Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • I know of someone, a PhD physicist, who has told me that he may be willing to dip down into his personal savings to replicate this setup. However, I know his financial situation, and I wish the costs could be reduced while still being a true replication. So here is a thought.


    If the community were to provide Mizuno with a smaller reactor vessel (perhaps one half the size or smaller) with all the appropriate ports for gas injection, vacuum, heating elements, and so forth, would he be willing to run a test with lets say only one sheet of palladium covered nickel mesh? My thinking here is that some parties may be able to rent or borrow vacuum pumps and other equipment, but getting such a large reactor vessel custom fabricated might be one of the largest expenses, except perhaps for the palladium rod. And if Mizuno starts offing palladium covered nickel mesh sheets, purchasing a rod might not be required.


    Even if a smaller reactor with one sheet of nickel mesh might produce a smaller total quantity of excess heat, the cost barrier might be reduced. And as long as Mizuno actually performed such a test successfully, people who get such a smaller reactor core produced would still be performing a replication and not their own experiment.


    I'm not sure how much such a smaller reactor vessel would cost or if/how it could be provided. But the biggest obstacle I see when it comes to cost is the reactor vessel, especially for someone who doesn't have a work shop to make their own.

  • If one of these could be adapted to the Mizuno testing protocol that could decrease costs, but most of them would still be from the vacuum pump and the residual gas analyzer.


  • as you know, we would be open to support with a replication. My proposal would be to:

    1. Design a 3D model of the reactor with all relevant components

    2. Manufacture a reactor vessel for a replicator within EU since we are located in Austria.

    Unfortunatley we have not enough resources (currently vacation period) until early september.

    We have lately completed a similiar project (3 reactor vessels combined with heat exchanger) for LENR cars SA (N. Chauvin) located in Switzerland.

  • If the community were to provide Mizuno with a smaller reactor vessel (perhaps one half the size or smaller) with all the appropriate ports for gas injection, vacuum, heating elements, and so forth, would he be willing to run a test with lets say only one sheet of palladium covered nickel mesh?


    Nope. He is way too busy. People who are skilled in the art, who have laboratories with glove boxes and whatnot, should just do this themselves. If it does not work, Mizuno and I will do all that we can to help.


    There are some skilled experts at work trying to replicate this. It would be nice if they could do it before ICCF22, but I doubt they will. These things take time. We don't need a crowd of people trying to replicate. We don't want amateurs to try. Nickel nanoparticles are toxic. A person could get hurt doing this, so don't do it unless you know what you are doing.


    Also, I would say, don't do it unless you plan to replicate. Several people have contacted me to say they intend to replicate, only at much higher temperatures, or with pressure higher than Mizuno recommends, or with a ceramic reactor instead of a steel one. I expect any day now someone will tell me they intend to use a steel mesh of nickel, or a plate instead of a mesh. In other words, they intend to do a different experiment. What is the point? It will probably fail and you will have wasted time and money. Mizuno already explored many options that did not work. What I fear is that people will do different experiments, the experiments will fail, and then they will report that Mizuno's experiment cannot be replicated.

  • I'm not sure how much such a smaller reactor vessel would cost or if/how it could be provided. But the biggest obstacle I see when it comes to cost is the reactor vessel, especially for someone who doesn't have a work shop to make their own.


    Within reason it costs almost as much to make a small reactor as it does to make a large one. The biggest single material cost in building is probably at least one set of vacuum flanges to make an end-cap. More money will probably be required to buy vacuum equipment and a deuterium supply than anything else.

  • agreed by most of us, that radiation is more significant than convection in heating the insulation foil


    for replicators it is irrelevant if TTHnew believes


    1.that laminar flow has a flat velocity profile

    2.that it is important that the box foil is heated more by radiation than convection

    3 that he finds a discrepancy in heatflows based on his semianalytic surmising.


    The important things for the replicator is


    1. to correctly measure the airflow/temperature

    where the majority of energy output appears as Qs

    2. to place low emissivity aluminium foil on the box to maximise the heat transfer into Qs.

  • Saw this on Vortex by JonesBeene, whom I pay attention to


    I don't pay much attention to JB.

    I notice there is no reply to JW by JB

    I can imagine his jaw dropping.:)

    Code
    1. Jürg Wyttenbach For me the LENR picture is almost complete. One thing I would like to add. According to my calculations
    2. the 61-Ni magnetic state that couples in the Mizuno reaction, induces a magnetic energy equivalent of the H/D orbit magnetic energy
    3. what tells us that the final LENR energy release process is thermalizing using the base electron orbit of hydrogen/deuterium.

    Doubtless we will know if Ni61 is involved in the course of time.


    Any guesses which gamma state?

