Mizuno's bucket of water

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Jed said: What "unknown circumstances" can make an object appear to be hot when it is actually at room temperature?


    Sensation of heat is a very problematic indicator:

    (1) metal objects will appear hot at slightly elevated temperatures when insulators at the same temperature do not

    (2) cold objects and hot objects cannot be distinguished


    Which is why experiments tend to use instruments rather than anecdotal comments. Even then, as above, instruments can lie too.

    The metal cell did not "appear hot at slightly elevated temperatures." It was so hot it would severely burn your hand if you touched it. That's not "slight." The only way to pick it up was to wrap it in layers of cloth. It remained hot for days. There is no chance Mizuno and his colleague could mistake a room temperature cell for one that is too hot to touch. The human sense of touch is not that unreliable.


    The thermocouple was not malfunctioning. It functioned correctly throughout the experiments, and it still functions today. The cell was roughly at 100 deg C during the test due to electrolysis power, as you see from the graph I posted. That was the expected temperature, not a malfunction. It was also too hot to touch.


    It makes no sense to say the thermocouple worked correctly during electrolysis, measuring the expected temperature, but it suddenly failed after electrolysis stopped, and then it began working again after the heat-after-death finally went away, and it is still working today. It makes no sense at all to say that two people's sense of touch was so disturbed -- in biologically unprecedented ways -- they both thought the cell was too hot to touch but it was actually room temperature. It would have to be room temperature if there was no heat being generated inside it. It does not take long for that mass of metal too cool down.

  • THHuxley

    "I'm still waiting for Bocjin's transmutation evidence"


    It's not MY evidence ..It's Mizuno's and from other researchers like

    Iwamura..Higashiyama, Karabut..Clayton..Ohtani

    Sankaranarayan.. Srinavasan Savvatimova

    Urutskoev ..Cirillo

    Radhakrishnan..Rout..Celani..Spallone Nakamura..Will..to name just a few..so many researchers!


    Dear THH.

    3 courteous questions for you..

    1.How is the evidence going for your statement that OSMIUM and many others may interfere with the Pt-197 77.35 gamma peak?

    Have you found any evidence apart from the reference I have given you?


    2. How is your reading of the Mizuno et al paper on Xenon going.?..there's even some OSMIUM there


    lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf


    3. When you have read that.. there's plenty more...

  • I think there have been many experiments so obvious and clear that if this were any other scientific claim everyone would agree it is real. For example, I would cite McKubre's excess heat and the tritium results from Bockris and Will:

    Cold fusion is not unique. There are many, many examples of previous claims that were rejected even though the proof was rock solid, and there was no reason to doubt the claims. Lasers, the MRI and h. pylori are good examples. I have studied much of this history, digging up old books and contemporaneous original sources. People don't like to talk about these events so you seldom see them in history textbooks.


    I think there are many causes. As I said, it is human nature. Another major contributing factor is money. M-o-n-e-y, especially research funding. The locus of opposition to cold fusion has been the hot fusion program researchers, for obvious reasons. You see this in other institutions. The coal industry is fighting tooth and nail against natural gas and wind power. The congressman from Big Coal (WV) tried to pass a law banning the use of wind turbines, ostensibly because they kill birds. That's ridiculous for many reasons, not least because coal kills orders of magnitude more birds than wind per megawatt-hour, not to mention 20,000 Americans per year.


    The extent of opposition, and the irrationality of it, is surprising. You have to read original sources to get a sense of it. Take early aviation. Before 1908, practically no one believed that airplanes are real. The Scientific American printed vicious, irrational, unscientific attacks against claims, and the Wright brothers -- very similar to their attacks against cold fusion. (The Sci. Am. still has it in for the Wrights, repeating their nonsense attacks as recently as 2003.) In 1908 the Wrights demonstrated in France and in Washington DC and become famous overnight. They were on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Hundreds of thousands of people saw them fly over the next several months. They were given awards by every country including a gold medal issued by Congress in 1909. Starting in 1909 there were air races with 10 or 20 pilots competing.


    So, you would think the controversy would end, wouldn't you? Nope. I have newspaper accounts and books describing events as late as 1912, where, for example, a person showed up with an airplane packed into railroad shipping containers in a Midwestern city, and advertised he would demonstrate flights before a paying crowd. He was arrested for fraud. The citizens threatened to tar and feather him because "everyone knows people can't fly." They sheriff told the pilot to get out of town in the dead of night. Apparently the citizens of that city thought the national press coverage was, in modern parlance, "fake news." They did not trust those big city newspapers.


