Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results

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).

I am supposed to get a spreadsheet of sample data from this paper. It has not come yet. (Actually, it is here in an antediluvian format I cannot read.)

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.

Quote from Shane D.

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.

Quote from kirkshanahan

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.

Display More

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.

Quote from kirkshanahan

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).

One of the lines on figure24 is a light grey.

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

You gotta do a little bit more than look at the caption! The preceding paragraph says an input of 100W.

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