Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • THH shows restraint that is quite astonishing. Yet he gets the green card for being correct!


    Let no one say there is no bias here!!! :/


    Bob, not quite fair. I got a green card for likening RB's behaviour to OCD. That might be interpreted by some as a mental diagnosis of RB - completely unfair, inappropriate, and out of court here. I prefer OPR.


    THH

  • Right (ignoring the OPR), but the standard model (the existence of that finite number of particles with given properties) is very well observed, and all that LHC collision data exactly coincides with the calculated statistics.


    Against that enormous quantity of predicted data the fact that there are a few fundamental quantities not well predicted, but independently measured, is not the point.


    You still don't get it: SM has been designed around kinetic 3D,t physics. Nobody denies that it has some merit to describe the outcome of a collision.


    But SM has absolutely no predictive power regarding any dense matter quantity involved in such an experiment.


    The two fake Higgs masses they announced are simple proton resonances. They once claimed to find a Higgs at much, much higher energies (to get money for LEP..!) . To uphold their cheating approach they silently killed one of the two measured Higgs masses. This is the way they live their dreams.


    You should simple accept that SM is no model for dense matter as nobody can show you any proof (= exact math) for any known quantity!

  • Max Nozin wrote:

    Quote

    page 21 https://iscmns.org/iccf22/program/ is like relevant to Mizuno reactor

    Let me quote more of that paper, for convenience:


    Mastromatteo: LENR evidence with hydrogen and deuterium loading in thin palladium films


    U. Mastromatteo
    A.R.G.A.L.
    Via S. Stefano, 27 – 20010 Bareggio – Milan – Italy
    [email protected]

    We have seen interesting evidence of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) experimenting with hydrogen and deuterium loading in thin palladium films deposited on inert supports or on other metals such as Nickel or Titanium.

    Nuclear signature

    Several types of experiments were performed at the ARGAL laboratory in Bareggio, in particular using thin films of palladium in an H2 or D2 atmosphere at various pressures. The laboratory is equipped with instrumentation suitable for the detection of neutron and gamma emissions with a He3 detector and a multi-channel detector with a 3-inch NaI crystal.

    All the experiments carried out have been monitored with these instruments and in many cases it has been possible to detect neutron emissions attributable to nuclear events inside the reactor. Some of these anomalous events were short-lived, others were prolonged for several minutes. Apart from one particular case, the events were modest. In any case, this evidence shows yet again the nuclear nature of LENR phenomena, in the past highlighted by clear episodes of nuclear transmutations in similar conditions where it had been possible to analyze the material with the appropriate techniques at the end of the experiment. . . .


  • JedRothwell


    UM said:


    We have seen interesting evidence of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) experimenting with hydrogen and deuterium loading in thin palladium films deposited on inert supports or on other metals such as Nickel or Titanium.


    I want to highlight this point, a person skilled in the art will understand :) ways to improvement.

  • Point of clarification


    Could someone who has followed this thread (pref Jed) please tell me.


    In Table 1 (page 8) of the later paper showing R19 excess heat results, are those excess results (where Pout is measured as roughly 1.5 times Pin) using the measured Pout, or the corrected Pout where the predicted calorimeter heat loss from Figure 2 is added onto the measured power?


    I've been assuming these are absolute results (no correction) but how do we know that?


    Thanks, THH

  • Forgive me for being annoyed.


    The claims here are for a device that generates kW of heat, continuously, for long periods of time, with electrical input < 5% of calorimetric output.

    The concern seems to be "how do you monetise this?". And the solution (agreed by both speakers) that providing electricity for the grid via a Stirling engine is a good solution, if approval can be obtained.


    This is remarkably different from my understanding of the real world where:


    (1) independent of involvement from scientists, anyone with an independently testable (as could easily be done for such a device) system of these characteristics would attract 100s of millions in speculative commercial finance since this clearly would have the potential to solve low carbon energy problems generally and even if expensive would have niche usages for portable high energy density low carbon energy


    (2) independent black box testing from a reputable non-LENR organisation (non-paid) would release enormous world-wide publicity, fame, etc. NASA have shown themselves willing to do this, and of course many would, speculatively, given a plausible proposal from people who seemed normal.


    So my advice: anyone with such a device: go for it - choose money or fame or both, and have fun. For those many who are just bad at measuring either electrical input power, or thermal output power, tighten things up before making such claims!


    Accepting this sort of claim, from people unwilling to go down the route of (1) or (2), without extreme skepticism is cultlike - I don't recommend it.


    THH


  • They've said that they plan to open source the system.

  • They've said that they plan to open source the system.


    Yes. So either; they have foregone that 100M and/or fame, or they know it does not work in that way, and hope that others can get it to work?


    Consider; if this is as billed then if open sourced and replicated by even one person the same comments apply.


    There is a credibility gap here which will only change when somone goes down route (1) or (2). After (2) you could happily open source it, if that is your wish, and what is more you would have 10s of 1000s of very eager replicators.

  • Yes. So either; they have foregone that 100M and/or fame, or they know it does not work in that way, and hope that others can get it to work?


    Consider; if this is as billed then if open sourced and replicated by even one person the same comments apply.


    There is a credibility gap here which will only change when somone goes down route (1) or (2). After (2) you could happily open source it, if that is your wish, and what is more you would have 10s of 1000s of very eager replicators.


    You're reasoning from a false binary.

  • You're reasoning from a false binary.


    Well not in any sensible sense. Maybe they are not sure, but it is a good bet. They can then get somone independent to look at their data and validate it. And that is a lot easier than connecting it to the grid using a Stirling engine!


    Don't be fooled by the likes of Rossi. It is not difficult to validate externally a continuous thermal power source with heat out 20X electricity in and know without doubt that you have something disruptive and tremendously important. NASA etc know this.