    You see similar disbelief and opposition to things like self-driving cars today. There are many unfounded and hysterical claims about them. Someone in the comment section at the N. Y. Times said that a terrorist might use a self-driving car to drive on the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians, and it would not be the terrorist's fault because the robot is in charge. Obviously, the cars are programmed not to leave the road or run down anyone! Another letter claimed that thousands of self-driving cars on the New Jersey Turnpike might suddenly to exit to the island Service Centers. The letter writer seemed to think they might pile on top of one-another in a gigantic demolition derby, trying to occupy the same parking spaces. Again, obviously, a robot car that can drive in traffic would not try to park in a spot that was already taken. Such objections resemble one of the main objections made by scientists circa 1908 who did not believe airplanes were possible: "even if you can fly, there is no way to slow down and land safely." These people apparently never watched a pigeon turn up its wings to a steep angle of attack, spread its tail, stall, and land. That is exactly how an airplane lands, and you can be sure the Wright brothers knew that before they glided the first time.


    Here is a famous quote about how it is impossible to land an airplane:


    "And, granting complete success, imagine the proud possessor of the aeroplane darting through the air at a speed of several hundred feet per second! It is the speed alone that sustains him. Once he slackens his speed, down he begins to fall. He may, indeed, increase the inclination of his aeroplane. Then he increases the resistance necessary to move it. Once he stops he falls a dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without destroying his delicate machinery?"

    Source: Newcomb, Simon. Outlook for the Flying Machine. The Independent, October 22, 1903.

    http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html


    You can see that Prof. Newcomb is describing how to land an airplane, yet he does not even realize he is! If he were here, now, I would say: "Professor, you just answered your own question. All you need to do is glide to within a few feet above the ground and then do what you just described. You fall a dead mass the last few feet, and then roll to a stop." Most of the objections to cold fusion are similar. They are asked and answered. Take Shanahan's crackpot assertions that a hot object is not a heater. He eventually said -- for a moment! -- that it might be a LENR heater. Which is it is, obviously. Indisputably. But he quickly stopped saying that and claimed the whole idea is invalid because Jed lied about something. What it was I lied about, and how that lie might invalidate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, no one knows.

  • Take Shanahan's crackpot assertions that a hot object is not a heater.


    The you go again Jed with your...ummm...gee I can't use that word per Alan's instuctions...hmmm..'falseifications'?....no, nor quite right,...how about 'making things up'? Yeah, that'll do.


    He eventually said -- for a moment! -- that it might be a LENR heater.


    Never did.


    Which is it is, obviously. Indisputably.


    No.


    Indisputably. But he quickly stopped saying that and claimed the whole idea is invalid because Jed lied about something.


    What in the world are you talking about? Or maybe, what world do you live on?


    What it was I lied about, and how that lie might invalidate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, no one knows.


    No. Been pointed out multiple times now. Yet you just don't get it...


    (also the whole Second Law stuff is your garbage, nothing to do with what I wrote.)

  • [He eventually said -- for a moment! -- that it might be a LENR heater.]


    Never did.

    Well, you sort of did, for one bright, shining moment:


    So for the too hot to touch, large, heavy stainless steel cell in the bucket to be a heater it would need either a) power inputs, like wires from a power supply, or b) an internal heat source, such as kerosene, a battery, or maybe even a LENR reactor.

    "Maybe even a LENR reactor . . ." sort of sounds like you agree that a LENR device that remains hot is a heater. Because any hot object is a heater. But no! You quickly reverted to blathering crackpot nonsense about vermin in the lab, low humidity causing an object to remain hot for days, an abandoned lab that was not a bit abandoned, and so on, and so forth:

    What I did was to assume a large hot object was dropped in a bucket of water on a low humidity day in a well-ventilated abandoned laboratory, possibly overrun with vermin, and attempt to compute what might have happened

    Crackpot, crackpot, crackpot. You make the flat earth people look like rational scientists in comparison. Still, I doubt you actually believe this horse shit. Any sane person in the last million years would know that a small object cannot remain to hot to touch for days with chemical fuel. The fuel runs out. That is why, when an event like this supposedly happened in ancient times, it was called the Miracle of the Maccabees.

  • @JR


    Well, I see you can quote me accurately when it suits your purpose, even if you did miss the humor in what I wrote. Let's be clear. *IF* it could be shown LENR exists, it might make a heater per the definition of one with an internal power supply. *BUT* that's the whole point of the research and *SO FAR* it has *NEVER*, *EVER* been demonstrated convincingly by *ANYONE*. So, mentioning a 'LENR heater' is like discussing those leprechauns or pink invisible flying unicorns.


