Perhaps South Australia is interested in Mizuno's fusion.
South Australia has a certain amount of skin in the nuclear game.
Mark Oliphant and Maralinga.
Moreover, SA has the highest electricity prices.
A consequence of its 'green 'push into wind and solar.
Electricity price 3Q2017,.1kWh= Japan 23c, Hawaii 26-27c SA 31-34c
Sendai Replication study of 2014 Mizuno results reported in Costigliole d'Asti June 2017
https://www.iscmns.org/work12/IwamuraYanomalousexc.pdf
1. Deuterium/H2 + nano-structured Pd/Ni case, significant temperature increases
2. anomalous excess heat based on emissivity calcs was generated by the interaction between nano-structured Pd/Ni surface and D2 or H2 gas.
3. EDS analysis detected Cadmium, Sodium, Carbon, Oxygen etc on the Palladium. transmutation reactions may play some role .
AlainCo "Does the result seems convincing for you"
The calorimetry is based on emissivity calculations..
they would need to be backed up by the same kind of air calorimetry that Mizuno performed. That was convincing in terms of anomalous heat
Plus an extended 30 day trial with some consideration of the mass of fuel expended...similar to what Mizuno did.
The EDS data needs to be backed up with info.on the purity of the initial Pd, plus more analyses at more spots .
It is a good attempt at replication. Replications are expensive. Mizuno is aimed at improving the COP rather than replicating.
The COP of 1.8 is still not economic.
Convincing ?...not as convincing as this protest song against the powers that be.
Plus an extended 30 day trial with some consideration of the mass of fuel expended
I'm having a hard time going along with the possibility that the mass of the fuel would measurably change for a system heated slightly by small amounts of transmutations over a 30 day period. If there were enough transmutations happening to result in a significant mass difference, there would have been dangerous amounts of power, even if for the sake of argument you rule out the usual forms of penetrating radiation.
This is only a hunch, but I've done this kind calculation in the past. It is hard to wrap one's head around the amount of energy released by a nuclear reaction.
E=mc2 after all. And c is a rather large number.
E=mc2 after all. And c is a rather large number.
Big, big. Quoting my book:
Deuterium fusion yields 3.45 × 1014 joules per kilogram (345 million megajoules). Gasoline
has 45 megajoules per kilogram (or 132 megajoules per gallon), so a kilogram of deuterium gas
has roughly as much energy as 7.6 million kilograms of gasoline (2.6 million gallons).
Eric said "It is hard to wrap one's head around the amount of energy released by a nuclear reaction"
It is ..and also the negligible cost of fuel.
Mizuno used volume as a proxy measure.... in his consideration of the mass change.
There might just be a stoichiometric volume change in going from D to He depending on what assumptions you make about what reactions and what happens to the products. Perhaps...not?
Mizuno didn't say that the 12 cm3 D2 was 'used up'.. he just said it was 'consumed???" but it does amount to 2mg..which is far in excess of the "E=mc2 " mass.
Perhaps Mizuno was just pointing out that there was more than enough D2 around I think.
My calculations based on Tsyganov's aneutronic reaction.
D+D = He + Q (24 MEV) ( per D2 molecule) .
% mass change=0.64
Assume 2mg D2 "used" calculation yields Q = 12 ×108 J.........which is a bit more than what Mizuno got.
Assuming price of D2 is AU276/10 L , the cost of this 2mg is 3.3 cents Australian. which isnegigiblecompared with the energy price for natural gas/coal etc.
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/368407?lang=en&WCF_AMPERSAND®ion=AU
Perhaps this bit of the report could be reworded?
"A test with this reactor lasts almost 30 days. Typical excess heat during the time is estimated as 300 W. Total energy is thus ~2.6×108 J. The amount of D2 used was 20 cm3 STP. Assuming that the reaction is D+D fusion, and assuming that all gases react, the amount of gas required to generate this much energy is approximately 12 cm3 STP. Although this is a very rough calculation, this value coincides with the amount of gas consumed. Granted, this calculation is totally speculation"
QuoteIt is hard to wrap one's head around the amount of energy released by a nuclear reaction.
Which is EXACTLY why I find it not worthwhile to consider milliwatts or larger power for comparatively short times, all in hard to measure environments. Mizuno may be an exception if it all proves out. I believe this outcome is still in doubt.
Which is EXACTLY why I find it not worthwhile to consider milliwatts or larger power for comparatively short times, all in hard to measure environments.
But you also ignore 100 W produced continually for months, and 5 W produced continually for weeks. So you are just making excuses here. You ignore all cold fusion results, large or small, milliwatts or watts. You have a different set of excuses for each result.
Let me translate Yugo-speak into English. "Comparatively short times" are thousands of times longer than any chemical effect could produce. A factor of 1,800 is "comparatively small" because it isn't actually compared to anything, such as a person jumping 2,700 meters into the air, or an airplane flying from New York to Tokyo in 28 seconds.
By the way, there are not many cold fusion claims for milliwatts. Most of them are about a hundred times larger. But, again, 2 or 3 orders of magnitude mean nothing to Yugo because she is innumerate.
QuoteLet me translate Yugo-speak into English. "Comparatively short times" are thousands of times longer than any chemical effect could produce. A factor of 1,800 is "comparatively small" because it isn't actually compared to anything, such as a person jumping 2,700 meters into the air, or an airplane flying from New York to Tokyo in 28 seconds.
Oh sure. As usual, the problem is potential measurement errors. "Isoperibolic" calorimetry is point temperature measurement, often at a single point, and rarely more than three and extremely error prone. The smaller the output/input ratio and the shorter the duration and the less it is independently replicated, the more error-prone the result. Those are what CF claims suffer from. If it were just me, Jed would have a point. But it's not just for me but for most of the scientists who bother to examine it.
