in the old paper, Dr. Mizuno seems to say that sputtering method would give less XH? Can we check this ?
It remains an important point for replications.
That is one of the old reactors. The Pd was deposited on the Ni with glow discharge during the test. That method is no longer used. With the newer reactor, the Pd is deposited by rubbing, before the test. That takes much less time. Weeks or months less time.
Kyukyutto reactor.
@IHfanboy
QuoteAnd when the histories are written, those same "skeptics" will claim that they gave Cold Fusion a fair shake all along. That there was no reputation trap. That MIT never fudged data to protect their hot fusion interests. That government funding was always available for basic research in this area. That scientists who dedicated their entire careers to this research were always revered as mavericks. And so forth.
First, this sort of complete crappola is OTC in this thread so I would hope the admins would move it to clearance. Then...
QuoteAnd when the histories are written, those same "skeptics" will claim that they gave Cold Fusion a fair shake all along.
Absolutely. And most skeptics are greeting Mizuno's work with open arms, assuming it is not a huge error or some sort of falsification.
QuoteThat there was no reputation trap.
That's a ridiculous concept to begin with. Either something works or it doesn't and it usually gets figured out pretty soon in this modern and comparatively open world.
QuoteThat MIT never fudged data to protect their hot fusion interests.
I've never seen credible evidence that they fudged anything.
QuoteThat government funding was always available for basic research in this area.
Pretty much, at least through SPAWAR and related efforts. And more support was available via Kimmel and Duncan and if it is to be believed, now Gates.
in the old paper, Dr. Mizuno seems to say that sputtering method would give less XH? Can we check this ?
It remains an important point for replications.
My understanding is that Mizuno tried at least 3 different methods to create a layer of Pd on the Ni mesh:
- sputtering (via glow discharge)
- electroless deposition (chemical)
- rubbing (mechanical)
The last option is the simplest and cheapest.
The differences in COP were mainly due to the position, type and shape of the heater, of which the R20 version was obviously the best until now.
JedRothwell I agree that the RTD's are an unlikely or even impossible source of major error in Mizuno's experiment. I only brought them up to be complete and because they could matter where there is a lot of electrical noise, as in Brillouin's setup with spikey waveform inputs at considerable power levels. As I wrote before, one would have to invoke quite a few extremely hard to imagine (or simply impossible) coincidences to overrule the calibrations. Assuming, of course, that the results were honestly acquired and reported.
QuoteIn short, with those assumptions, it seems to this anonymous observer that we have proof positive coming after a successful replication. Congratulations to the experimenters and the entire community conditional on the successful replication. It's almost too good to believe is true. Cheers!
Yes but caution. To be credible, the fiasco that was caused by the inept Swedish professors and Lewan "replicating" Rossi, experiments in which Rossi obfuscated everything and was heavily involved have to be studiously avoided. It is critical that the replicators do their final definitive work completely independently of Mizuno except for consultations. It is also important that these replicators not be "usual suspects." IMO, to be convincing, it would be vastly better to avoid people with close ties to the LENR research community.
A result of such magnitude should be replicable by any well known test lab or government organization- also by a major university physics department where the department itself would endorse the tests. And there would be no problem with Mizuno providing the equipment, even as a black box, as long as all power in and power out measurements were provided by the experimenters using their own methods and equipment. So not just replication but replication done well by the best available and especially the most credible people- people with no vested interest if possible.
- rubbing (mechanical)
The last option is the simplest and cheapest.
The differences in COP were mainly due to the position, type and shape of the heater
Some experts looking at these results feel that rubbing may be a superior method, because it pushes aside contamination and oxides. I mean literally, it scrapes them aside, putting the Pd directly on top of the Ni. The sputtering method was adventitious. People who know about sputtering tell me it might actually remove Pd at times. It was intended to produce heat at the Pd, which it may have done, but Mizuno noticed that the data pointed to heat from the Ni.
Assuming, of course, that the results were honestly acquired and reported.
Neither Mizuno nor I have any motive to lie about this. There is no way either of us could benefit, or make a dime from it. If we made this up, no one will be able to replicate it, and it will soon be forgotten. (By the same token, if no one tries to replicate, it will soon be forgotten.)
A result of such magnitude should be replicable by any well known test lab or government organization- also by a major university physics department where the department itself would endorse the tests.
