Quotejust pass a high DC current between two nickel electrodes in distilled water (no electrolyte)
The result would be nickel hydroxide contaminated by black nickel dioxide as the nickel isn't so inert to water - especially not under such an energetic conditions.
The result would be nickel hydroxide contaminated by black nickel dioxide as the nickel isn't so inert to water - especially not under such an energetic conditions.
No black sludge, and Nickel Hexahydrate it what you get - If you get it right, and use degassed distilled water the stuff comes out blue- not hydroxide green. BTW, I think I may have said 'high-current' - a slip of memory, it is 'high voltage, low current.. Apologies.
QuoteWhy don't you go visit his lab? I'm sure he would be delighted.
I'm sure all I'd have to do is look him straight in the eye and ask him if he is deluded or if he's a criminal and he would answer me truthfully immediately. Problem is, I have to rearrange my sock drawer and after that I have even more work to do so I may not get to a BLP lab visit for a few days.
BTW, Alan, the premise of my post was that *if* BLP (or Rossi or Defkalion or Steorn or Brillouin or Mizuno or etc.etc.etc.) were (or had been) confident their devices output more energy than they used, they would make (have made) a big effort to get them properly and credibly tested, preferably by a well know test lab. If you responded to that, I must have missed it.
I just want to be sure I understood you because your thinking process is ... different.
1) We agree on Defkalion and Steorn but it is important to note that their support from fans and the usual suspects (here, on e-catworld.com and on Vortex) before they actually died was as strong as support currently is for Rossi and BLP.
2) You say Rossi doesn't care what anybody thinks. Then why does he spend so much time writing on JONP, responding to questions and even creating his own pretend-people to ask him questions? Doesn't compute.
3) Mizuno may not care about personal enrichment but certainly, he needs money to fund work so he can't not care about money as you say. And if he wants his peers to validate him, he needs to provide better data and better devices. He is claiming kilowatts of excess power in his devices with the cute names but he has never had peer review for those claims or replication by his peers. So, I guess I don't know what you mean.
4) Yeah, maybe Godes has something but I haven't much faith in people who work with "hyrogen" and trigger it with "pluse":
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/br…ing-deal-with-korean-firm
Read that article from 2013. Does it sound like Godes told the truth back then?
I have no idea what you want me to get my head around. But I am happy to learn that the Pope has a test lab. And still Rossi has no prayer of ever selling anything.
I am not sure what bothers you about my remarks about immunology. You didn't provide any documentation or refutation. By the way, I discovered that the current application for autogenous vaccination I found has nothing to do with what you used to do. It has to do with customizing preventative vaccine for veterinary populations as for a particular farm. It is not used to treat sick animals. Thus, I found nothing in current literature to suggest that autologous vaccines have any value in treating infections or ever did. Again, if I am wrong, please supply some links.
ETA: consider vaccination against smallpox, rabies, influenza, tetanus, etc. etc. -- I don't know of anything to suggest that giving these vaccines to symptomatic infected individuals does anything. Yet the vaccines are proven to prevent most infections if given in time. And they require no specific customization for individuals. In the case of influenza, one does try to get the appropriate serotypes for a given season but that is not in any way the same as customizing for an individual AND administering AFTER the infection is established. On second thought, I really don't expect you to appreciate the significance of that. Like I said, we think along completely differing tracks.
3) Mizuno may not care about personal enrichment but certainly, he needs money to fund work so he can't not care about money as you say. And if he wants his peers to validate him, he needs to provide better data and better devices.
He and the others are doing the best they can. They have no money and they face tremendous political opposition. I do not think you could do a better job than they have done, unless you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and you have access to top-notch labs. It is easy for you to criticize but I doubt you have any practical suggestions.
There is such strong political opposition because the opposition is irrational, unscientific, and innumerate. You are a prime example. You are sure there is no difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours, or 200 mW and 100 W. Shanahan is even more extreme, claiming that a hot object is "not a heater" and a heater that remains hot for days is "not being heated." You go along with this, just as you go along with any anti-cold fusion statement, no matter how unhinged. Granted, you two are extremists, but it is only a matter of degree. Other opponents are either irrational and innumerate, or they know nothing about the subject and they make up nonsense. There is no legitimate scientific reason to deny that cold fusion is real. There have not been any reasons since 1990.
