Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Quote from robwoudenberg

Jed, steps 1 - 6 (after cleaning) do not include the presence of Deuterium gas which is required to reduce any remaining nickel oxide into pure Nickel and D2O at raised temperature.

Oops. We should have made it clear that deuterium gas is the only thing that goes into the cell after it is pumped out the first time. He never heats it in air again. In some of the other tests it was hydrogen, but never air. So D2O or H2O are removed.

It is highly purified D2 or H2 gas. Air has all kinds of contaminants. Plus more water, obviously.

I should perhaps patch up the paper to mention that. I should also add the source of the Pd rod. I am making a list of things that need changing in the paper. I am going to let it sit for a week or two before making any changes. Both Mizuno & I are exhausted. The time difference means I have been late for many days.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Are you sure it is "likely not true" that conditions are identical? Why would they be different? Or, let me put it this way: Can you suggest a way that would make the conditions more identical than this? How would you do this experiment?

I don't think surity exists with this write-up?

See Figs. 5 and 6, and this text:

"With the new method, a pair of reactors are installed in the air flow box: an active cell and a control cell. They are placed on insulating bricks to reduce heat losses through the table. They are the same size and design. One is active and the other is the calibration control. The control reactor is kept at the same pressure and input power as the active reactor. The two are periodically swapped. The control becomes the active reactor. The calorimeter is not opened while a series of control and active tests are performed, so conditions in it remain closely similar for both tests."

Quote from Zeus46

A flat velocity profile signifies turbulent flow.

Yes. Mizuno described that in another paper that is now going through peer-review etc. Which takes months. Years, sometimes. I don't normally discuss such things but he went into great detail about how to distinguish turbulent rather than laminar flow, and how to measure the Reynolds numbers. It says:

"When the Reynolds number is larger than 2300, the flow is turbulent, and the flow is laminar when the number is lower. Specific values for these thresholds vary according to the literature, but the value of 2300 is often used as a guide."

Anyway, the numbers are way above that threshold.

(I feel trepidation even quoting unpublished work. That's against the rules for an editor or coauthor. I guess it is okay to talk about textbook measurements in an unpublished paper. The point I am trying to make is that there are hundreds more pages of stuff that I did not include in this paper. We've done Reynolds numbers until I start mumbling them in my sleep. I spent the last month ruthlessly cutting out stuff that was not directly related to "How To Do This Hands-on." Keep the detergent, toss out the Reynolds numbers. In my experience, readers prefer a document with focus. Tell one thing. Leave out the rest.)

Of course there has to be a layer of unmoving fluid at the edge of the stream. That's fundamental. However, the theory and the tests show that this layer will be very small under these conditions, with this type of fan, and a tube of these dimensions. That is not a coincidence. I believe I recall that Mizuno consulted with some experts in fluid dynamics.

Quote from stefan

When calibrating why not do an effort to vary setups slightly to get a feeling how robust the calibration is and how exact the setup must

be in order to use the calibration.

Yikes, no. I don't like that idea. Variation with no purpose is the enemy of experimental science. You want to make conditions as similar as you possibly can. Except for the conditions you are trying to test for, of course.

Quote from RobertBryant

Hopefully this thing will be properly published by September.

No, the paper with all the stuff about Reynolds numbers will take months. Or years. I have no idea. I finished my part a few months ago, thank goodness. What a chore! It is like writing in assembly language.

I shouldn't say "finished." That's bad luck. It will bounce back in my e-mail with a list of suggestions, "we'd like you to revise Section 3.2 . . ." At any given time I deal with many papers that are being written, and they sometimes come back to haunt me. I feel like Michael Corleone in the Godfather, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"

I will say, if you want to learn a lot about cold fusion, try editing 200 papers on the subject.

Quote from RobertBryant

A number of the peer reviewers will be at ICCF22.

You never know who they are! They are anonymous.

People are asking good questions. Here's one:

Q: How long should I rub the mesh?

A: Until the weight increases by ~50 mg.

I will add this and some other stuff to the paper soon.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed, I respect you as a good and professional writer, not as a professional scientist experienced at writing stuff that can be published in high impact western journals. That is no criticism.

I can write in any style. I have ghost written papers for high impact western journals. I could have written this in the style of the Google Nature paper. Read that paper, and tell me what you learned. It is like eating snow. You have a sense that somebody said something about loading, but unless you look up the papers at LENR-CANR.org and compare the numbers, you wouldn't know there is a problem. Keep the technical content to minimum and maximize highfalutin speculation about theory. Mix in vague assertions that sound plausible but are not, pepper with backstabbing attacks that sound like praise, cook and serve to a gullible audience that knows nothing about cold fusion.

I do not want this to read like a normal scientific paper. I deliberately wrote it like an instruction manual for a dish washing machine. Like it says in the Abstract: "We hope this paper will allow others to replicate the experiment."

Quote from RobertBryant

Q1.Has anyone noted that the time numbers on FIG6/7 are unclear? It is on my printout.

That could be an Acrobat setting. The file seems kind of small, which means low res. I will check.

Quote from Cydonia

I would like to know if Mizuno tested directly 3 Ni layers or one by one ?

Why only 3 ?

He stacks the three on top of one another, rolls them up, and unrolls them inside the reactor. See p. 12 and Fig. 12. The meshes are 20 cm on the short side and somewhat irregularly shaped, and the reactor is 60 cm long, so he could barely fit them into the reactor side by side. I guess that is why he stacks them, but maybe he has some other reason. I haven't asked about that.

I assume he uses 3 in order to get more heat out of the system. It would be interesting to use 6 or 8.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It can also quite easily be calibrated.

However there is a bit of work needed to do either of these things safely.

There was a lot of work. Not "is a bit a work" -- past tense. Mizuno had to demonstrate the calorimeter works, and he did so. He did it repeatedly, every time time reactors are placed inside and the chamber is sealed. You seem to believe it has not been done. You have the impression you discovered errors. You have not. All of your assertions so far have been wrong.

Just because you suppose there is a problem somewhere, that does not mean there actually is one. You have to prove your skeptical suspicions with as many facts and with as much rigor as Mizuno has shown. You don't get a free pass for a negative view. You don't get to make your case by saying "work is needed" (when the work is done) or "I suppose" or "it is possible there is an error." Such statements are not arguable, or defensible, or falsifiable.