It is about as likely they will conduct a rain dance. It may well be replicable, but no well-known test lab, government organization, major or minor physics department would touch this. If they even discuss doing it, their reputations will be destroyed in the mass media. They will be accused of criminal fraud and everyone involved will be fired. That's what happened to the cold fusion researchers. It would happen today just as surely as it did in 1990.
This is real life. You cannot seriously think that middle-class researchers will do something that is sure to end their careers, just because the results are interesting. If that is what you are waiting for, you wait in vain. If that is your standard, it will not be met until Nature turns around and takes credit for cold fusion. Do you see any sign of that?
And there would be no problem with Mizuno providing the equipment, even as a black box, as long as all power in and power out measurements were provided by the experimenters using their own methods and equipment.
There is no need to do that. Mizuno revealed everything he knows in this paper. If you follow these instructions carefully but it does not work, he probably cannot tell you how to make it work. It may be that he is doing some things without being aware of them, the way a skilled cook sometimes does. In that case, we should have a skilled chemist work with him for a month or so to learn the techniques. I doubt that will be necessary.
[That government funding was always available for basic research in this area.]
Pretty much, at least through SPAWAR and related efforts.
That was never funded. It was done after hours and off the books. When Uncle Sam found out about it, he ordered it stopped. There were no "related efforts."
And more support was available via Kimmel and Duncan and if it is to be believed, now Gates.
That's not government support. Kimmel's effort ended a few years ago.
I've never seen credible evidence that they fudged anything.
MIT did better than fudge anything, they were caught with their pants down when the USN went through their original data and proved that it has been altered to produce a null result. It is a matter pf public record, it is also on record that nobody was ever disciplined over it.
QuoteThis is real life. You cannot seriously think that middle-class researchers will do something that is sure to end their careers, just because the results are interesting. If that is what you are waiting for, you wait in vain. If that is your standard, it will not be met until Nature turns around and takes credit for cold fusion. Do you see any sign of that
I call bull on this. The results are "interesting?" That's what you consider them? (if true of course)
Like I said, I really doubt fraud here. But one thing you are doing which scammers often do (it does not mean you are a scammer!) is to minimize the impact of the discovery if it's true. Scammers classically avoid testing because they say nobody credible will believe them enough to even do a test. Then they get third rate testers they can influence like Rossi did. Carl Tilley (the self charging DeLorean car) and Steorn (the magnetic motor) did similar moves.
Even if major test labs or agencies won't test Mizuno's device, I already mentioned Earth Tech. Have you contacted them? And what about Boeing via IH? God knows they need a lift of some kind right now. What about going back to Kimmel or Duncan with this? Or Carl Page? Or the Gates Foundation officially? Surely you know more likely places to get good tests than I do. My point is that this is such a momentous discovery if true and the results are so impressive and the documentation is so comparatively clean that it should not be hard to get a hearing somewhere influential. You can also try Musk through his people, Bezos, or be creative- try Kim Kardashian! Or even the energy department. Under the current president, there are probably people there who will believe what would normally be considered to be improbable tales.
Or have Mizuno get a local investor to put up a modest sum based on a demo, get proper local authorizations and make and sell a dozen or so space heaters. That would also put Mizuno on the map if it could be done. Hard to certify and maintain I suppose. But maybe do it differently. Make another 3kW unit and take the pair to a trade show. For heaters. LOL. Set up some thermometers and big visible meters for the power supply and let people get close and feel the heat. Don't tell anyone it's "nuclear" until the show is over. Just say it's a proprietary "power enhancer" or concentrator or a way more efficient heater.
But I mean something this big... there has to be someone. Your paranoia is choking you. Get rid of it for now. Put it on the shelf at least.
I call bull on this. The results are "interesting?" That's what you consider them? (if true of course)
Read what happened to Miles. The same sort of thing happened to nearly every other researcher I know, except McKubre. As I said before, I do not understand why you think these results are more interesting or more compelling than those of Miles, or Storms, or the other best results. If those people were accused of crimes and kicked out, why do you think someone replicating this result will not be accused?