  • His science?...well, that is above my head. The first 3 paragraphs about the (replication) wheels starting to turn. is what I was talking about. He is well connected, and so that is the reason why I pay attention to what he says.

  • for replicators it is irrelevant if TTHnew believes...


    1. This is not the replicator thread: it is the "analyse the paper" thread

    2. Understanding stuff is always useful replicators. You can never tell when a misconception will come back to bite you. Often for reasons that were never originally expected.


    Just one (obvious) example: replictors will not now be trying to find thick R=11 Km^2/W insulation...

  • Few of the researchers want to be identified at this time by name - but the

    explosion of interest in this experiment is like nothing we have seen in the

    field since the early days of the Rossi debacle. If this turns out to be

    another false alarm – LENR may never recover.


    Most of the pundits on this forum are willing to give benefit of the doubt to

    Mizuno, and take a wait-and-see attitude, despite similar claims from him in

    the past which did not pan out. Some of that tolerance is because of a

    realizable hope for an increase in the basic understanding of LENR even if the

    effect is not as robust as claimed. In contrast, Rossi disappeared from

    relevance with negative, decreased understanding.


    I agree with this. In fact, for me, any substantiated claim as large as this from an academic source is worth investigation: and the most powerful way to do that is replication.


    This also shows why LENR - if it is ever to emerge from the shadows and become more respected, needs skeptics. The level of interest in claims such as this, if taken seriously, is very high.


    The more credence is given to the claim, the more, if it is not found replicable, it prevents people from trusting future similar claims.


    That is LENR's history. So, for example, with Mizuno's paper it is pretty simple. If the reported R20 results are correct and replicable advocates of LENR will be proved correct, in a big way, and the world will be transformed. If not, anyone who has not had a suitably realistic skeptical view towards them will be viewed a less reliable in the future. Though in the case of LENR researchers you may argue that opinions now are low so it does not matter. It probably depends on which LENR researcher.


    My summary of "what I think of the evidence":


    (1) The key unresolved issue in the R19 results comes from lack of identity between control and active reactors in position, and IN surface emissivity. That makes the calibration not definitive

    (2) The absolute (first principles) calculations could in principle be enough even without calibration to prove R19 extraordinary. But there would need to be more cross-checking for that to be strong evidence. Much easier route is additional calibration checks - easy to do. If done clearly

    (3) The R20 results, if true, are very easy to validate and for example IH could quickly come in and agree they had what they were willing to pay Rossi $100M for. I'd think it would be in M's and their interests for them to do that.

    (4) The R20 results are not presented in the paper as fully validated. They are "sample". I'd expect more details to emerge. Personally, I think the fact that Mizuno notes no problems with thermal runaway as indicating that either these are not as first indicated, or there is some most unusual trigger mechanism for the unusual nuclear reaction.

    (5) Because previous results M has had have not been validated by IH I am generally skeptical here. Anyway, IH would presumable be well placed to check again if there is new evidence.

    (6) More skeptical and challenging review of the experimental data from everyone would be helpful: it would mean that even if the results were not replicable information could be got from them about precisely why they happened, and effort directed where it was most helpful.


    THH

  • Since when is IH the gold standard of scientific research?


    Show us IH's list of publications in major journals.


    M's results, especially R20, but even R19, are large enough that you need robust careful third party testing, under good scientific advice, of the sort that IH are now very familiar with. As Jed and others will tell you if this is done the claimed results are way way beyond what is scientifically difficult to establish.

  • Just one (obvious) example: replictors will not now be trying to find thick R=11 Km^2/W insulation...


    R...11 ... no way


    just the shiny stuff



    as Jed said the shiniest you can buy from HomeDepot


    I was gonna use similar from Bunnings... Oz eqiv of Home Depot



    like here just as it was used by Mizuno in the 2017 report

  • under good scientific advice, of the sort that IH are now very familiar with

    Since when is IH the gold standard of scientific research? published in major journals

    IH has of course the Rossi fiasco branded into their image.


    I would trust Mizuno over IH any day.

    "Mizuno graduated from the Department of Applied Physics, Hokkaido University, Faculty of Engineering in March 1968.[2][5][6][7] In March 1970, he graduated with a master's degree from the Department of Applied Physics, Hokkaido University, Faculty of Engineering.[2][5][6][7] In April 1972 he completed his doctorate degree in Engineering at Hokkaido University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Engineering.[2][5][6][7] In March 1976, he received his doctorate in Engineering for "Study on formation process of hydride on the surface of Ti by d, n reaction” Teaching; Atomic Engineering, Corrosion, X-rays analysis, Electron microscope, Exercise: Mathematics, Physical Engineering.[2][5][6][7]"