"Isoperibolic" calorimetry is point temperature measurement, often at a single point, and rarely more than three and extremely error prone.
Where did you get this information? I suggest you examine the schematics of actual calorimeters. You will see, for example, the Fleischmann used an array of temperature sensors and Miles used sensors attached to a copper jacket, which is the opposite of a single point.
If these methods are "extremely error prone" why don't the errors show up during calibration? Perhaps you mean invisible, undetectable errors. The calorimeter works perfectly until someone uses highly loaded Pd and heavy water, instead of Pd+H or Pt+D. Then the errors magically appear, even though there is no mechanism by which the choice of cathode and electrolyte could affect the calorimetry. This is the Shanahan hypothesis.
Oh, I am sorry: I shouldn't have asked "where did you get this information?" As you have told us many times, you never read the papers. You are not interested in them. You just make this shit up.
But it's not just for me but for most of the scientists who bother to examine it.
Which scientists? Where have they published? What were their claims? What errors did they discover? Name three of them other than Shanahan and Morrison.
Oh, I am sorry, you just made up these imaginary scientists too. You have a vivid imagination!
You can put as many temperature sensors as you like in an isoperibolic calorimeter. I used to use (now and then) a recirculating reaction-type isoperibolic calorimeter that had a fully analogue control and data-collection system using averaging over about 20 PT-100 probes. Took a while to set it up, but when properly calibrated it could detect the heat from a fart in the next building.
"isoperibolic calorimeter"
Horses for courses or AIC for rats?
Mizuno's air calorimetry measured the non-radiative heat of the inactive reactor output directly
and radiative heat by comparison with the inactive reactor.
The digital thermometers were in the airstream.
The indirect calorimetry method AIC is necessarily much more sophisticated for starving rats than for deuterium reactors .
You can put as many temperature sensors as you like in an isoperibolic calorimeter.
Yes. And the people who make calorimeters know that. Most of the calorimeters used in cold fusion studies were made by experts who did not make the kinds of mistakes Mary Yugo imagines they might have. Plus, as I said, they calibrated, so if there were problems, they would show up.
There are some published cold fusion studies with bad calorimetry. I am not saying they are all first-class. But the major studies were. The researchers consulted with experts. Bockris, for example, brought in the best expert in calorimetry he could find in Texas. The fellow looked at the instruments and the data, laughed, and said, "anyone can measure that much heat."
Took a while to set it up, but when properly calibrated it could detect the heat from a fart in the next building.
J. P. Joule would have approved. Legend has it that he measured the heat from a waterfall on his honeymoon. *
Along similar lines, Bockris once told me about the methods used decades ago to detect impurities in electrolysis cells, even before modern mass spec instruments were developed. He said: "In those days, people still smoked in laboratories. Someone would blow smoke at one end of the lab and a minute later it would show up in our instruments at the other end." He didn't mention farting.
* Okay not a legend, but it didn't work. See:
MY "all in hard to measure environments" "Mizuno may prove the exception"
What's hard to measure? Air temperature of 20 to 35 degrees C.. ???
Clever experimental design by Mizuno minimized measurement difficulty.
budget starvation due to increasing costs which have not been matched by increased funding.
"The inflation-adjusted costs for pharmaceutical R&D increased in the past decades significantly.
8.6% /annum from1950 to 2009."
Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:959–968. doi: 10.1038/nrd2961. [PubMedCross Ref
Is it only an impression, but it seems current techniques in recent experiments are far less reliable and precise that the one in the 89-90s?
When I want convincing solid experiments, I always get back to older one (F&P, Lonchampt, Miles, McKubre, Bockris, BARC, Storms, )
Yes, I think that is the case. The reasons seem clear to me. People such as F&P, Miles and the others you listed worked in the world's best laboratories, equipped with the latest, best, most expensive equipment. They were assisted by the best experts in the world. Some examples:
Miles sent his flasks to be analyzed for helium in blind tests to three laboratories in the U.S. that specialize in helium detection. These are arguably the best laboratories on earth for that particular job, and he did not just ask one of them; he asked all three. Their instruments measured 0.1 ppb.
As I mentioned here recently, Bockris searched for "the top expert in calorimetry in the State of Texas" to review his work. The guy visited, looked at the equipment and data. He laughed and said, "anyone can measure that much heat." Bockris said that gave him confidence he was doing it right.
Tritium is another good example. BARC is India's largest power reactor, as well as it premier nuclear research lab. Tritium from cold fusion experiments there was measured by the Reactor Safety group. As they said: "if we make a mistake measuring tritium, we die." They know what they are doing.
At Los Alamos, tritium from Storms' experiment was confirmed by Jalbert. Judging by his CV I suppose he is one of the world's top experts. See the NSF conference proceedings, p. 13-3:
Roland A. Jalbert
*25 years working with tritium and tritium detection
*involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years
*for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ).
*Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton )
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf
People like this and equipment like this have not been available for cold fusion research for 20 years. If anyone today were to suggest that the instruments and experts at places like Los Alamos or China Lake should be used in a cold fusion experiment, that person would be fired in a week, and would never be allowed to work in academic science again. It would be instant career suicide. The opposition to cold fusion is a strong today as it was a week after the announcement, when the plasma fusion researchers at MIT, journal editors and scientists elsewhere began flooding the mass media with accusations that cold fusion researchers were lunatics, criminals and frauds. That is exactly what they would do today if anyone suggested an experiment. That's what they tell me they would do.