MY " but he(Mizuno) has never had peer review for those claims or replication by his peers"
It appears that MY is unable to comprehend Mizuno or his peers
This may be due to selfadministration of autologous anti-LENR vaccine.
QuoteIt appears that MY is unable to comprehend Mizuno or his peers
This may be due to selfadministration of autologous anti-LENR vaccine.
Cute.
Of course, I am referring to Mizuno's cutely named reactors (I think one was Scarlet?) which are supposed to make in the tens of kilowatts for one and IIRC in the dozens or hundreds of kW for the other. Gosh, that should be easy to show. Here's my beef: if it's in development and has not been tested, SAY SO. George Miley made a similar error several years ago when he said he had LENR power sources that made hundreds of watts on the desktop. Here we are almost in 2018 and he has not produced a thing.
ETA from http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf "Scarlett" and "Catherine" from a 2014 presentation. Three years later, where are those please? Who tested them? How?
ETA:
Of course, I am referring to Mizuno's cutely named reactors (I think one was Scarlet?) which are supposed to make in the tens of kilowatts for one and IIRC in the dozens or hundreds of kW for the other.
As far as I know he has not been able to test these reactors. Can you point to a paper by Mizuno claiming that he did use these reactors, and he was able to produce kilowatt levels of power? Or . . . did you just make that up and post it here?
What is one to take away from a presentation featuring these "reactors"? That they are fanciful sculptures? What does the caption say? These were apparently slides. I don't know what was said during their presentation. If you, please post it.
What is one to take away from a presentation featuring these "reactors"? That they are fanciful sculptures? What does the caption say? These were apparently slides. I don't know what was said during their presentation.
I do not know what presentation you mean.
If you "don't know what was said," then why do you assert that Mizuno claimed he got kilowatts from these reactors? Which is it? Do you know, or don't you?
To the best of my knowledge he was not able to use the large reactors. Perhaps you know something I don't know. If you have heard that he used these reactors or that he claimed they produced kilowatts, please tell us where you got this information.
Or did you just make that up?
MY " which are supposed to make in the tens of kilowatts for one and IIRC in the dozens or hundreds of kW for the other."
Tens of kilowatts and dozens of hundreds of KW???????
A side effect of autologous anti-LENR vaccines is that IIRC is rendered totally erroneous.
For those who can read , the latest Mizuno scientific paper reports ~500 W excess heat
which is a significant improvement on the 75W XS heat reported in the 2013 powerpoint miscited by MY.
MY "Its right on the images"
The problem with taking things out of context is that you may believe that
BODUM is making 10 kW coffee makers.
For those who can read.. and in context.. there are scientific papers...
Perhaps you should trouble yourself to follow the link I provided. I didn't make it up. It was presented by Mizuno and others.
I did miss that link. Sorry. That's Yoshino, not Mizuno. I did not hear the lecture. There were no claims in the slides that the large reactors were used. As far as I know, they have not been used.
I have been to the lab, seen these reactors, and discussed the reasons why they have not been used, so I probably know more about this than you do. But, as I said, if you read somewhere that these reactors were used, please tell us where.
I did miss that link. Sorry. That's Yoshino, not Mizuno.
Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles
Hideki Yoshino, Eijiro Igari, Tadahiko Mizuno
Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles
Hideki Yoshino, Eijiro Igari, Tadahiko Mizuno
Yes. I mean it was filed under Yoshino. It was Yoshino's presentation. Mizuno did not attend.
I did not see the presentation and I do not know what was said, but -- getting back to the claim made by Mary Yugo -- I am pretty sure those large reactors have not been used. That's what Mizuno told me, and I have seen the actual reactors. They don't look used to me. I don't see anything on the slides that indicate the reactors were used. Maybe Yugo has some other source of information, but more likely she just made that up and now she is convinced it must be true, just as she is convinced that 6 seconds is not significantly shorter than 3 hours, or that it is very difficult to measure 100 W of heat with no input. Whatever pops into her mind she becomes instantly and irrevocably convinced must be true.
