Mizuno's bucket of water

    Quote

    Consider " YOU DO THE FLIPPING EXPERIMENT"

    Save that rhetorical $ you offered for Mizuno.... and DIY.

    That makes sense because it was MY improbable story... oh wait.

    THH "D vs H molecules generating different mass spectra anomalies at low levels"

    "Detection evidence is not (for somone who knows mass spectroscopy etc, whatever method was used) strong due to known artifacts"


    I guess I could ask the eight researchers questions about "not strong evidence due to known artifacts"


    They might ask why THH assumes 'mass spectra' anomalies when EDX does not use mass spec.

    They might ask why THH thinks that D and H could interfere with the 77.35 kEV gamma emission signal

    when EDX can not pick up H,D, and for that matter, He. tritium ... atoms without higher electron shells


    I might have to say


    Gomen nasai... kenkyusasantachi


    THH does not know the difference between mass spec and EDX.

    Moshiwake arimasen


    Bocjin. You are as often when replying to me with such feeling making unwarranted assumptions. I said etc because I was not assuming it was mass spec (and made clear elsewhere in the post). But all detection methods have anomalies.


    The topic was transmutation, not 77.35 keV gamma peaks (which might be EDS peak from Osmium, or many other things).


    Furthermore, can I suggest you read my post more carefully and note the difference between logical AND and logical OR.


    Rhetorically, it can be ignored. In reality it is crucial.


    Some advice. If the transmutation evidence is as strong as you say take the single strongest write-up with this evidence, post it an another thread, and we can all discuss it. We have not spent much time here looking at transmutation evidence. If you rely on EDS evidence let us look at it in detail: there are EDS artifacts, and of course then there is that pesky OR...


    The search for LENR has one disadvantage. Anything anomalous anywhere will be seen as positive. Normally, anomalies are dealt with because, since unexpected, they are cross checked and errors (whether one-off weird or systematic) properly ignored. In many LENR papers anomalies are seen as results even when they do not cross-check, or at least are not cross-checked so no-one can know. I'm not saying anomalies should be ignored. Far from it. They should be checked every which way and investigated. Till that is done they are not prima facie evidence for LENR (or, in this case, transmutation).


    Regards, THH

    THH wrote "some advice"...."might be EDS peak from Osmium, or many other things"


    Don't go off halfcocked and assume its mass spec .. D and H do not interfere with EDX.

    Where did you pull "massspec" from?


    You've been on this forum long enough to now that a keV figure does not refer to mass spec.

    I learned that last century.


    If you need the EDX spec with the 77.35 keV peak for further analysis the link is below ..only $8.


    Now which one of the 30 or so OSMIUMs generates a 77.35 kEV peak the same as Pt-197?


    On your advice about OSMIUM the 8 Japanese researchers may have to retract...you think??



    https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear…Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001


    Bocjin,


    I don't know what I've done to annoy you except politely here post views you do not agree with.


    Where we differ is that if you post little snippets of text as proving things you must expect to be challenged.


    In this case you are now referencing an e-book that is pay-walled.


    That is OK - but does not advance things. I don't trust second-hand summaries in any case (whether research author or anyone else). Nor am I prepared to pay money for second-hand material from an author whose first-hand experiments have had major problems (the adiabatic calorimetry saga). I won't dismiss Mizuno's experiments because he has made mistakes - we all do that. Equally I won't view his summaries as authoritative and would prefer raw data.


    If experiments are claimed to support extraordinary new physics (or even ordinary but not understood new physics) we need clear contemporaneous experiment write-ups. You will I'm sure know how easy it is to go down a rabbit-hole without solid experimental evidence, and how summaries and post-hoc write-ups are unreliable. They leave out details that do not seem important to the author, but might turn out to be crucial.


    So try for some first-hand non-pay-walled write-ups, which surely exist for any experiment as significant as you claim, on arxiv or vixra if nowhere else.


    Regards, THH

    THH.

    I feel sorry that you feel that you have annoyed me. but I can't empathise with you

    .don't take it so personally..it just a forum


    I guess those eight researchers are safe from retracting their Pt-197 transmutation idea.. for now


    There is a really good explanation of EDX for the layman

    which you might find useful...written in 1998 or so .. but still relevant


    https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear…Cold-Fusion/dp/1892925001


    BTW the raw data you talked about is in Appendix 3.


    Now you have asserted that OSMIUM and MANY others may interfere with the Pt-197 77.35 Gamma Peak.

    AFAIK the only ONE is Hg-197. Don't worry its googlable and not "behind a paywall"


    $8??? are you serious? Is the UK pound in trouble?

    I feel sorry that you feel that you have annoyed me. but I can't empathise with you. don't take it so personally..it just a forum


    Pot-kettle-black?


    I'm not in the habit of taking stuff on this or any other internet forum personally!


    Anyway, I feel sorry (in an abstract sense) for your lack of empathy if it causes you distress.