    *TOMORROW* someone might succeed. If they do fine. If it involves metal hydrides in enclosed vessels with no exotic stimulation like lasers or particle beams, I will be interested.


    Over in the other thread that you interrupted with the Mizuno bucket anecdote, I suggested bo and Zeus needed to prove their comprehension by explaining what a 'sensitivity analysis' was and why you would do it. You need to do the same, because it's obvious you haven't a clue. If you did, you'd quit inventing garbage about what I wrote on the Mizuno bucket anecdote.


    Your inventions about what I supposedly do or don't believe need to stop too. But again to be clear, I personally think there was a thermocouple malfunction that Mizuno didn't catch. If it wasn't he should have reproduced it. I know, you say he tried, with 'different' or 'better' experiments, but the key point is *NONE OF THEM WORKED EITHER*.

  • Well, I see you can quote me accurately when it suits your purpose, even if you did miss the humor in what I wrote. Let's be clear. *IF* it could be shown LENR exists, it might make a heater per the definition of one with an internal power supply

    You have that backwards. The existence of that heater proves that LENR exists. It is the only explanation for that heater, and for many other experiments.


    The only way you can deny that is to claim that event did not occur. That the cell did not remain to hot to touch for many days with no input power. Sometimes you claim the account is a lie -- it never happened. Other times you attempt to explain it away by invoking humidity, or vermin in the laboratory, or some other crackpot nonsense. As I said, any sane person in the last million years would know how hot objects work, and approximately how much heat a given mass of fuel can produce. Anyone can see that your hypotheses are nonsense.


    I know, you say he tried, with 'different' or 'better' experiments, but the key point is *NONE OF THEM WORKED EITHER*.

    And here you try to deny it by making up fake nonsense about Mizuno. Many of his other experiments worked. So did hundreds of experiments in other labs.

  • You have that backwards. The existence of that heater proves that LENR exists. It is the only explanation for that heater, and for many other experiments.


    The existence of the 'heater' is not proved. It is suggested with undocumented assertions (in a book, so the book isn't 'documenting' the assertions, it is making them). There are other rational interpretations of the asserted facts of the matter (i.e. other explanations).


    I have found no other experiments that support the idea that LENR *actually* exists. (Note: for the record, keV beams are not low energy, so I'm not commenting on those.)


    The only way you can deny that is to claim that event did not occur.


    No. I don't deny the event occurred at all. I deny it happened the way Mizuno believes it does. You take my explanations of my issues with Mizuno's claims and distort and misconstrue them, and then you mix in all kinds of ad homs and other bad logic. You confuse yourself so badly I am amazed you fingers don't get all twisted up typing.


    That the cell did not remain to hot to touch for many days with no input power.


    Asserted to have stayed hot. On what basis. Thermocouple measurements - probably a malfunction. Mizuno 'touched' the cell. How many times? When, exactly? Had he preconditioned himself to believe it was still hot by reading the TC first? (Ever try the old dip the finger in ice water and then put in room temp water? People tend to overestimate the temperature there because of preconditioning.)


    Sometimes you claim the account is a lie -- it never happened.


    Libelous statement - prove I said that.


    And here you try to deny it by making up fake nonsense about Mizuno. Many of his other experiments worked. So did hundreds of experiments in other labs.


    Libelous statement - prove I said Mizuno lied. None of his other experiments worked well enough to prove anything. The hundreds (what not 'thousands' Jed?) of experiments giving *APPPARENT* excess heat results have all been consistently misinterpreted by CFers. No proof of LENR there.

  • The existence of the 'heater' is not proved. It is suggested with undocumented assertions (in a book, so the book isn't 'documenting' the assertions, it is making them)

    Ah. Okay, so you are now saying that it did not happen.


    I assume you mean that Mizuno and his colleague Akimoto who say it happened were lying, or they were delusional. Or perhaps you mean that I made it up.


    Fleischmann and Pons, McKubre and many others reported similar heat-after-death events, sometimes on the same scale of ~100 W, lasting hours or days. I assume you think these are also "not proved." Meaning they are lies. What else could they be? It is not possible to confuse a stone cold cell with one that is too hot to touch.


    Asserted to have stayed hot. On what basis. Thermocouple measurements - probably a malfunction. Mizuno 'touched' the cell. How many times? When, exactly?

    As he wrote in the book, he touched it several times a day for a week. It is impossible for a person to imagine that an object is too hot to touch at about 100 deg C, but it is actually stone cold. It is also impossible for a person to see that water in the bucket all evaporated every day when it was actually still there. That can only be a lie, or delusional. Explanations such as "humidity" or "vermin" ( thousands of rats drank the water) are . . . extreme crackpot nonsense.