Murray and his team first went to Mizuno's small lab in Sapporo, Japan, where they found some issues of concern with the "plasma based technology" instrument set-up. After helping him "re-equip" with "more robust instrumentation", Mizuno was unable to get the same result as he had with his original set up.


    Mizuno then flew to NC for 7-10 days: "did his exact procedure and process on his reactor in our facility, and we were still now able to get it to work".




    lenr-forum.com/attachment/2777/

  • JedRothwell which spreadsheet format ? maybe ...


    David Fojt That is Jed's work relayed by many...


    About clean cathode, I suspect it is not a chemical question (you are probably right oxydes will be reduced), but of metallurgy.

    Oxydes, later reduced, are used by Celani to shape his wire nanostructure.

    Here it seems Mizuno is using cathodic sputtering, plasma... to create a nanostructure of Pd on Ni

  • Dr. Mizuno is a really good man and I was fortunate enough to have been able to develop a friendship with him over the last 3 years. It is true that we were not able to replicate or confirm his findings but that is not conclusive regarding his present or overall research. I believe that he has experienced more iterations of working CF reactions than about any other researcher on this planet.


    I think that Dr. Iwamura and his team are having better luck replicating Mizuno's insitu cathode prep / nano deposition process (a very smart approach) and seem to be getting some excess heat.

    Jed is his most trusted English speaker who also does a good job holding him accountable on calorimetry / measurement. I'll look forward to hearing Jed's interpretation of the data when he gets it.

  • IH's Murray invested a lot of effort in trying to verify, and even replicating Mizuno, but was unsuccessful.

    I believe that approach was somewhat different. From the chronology of events I am sure it did not include the improvements described in Appendix A. (That is not to say I am sure those improvements actually improve things.)


    The graphs in the paper are not the best data from the Appendix A approach. There wasn't time to run that data through the mill. It takes a long time to prepare a paper.

  • I'm having an issue with the paper. maybe someone can help. Mizuno is essentially doing mass flow calorimetry, just like Storms did. So Power out = mass flow * heat capacity * (Tout- Tin) (rough equivalent to eqn 3 on page 12, mass flow being air speed times cross-sectional area times density).


    Mizuno call the heat capacity Hc, and gives an equation for it as Hc = .987 + .00661 * Tout (Eqn. 1 on pg. 12). Now Tout is the output air temp, which is roughly 25C or 298 K. He uses K in his paper and if we use 298K in the equation that gives Hc = .987 + 1.96978 = 2.9568. He uses units of J/g/deg in the paragraph at the bottom of page 11, but he also specifies there that Hc at 373 K is 1.012 and 1.005 at 273 K, which agrees with lit data. So the 2.9568 is way off. If it was in cal instead of J there would be a factor of 4.187 to convert (by division), giving a calculated number of .706, still way off. However, the ratio of the calculated number to the correct number is 2.9568/1.007 (approx.) = 2.93 roughly. Since the Hc is a direct multiplier in the Pout calc, that means that ratio is an erroneous multiplier in his Pout calc, which would give a massive apparent excess heat, and a COP ~ 3. What am I missing?


    Addition: Eqn. 1 maybe should use deltaT? I back calc about aa 4 degree value would work, but then why does Mizuno describe eqn 1 at the top of page 12 as if it is written correctly??


    2nd addition: Scratch that last addition, would never use delta T in the heat capacity calc, that's strictly a function of temperature.

  • Gosh I almost forgot the fresh air of proper science. I liked this paper. I can't find a good reason that this is a false result. I'm looking forward to what experts and critics of cold fusion have to say about this result. What I can say is that the method used is so transparent and in a sense so simplistic that I most probable will understand any technical debate around the measurements. I'm not an expert but It feels like this result can turn the tide and I do hope to visit a lecture by this fellow in Stockholm some years ahead in the cold month of december.


  • The proper way is to calculate the energy flow in and energy flow out using different heat capacities. As shown in the papers and can be seen by a simple googling e.g. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html

    the variation of the heat capacity is quite small so I doubt that there will be a significant difference in the result.