MY "Tens of kilowatts and dozens of hundreds of KW???????
The youtube dialogue says something like
"We are trying to scale up the output so this is significantly larger but what we have right now is
we are able to get one kilowatt of output, Scarlett
and the next one which we are pursuing ? the manufacturing?? ..is
this one is a 10 kw output reactor also known as Catherine"
From this dialogue MY's "if I can recall " invents dozens of hundreds of KW"
The issue here is not 'half a brain' but a deliberate attempt on MY's part to disparage Mizuno and other LENR researchers.
MY's attention-seeking has fanciful forms but they are as useless for the global community as arranging wondorous socks.
Just, in the spirit of harmony and good will, to resolve some of these apparently contradictory points:
Alain: Rossi will do what he wants whatever other people think
MY: Rossi cares about what others think - look at JONP!
I believe both statements are true. Rossi appears narcissistic (using the word informally) in a world of his own, convinced he is right, unable to accept contrary views. He also seems motivated by the love of his internet fans which he certainly puts great effort into cultivating. The two statements are only contradictory if you think that Rossi behaves rationally in all respects. That has been shown to be false.
Mizuno: experiments peer reviewed. First, no-one I think is saying Mizuno is other than a genuine researcher. That does not mean that he is correct. He has a few times made claims that turned out wrong due to later discovered and acknowledged calorimetry mistakes. Therefore if others follow his methodology and obtain the same anomalous results it is not surprising. Whether he (and those following) have correct calorimetry is a matter for debate. The good thing is that these things come out in the wash. Replicable experiments showing something anomalous get repeated and simplified until the anomalous issue is very clear, or, in the case that the anomaly was an experimental lacuna associated with a particular setup, attempts to clarify it fail.
I've heard some people here say that peer review guarantees correctness. Far from it. Peer review increases confidence. How much depends on many things. In this case replication with similar setup eliminates one set of issues, including the improbably possibility that Mizuno is not honest, and one-off artifacts, but leaves on the table others. Working out what is true is not a yes/no Damascene process. It is a matter of probability in which evidence accumulates (or not). That applies in both directions, but where the claims are extraordinary, and do not correspond to any coherent explanation, it is natural and proper to be skeptical.
Mizuno: large reactors with names. If the claims are that these large reactors generate significant excess power that might be significant. But the figure of 1kW, or even larger though that was not claimed here, most be put into context. If from 100W in then the possibilities of calorimetry error are small and require Rossiesque ignorance. If 10kW goes in, then we are back in territory where it is difficult to be sure the results mean anything, because there are many different possible sources of 10% anomalies. I don't see the scientific value of large reactors with weird names unless they generate more compelling scientific data. Presumably if they did in this case we would be discussing them. But, equally, Mizuno might properly think that they could generate such better data, so the motivation to make them exists, and I don't see that naming reactors counts either for or against scientific merit. I suppose it might point towards a possible slack of objectivity - but such a mild and usual fashion that no-one could seriously give it any weight.
Display MoreMY "but he(Mizuno) has never had peer review for those claims or replication by his peers"
There is no harmony or goodwill possible with this extremely ignorant statement
There is no evidence for it.
MY the fake persona cannot fake evidence for it
Blanket statements without qualification are (EDIT almost - qualification inserted) never helpful. But, in this case, MY's statement could be interpreted half true (unless you have a counterexample) in a more nuanced fashion:
Mizuno has never had replication using independent methodology by his peers.
The other half - the "peer review" part, is a moveable feast. I can't see that the paper you quote adds much to Mizuno's writeup in terms of critiquing the methodology? it might be interesting, if it did, to look at the work and the other authors replicating it in more detail on a separate thread.
MY's fake persona. I'm not familiar with this terminology. MY is (avowedly) an alias, one used consistently for many years and therefore with a substantial (non-fake) reputation - whether you like it or not. I don't think the use of the word fake here is at all helpful.