    $8??? are you serious? Absolutely. Mizuno should not be paid £8 of my money for write-ups which any normal scientist nowadays would make open. Nor do I imagine the experimental write-up is good enough to eliminate all possible experimental artifacts. If it were so good, would it not be more widely available?


    Is the UK pound in trouble? Yes. Heard of Brexit? :)

    THH "I'm not in the habit of taking stuff on this or any other internet forum personally!"


    I 'm gratified to hear that you don't take stuff ' personally'

    May be you need to work on "vicariously'


    As in where you opined

    "I'm not having this type of insult." Apparently vicariously on behalf of KirkShanahan


    Back to the Pt-197 transmutation results that you say could have been caused by OSMIUM and many other..............................................

    (which BTW you seem unable to verify)


    The first Pt-197 reference I have found is the famous Hg-gunpowder experiment

    where Bockris found Beta radiation with a 18.9 hr av halflife (not behind a paywall..save those pennies)


    THH wrote ($8??? are you serious? Absolutely. Mizuno should not be paid £8)


    $8=£8?? The UK Sounds worse than the Wilson/Callaghan days just before my personal Brexit in 1977.


    I only paid $10....Oz... great value for a wonderful insight into

    "the unpredictability and profundity of the natural world”

    I had to break open the piggy bankX/

    THH wrote " which any normal scientist nowadays would make open"

    You ,THH, are suggesting that Mizuno is not a normal scientist because the Journal does not allow open access?


    You might take that issue up with all the normal scientists submitting to Nature Journal nowadays ..e.g . Marek and Jonathan

    Of course if you are unable or antiwilling to discuss Pt-197 transmutation and OSMIUM

    there is Xenon transmutation in the link below ....you won't have to break open the piggy bank;)


    lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf



    As in where you opined

    "I'm not having this type of insult." Apparently vicariously on behalf of KirkShanahan


    Exactly, but on behalf of the overall ambience here. Courtesy is important, and there is no excuse now (as perhaps there was a little during the IH / Rossi knockabout) for abandoning it. Without coutesy you do not determine what is true, merely who shouts loudest, or has the best rhetoric. And particularly important for this place not to drown out more skeptical voices (the reverse, drowning out less skeptical voices, just is not possible given the site's remit).


    That is not taking things personally except in the sense that I personally prefer courteous debate in which arguments are respected and analysed.


    Most science (at least in UK) now is published open access one way or another - continued funding depends on it so universities mandate this.


    And preprints can be published on arxiv etc. There are ways. Who would want to make access more difficult?


    I'll happily access papers in Nature. Unfortunately our institution does not have a subscription for Mizuno/Jed self-publishing.

    Of course if you are unable or antiwilling to discuss Pt-197 transmutation and OSMIUM

    there is Xenon transmutation in the link below ....you won't have to break open the piggy bank


    I don't understand that comment. What has not wanting to pay £8 for a work of dubious merit which is not even a first-hand experimental writeup got to do with what you say?


    However, thanks for the link. I'll have a look. This is your best evidence for nuclear transmutation?

    • Official Post
    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I would expect a high chance of electrocution finding out since the bulb glass is a high risk of breakage with a high thermal gradient in such a scenario...


    You are quite right about the breakage. Some time ago I was working on visible light/IR stimulated catalysis - a wet system happy at around 80C. I built a little cylindrical reaction chamber with a 4 quartz-halogen car headlamp bulbs embedded in high-temperature sealant protruding into the interior. Around 75% of the bulb surface was exposed to the water/catalyst/reactant mix which was agitated by a stirrer. Part of the plan was to discover if it really was visible light stimulating the catalysis, or of it was IR. Rationale was if the temperature of the reactor was kept constant by an external heater+peltier cooler then driving the bulb filaments at very low voltages would produce mostly IR radiation, wheras driving them at a higher voltage would produce IR+ light - while system temperature remained the same.

    Since the bulb filaments was never saw more than 2V to 12V max, there was no danger of electrocution, but the bulb failure rate at anything above 9V was unacceptably high. However, the rig did prove my hypothesis that it was IR and not full-spectrum light that did the trick. The reactor got dumped afterwards, but I still have an old lab-coat with one pocket sealed shut with polysulfide mastic.

    THH "Most science (at least in UK) now is published open access one way or another - continued funding depends on it so universities mandate this"


    As far as I know the Pt-197 article was published in Infinity Energy in 1995 in the heyday of LENR censorship and non open access.


    The Infinity Energy website does include some open access..including article(s) by Julian Schwinger but not the Pt-197 report unfortunately


    http://www.infinite-energy.com

    Alan Smith ,

    A few blocks from where I worked many years a ago a mechanic died in a terrible fire caused by gasoline dripping onto a trouble light while changing out a gas tank. Witnesses saw the beginning of the accident. The bulb popped after a couple of drips, ignited the gasoline, and then the almost empty tank exploded as it fell, dumping out the rest of the gasoline. The immediate area was fully engulfed in flames, and no one could get close enough until it was too late for the mechanic.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.