  • Mizuno call the heat capacity Hc, and gives an equation for it as Hc = .987 + .00661 * Tout (Eqn. 1 on pg. 12). Now Tout is the output air temp, which is roughly 25C or 298 K. He uses K in his paper and if we use 298K in the equation that gives Hc = .987 + 1.96978 = 2.9568. He uses units of J/g/deg in the paragraph at the bottom of page 11, but he also specifies there that Hc at 373 K is 1.012 and 1.005 at 273 K, which agrees with lit data. So the 2.9568 is way off. If it was in cal instead of J there would be a factor of 4.187 to convert (by division), giving a calculated number of .706, still way off. However, the ratio of the calculated number to the correct number is 2.9568/1.007 (approx.) = 2.93 roughly. Since the Hc is a direct multiplier in the Pout calc, that means that ratio is an erroneous multiplier in his Pout calc, which would give a massive apparent excess heat, and a COP ~ 3. What am I missing?


    Something is off... Heat capacity (of air) vs temperature is not linear, so Mizuno's heat capacity regression should be a quadratic, at least.


    Or if a linear fudge is really needed, Hc = 0.975 + 0.000105*Tout would be much better.


    I don't see anything else in the paper that gives sense to why Hc should be as it was stated (and it's not a C/F/K issue).

  • This paper is much clearer than most in this field. I am still working through it and the comments. One thing I noticed is that there seems to be a little issue with the English or with oddities in the graphs. For example this one:

    deleteme2.jpg


    So what quantity/quantities is/are actually represented on the vertical axis? The label says "Input/W and Output/W" but there is only one data curve. And what does this caption mean? "Changes for input and output power for the reactor after treatment of 100 W input" I *think* I know what this means but it's not clear enough to be certain. Some other labels and figures have similar issues. Probably minor but who knows?


    If that graph is simply output power in Watts vs time, then it is exactly the sort of crystal clear display of results which I find sadly lacking in most LENR papers. In my limited experience, they tend to use complex normalized units which make sense only to other LENR specialists or maybe electrochemists. Mizuno is obviously straightforward and clear and I really appreciate that... once the little funny parts that are probably only language problems or proof reading are worked out.


    What I like about this work is that Mizuno constructed identical reactors with one containing activated metal and the other containing non-active metal. I don't know if these have the same thermal properties however so I would have liked to have seen a Joule heater in each device for additional calibration verification. If it was there, I may have missed it. If it does turn out that one can correct the mass calorimetry and confirm the calibration and the equivalency of the control and the active device, then this is very persuasive evidence of something odd (anomalous) going on. We're talking about a three hour run here -- it would be good if it were longer.


    More disturbing are the mentions (big thank you's to ShaneD and Dewey Weaver (I keep wanting to call him Dewar)) for the heads up that Mizuno, in person and with the his own set up, could not reproduce the findings during a trip to NC. or even in his own lab when Murray supervised the instrumentation. I am gaining respect for Murray and am wondering what was different when he was present. The work is very interesting but its inconsistency is disturbing. One has to be curious about what is causing the discrepancies. Does anyone know if Murray has a theory about it? Mizuno?

  • kirkshanahan


    So I am trying to follow what you wrote. Are you referring to this?



    I am a bit denser than usual or some step got left out. Are you saying that in Mizuno's equation, the .00661 term is off because it yields too high an Hc? Where does that number come from? Sorry if I missed something-- I am in a hurry right now but will have more time later.

  • Quote

    It is a little hard to see, but if one had read the preceding paragraph, it's location should have been pretty obvious...


    Seriously? I am staring at the graph magnified in Adobe Acrobat and I see SOMETHING there but I have no idea what and I can assure you the caption doesn't tell me.

  • Quote

    The grey line runs along the 100W line, and goes to zero after ~82000sec.


