Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • the entire issue of air mass flow can be solved with a $20 engine part which measures mass flow of air with less than 2% uncertainty.

    Not really not on its own will it solve

    ,, the $20 MSF sensor needs recalibration when it is inserted into a new pipe

    with larger diameter than a car carburettor inlet pipe.

    This calibration involves taking air velocity measurements

    versus the pulse output measurements of the MAF sensor

    If the flow is turbulent with a uniform profile across the pipe diameter

    then one measurement needs to be taken,

    If the flow is laminar , seven or more velocity measurements are needed.


    Mizuno has chosen to use the Power output of the $20 fan as the flow measure,


    His calibration shows that the flow is turbulent ,not laminar in the pipe.


    This was expected because this is how the pipe diameter was decided in the design phase...

    to ensure turbulent flow with a high velocity .this is not rocket science. just standard fluid mechanics.


    However near most of the airbox surfaces the velocity has been designed to be lower to encourage

    laminar flow which results in less heat losses to the surroundings.

  • I was asked elsewhere about the reason for using mesh instead of plate. This was my answer, which may be of general interest..


    'I can think only that the mesh is better for mechanical reasons - the wires make it more abrasive than a smooth plate for a start, with an obvious increase in the ease of burnishing with Pd. The other thing is that the wire is relatively fragile compared to a plate - so the burnishing action with the Pd, as well as stresses cause by the wire-drawing and weaving process might well result in creating a very large number of stress-cracks in the surface.


    Also I expect that the Ni wire is hot washed after drawing to remove soap, then re-coated with lubricant before it is woven, then hot washed in acid to clean and brighten it as a final part of the process. If it has cracks and oxide spots on the surface that after an acid pickle would result in the creation of a certain amount of 'texturing'. that might be helpful.


    BTW, I spent some time looking for metallurgical microscope pictures of Ni wire, but no luck. However, I have such a microscope and some Ni 200 wire here and will take a look. I would not be surprised if it looks (to a certain extent) a bit like the hide of an Armadillo. '

  • high purity and easier to handle.

    $533.. then there is the 20 cm Pd rod ($2000?) in the reactor..

    all the bits and pieces start to mount up to a princely sum..


    Its simple... but its not cheap. ( of course relative to ITER its insignificant,,, the cost of toilet paper)


    Perhaps the offer of advice from Mizuno and Jed should be looked at

    "

    This experiment is remarkably simple. We hope that people skilled in the art can replicate it.

    If any researcher wishes to replicate and needs more information, please contact us.

  • I was asked elsewhere about the reason for using mesh instead of plate. This was my answer, which may be of general interest..


    'I can think only that the mesh is better for mechanical reasons - the wires make it more abrasive than a smooth plate for a start, with an obvious increase in the ease of burnishing with Pd. The other thing is that the wire is relatively fragile compared to a plate - so the burnishing action with the Pd, as well as stresses cause by the wire-drawing and weaving process might well result in creating a very large number of stress-cracks in the surface.


    A matter of more surface space area.
    This is why nickel powder was used by some, but nickel powder sinters above 200-300 degree C.

  • Surprisingly, while searching for fine nickel mesh, “exothermic reactions” was listed as a suggested use by one supplier.

  • Mizuno has been following the discussions about this paper. He sent me the following, which I translated somewhat loosely:



    The question has been raised: why did I use a mesh rather than a nickel plate? The reasons were as follows:

    1. I think that chemically a large surface area will produce a stronger reaction.
    2. I thought it would be difficult to put a plate in contact with the inside wall of the reactor.
    3. It is easier to prepare a mesh.

    I think that a plate would work, and undergo the reaction.


    Several people have expressed interest in seeing before and after samples of the reactant surface. I will consider distributing samples.

  • you focused currently on metallurgic things to explain Mizuno's Results..

    if you missed something important, even Jed, that would be something else ?

    If the replications prove to be negative, the future debates will be very lively.

    Good luck for next steps :)



    Surprisingly, while searching for fine nickel mesh, “exothermic reactions” was listed as a suggested use by one supplier.

  • Hi jed, would nickel foam coated with palladium be an option? By the way, great job! This could be done with a galvanic procee

  • regarding the reason why air flow calorimetry is used... the higher heat loss in water calorimetry, which works against the LENR reaction. Would a moderate heat insulation around the active reactor core before the heat exchanger be an option? This could prevent too much heat loss from the heat exhanger and sustain the LENR reaction.

  • Did I misread the papers? I thought the sheath heater cartridge took up the central region of the reactor. Is there a PD rod in addition at the center of the reactor?


    There is only a heater. The rod is used to scrape the mesh and deposit Pd. See Fig. 11.


    By the way, the heater used to be wrapped around the outside of the reactor. Putting it inside improved the COP partly just because it takes less power to heat from inside. It also seems to enhance the reaction. I do not know why, but Mizuno may have some thoughts on the matter.

  • Would a moderate heat insulation around the active reactor core before the heat exchanger be an option?


    He used that configuration years ago. It did not work well, but perhaps the cell just wasn't working back then. Maybe it would work now. I don't know. As I said in the paper, the calorimeter is an integral part of the experiment. So, when you first try to replicate you should use the same kind of calorimeter. I suppose an instrument that from the cell's point of view looks the same should be okay. Something like a Seebeck calorimeter, perhaps. Someone has suggested painting the cell black, leaving it out in the open, and measuring the surface temperature. That might work.


    Air-flow calorimeters can be a pain the butt. I see why people do not want to deal with them. If you happen to have a large calorimeter than can hold this cell, I suppose it would be fine to make a cell and try it out. If it works, great. If it doesn't, maybe you should make an air-flow calorimeter and try the cell again.


    It is a robust reaction compared to years ago. Maybe it doesn't care what kind of calorimeter you use. He hasn't tested the latest reactors in any other kind.

  • By the way, the heater used to be wrapped around the outside of the reactor. Putting it inside improved the COP partly just because it takes less power to heat from inside. It also seems to enhance the reaction. I do not know why, but Mizuno may have some thoughts on the matter.


    No real mystery there for me Jed - the magnetic fields generated by the heating coil are providing more stimulus. Magnetic field strength is very distance-dependent - In a magnetic dipole, which is what solenoid heater coils are, the strength of the magnetic field falls off with the cube of the distance. So they obey an inverse-cube law (1/r3).



    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/…gth-over-distance.886473/

  • I doubt it has much more surface area than plate, the holes make up for the extra surface of wires I suspect. But you could be right.


    Alan, just for the fun of it, I made a surface area calculation based on Jed/Mizuno-san's Nickel mesh specification:


    The used mesh:

    - wire diameter 0.055 mm -> surface length = Pi * 0.055 mm = 0.1727 mm

    - pitch 24.5 / 180 (wires per inch) mm = 0.141111 mm

    which gives around 22 % x 22% more surface area compared with a plain sheet.

    In total therefore approx. 1.5 times more surface than a sheet.


    (under the assumption that wire diameter is given in mm, which seems common looking at some comparable specification sheets)