Whether I consider this interesting is not the issue. The question is: What would officials at the DoE think of these results? What will university deans, or the editors at Nature think of them? I know exactly what they will think. I have heard it countless times. Suppose you could talk to an expert at the DoE right now, or the editors of Nature or Sci. Am. You ask: "What do you think of the latest report from Mizuno, uploaded at LENR-CANR.org?" They would tell you that Mizuno and Rothwell are well known con artists, liars and criminals, and that not a single report at LENR-CANR.org is credible. High officials have accused me of making up all of these papers. They said that not one of them was actually published in the literature. They will tell you that if any of these claims were true, the researchers would be killed by gamma rays.
These people would never read this report, or any other paper at LENR-CANR.org. They say they will not. You might as well expect leading biologists to read papers at creationist websites. The people at the DoE, the universities and Nature are certain -- absolutely certain with no shadow of a doubt -- that all cold fusion claims are lunacy and criminal fraud. That is what they say, and I am sure that is what they mean. Why would they lie about this? I am also sure they have read nothing and they know nothing. You can see that from their descriptions of the experiments.
QuoteI am also sure they have read nothing and they know nothing. You can see that from their descriptions of the experiments.
Yes, you accused me of the same thing. It's a great excuse for failing to get definitive testing done. I guess you're left with Kim Kardashian as your only hope. Good luck.
BTW, why won't you contact Earth Tech?
And I never got the impression that Miles, McKubre, or anyone else had near the long term, consistent, reproducible high output and high out/in that you and Mizuno are claiming this time around. Maybe in your eyes only?
you that if any of these claims were true, the researchers would be killed by gamma rays.
Yep this is happening right now at the physics forum that nickec linked to.
It's a great excuse for failing to get definitive testing done
What does this mean. Outside Japan?
Yep this is happening right now at the physics forum that nickec linked to.
Where, who what... details please Stefan..
Even if major test labs or agencies won't test Mizuno's device, I already mentioned Earth Tech. Have you contacted them? And what about Boeing via IH? God knows they need a lift of some kind right now. What about going back to Kimmel or Duncan with this? Or Carl Page? Or the Gates Foundation officially?
I cannot comment on Earth Tech, IH or the others who have supported cold fusion research. That's Mizuno's business, not mine. My comments apply to the organizations you listed above: "any well known test lab or government organization- also by a major university physics department where the department itself would endorse the tests." Such places will not test this. They will not read the paper. As I said, you might as well ask the biologists at the N.I.H. to read a paper on creationism.
As it happens, I agree with the biologists about creationism. I think their scientific judgement is right. But I think the people opposed to cold fusion at the DoE and Nature are wrong. I think the evidence for cold fusion is much better & more scientific than the evidence for creationism. It is conceivable that my judgement of creationism is wrong, in which case I am as misguided and closed minded as the opponents of cold fusion. I don't stay awake at night worrying about that.
So what is the source of heat that causes COP > 1?
Some speculations indicate it is the heat in the Ni mesh. But what is the mechanism?
My own preferred theory is that D(0) (Ultra Dense Deuterium à la Holmlid) is formed which is triggered by the IR radiation of the sheath heater, generating charged particles from D(0) that are absorbed mainly by the reactor wall. Therefore the heat is created mainly in the reactor wall. Or even Helium is formed by fusion (Did Mizuno detect He?).
Some reasoning why D(0):
- High absorption seems not required
- (Very) low gas pressure, Holmlid's papers show formation of D(0) at comparable gas pressures
- No runaways observed (?) because amount of IR radiation by the sheath heater determines greatly the amount of charged particles (or fusion) released.
Can we summon Popeye from ecatnews? He's one of my faviorite sceptics and being beaten by him was one of the most delightful events at the ecatnews site. Also comments from goat guy, another great skeptics at next big future would be a great to listen to, actually it would be nice if NBF run a post on this topic.
noted the inconsistency with the stated radius of 2.5cm. I asked Jed, who replied here at that time
So THHknew assumed that the traverse section was 5cm,
from the statement that the piping was 5cm diameter.
Jed has clarified that the traverse section was 6.6 cm
, in a custommade 200mm pipe.
with nearest measurements taken 3mm from the wall ...not 1cm.
Thanks for that detail that THHnew required,Jed.
Because the reported graph is self explanatory for those ;skilled in the art;
you may not need this detail for Assisi.
but you could add the 6,6 cm to the graph,, just in case
You never know who might turn up at ICCF22