    Really, this is worth arguing over? One does not customarily use nearly invisible lines in coordinate graphs unless perhaps one does not want them to be seen! And the legend still makes no sense at all. It is not good practice and it is not confidence inspiring when a reader has to venture cautious guesses to try to figure out what an author means! And these are not the only "bobbles." Want respect for a paper? Make it very direct, clear and error-free. If you write in Engrish, have an English-speaker look it over. And it is still a very interesting work. The control method seems at first look to be appropriate and the graphical displays are well chosen and mostly make sense. The serious question is why the author was not able to reproduce it when observed by an expert in measurement. And then there is the question about the Hc used in the calculations came from (thanks, as usual, Shanahan).


    Shane, what are you going on about?

  • Mizuno call the heat capacity Hc, and gives an equation for it as Hc = .987 + .00661 * Tout (Eqn. 1 on pg. 12).

    if a linear fudge is really needed, Hc = 0.975 + 0.000105*Tout would be much better.


    Having said that, in the limited temperature range Mizuno is working in (273-333K), a regression of Hc = .987 + .0000661*Tout works well...


    Maybe a couple of zeroes have been missed off?



    Really, this is worth arguing over?


    I'd describe it as an explanation rather than an argument.

  • Quote

    Maybe a couple of zeroes have been missed off?


    First intelligent remark I've seen out of you so far. It would be a pity if this was all there were to it. And I can't imagine it's been a consistent error for all the years that Mizuno has been publishing results. I am pretty sure that the paper that impressed me positively early on, that Jed recommended, and that I misplaced, was one of his.


    Maybe Jed can find out what's going on with Hc?

  • It would be a pity if this was all there were to it.


    I'm not sure you understood said intelligent remark though... I am suggesting it's a printing error, rather than something Mizuno has been getting wrong for the last decade or two. Mainly because actually using the Hc equation as written in the report would lead to very odd spectacular results. (i.e. an erroneous COP of ~5.5, as a guess... that is, Kirk's 2.93 * 2ish)

  • "If you write in Engrish"

    Thereyugo Maryugo

    This is an arrogant monocultural monolingual slur


    I ran the paper through spell/ grammar check as undoubtedly Mizuno did.

    There were no errors and I doubt if Professor Nagel found many.


    All the Japanese native speakers I know make sure to run their written stuff by English native speakers.

    I am quite sure that Mizuno did so.

    Indeed Mizuno wrote at the end of the manuscript

    "Special thanks are extended to David Nagel for kindly reviewing our manuscript."


    Perhaps Maryugo needs to improve her/his reading skills

  • Zeus "Having said that, in the limited temperature range Mizuno is working in (273-333K), a regression of Hc = .987 + .0000661*Tout works well...

    Maybe a couple of zeroes have been missed off? "

    I'd agree with that.. probably Mizuno originally wrote 0,0000661.

    Zeroes can be lost easily during changes in text formats.


    The heat capacity data I've found is rather limited

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html

    yields btw 273 and 373K

    Hc =0.990 + .0000514 *Tout  but the regression is poor. R2=0.77 only.



    I guess Mizuno is doing isotope readings where possible... interesting to find out if the carbon is old or new.

  • David Fojt

    This is the beginning of a research program.

    Need of good instruments like what Mizuno used, maybe even better (various microscopies and spectrometries, good calorimetries).

    With a serious funding like what we see for Geen Energies, it would close the unknown.


    Too bad the funding hope dried around 2016. I understand Jed's sad opinion of funding.

  • TTM - The money lost to Rossi may end up not being a total waste as it did create awareness that caring risktakers were showing up with resource.

    That opened some doors - some of which may still turn out to be useful. The criminal shame is the $5M+ that was designated to fund research had to be diverted to attorneys. Perhaps those lessons will end up having convertible value as well.


    Alan - I agree with the lawyers statement. The accountants are a result of regulatory burden overreach - they are simply filling a need. I think that has a chance of getting fixed in a US to the extent where more balance in the mix might be possible.