Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    I still say you should show up with a working model at an HVAC trade show. You might get arrested eventually but it would be tons of fun before that happened. Call it an electricity multiplier.


    And I just want to say if anyone cares, that I am still very skeptical of this demonstration. I can't find fault with it from what was presented and I hope it's real but I am still wondering what/where the joker is.


    And if a working model is not shown at ICCF or some place similar, then my skepticism will be much greater.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Be even better if they identify themselves, so we can start a replication thread. There, they could openly communicate with each other, and the forum. Much better chance of success that way. It would have some of the advantages of working as a team; less chance of reinventing the wheel, equipment, where cheapest, most effective for the task, what worked/what not. ECW has a list thread started, but their format is not as conducive to this as we are.


    This way also, when Mizuno/Rothwell answers a question from one, what is said can be instantly relayed to the others...which will ease the workload of the authors. Just a suggestion.


    I agree that there should be a replication thread. This thread however serves that purpose in the interim.

    Dr Richard The reactor weighs 20 Kg.


    Quote from Dr Richard

    ... in the R20 reactor wall! 2 Kg of stainless steel! ...


    V = π * r^2 * h


    density of 304 Stainless Steel = 0.289 lbs/cubic inch or 8 grams/cubic centimeter

    r sub OD - r sub ID = volume of reactor walls


    Above calculation indicates walls weigh approximately 10.4 kilograms.


    Photos show heavy caps so this number seems close.


    I invite corrections. Please see this spreadsheet and make comments and corrections if helpful. Thanks.

    • Official Post
    Quote from anonymous

    I agree that there should be a replication thread. This thread however serves that purpose in the interim.


    Yes, good point. This needs a little more maturing, and then it will be ready for it's own thread. When that is?, is up to those members doing the work. They know best. Maybe some "take charge", leader type, will step forward and run the show. I already see a couple candidates emerging.


    We don't need to know the underlying atomic (or subatomic) physics now for this to be proof positive. That can come later. The important thing is that if we have human skin sense warmth of excess energy proof positive, EVERYONE will start to work on the underlying physics until we end up with an atomic physics model that explains the future experiments. That is for later. Proof positive now at these "sense-able" (irrefutable to instrument error because we don't need instruments) powers, that would change the physics worlds' priorities. Right now no one wants to invest their conventional physics establishment career on LENR because it is just not important enough to invest one's career. Make 1800 watts from a simple rig that gets really hot -- that's as important as the first nuclear pile under U. Chicago, especially considering our climate and nuclear waste problems. People will change their priorities. This kind of high power irrefutable proof is important for bringing the mainstream into LENR and turning the mainstream physics community away from the people who to this day control the Nature editorial decision making. Mainstream doesn't work on LENR now because they think it doesn't work. This rig, if built by themselves, would prove that they were wrong to themselves. If there was an unexplained phenomena machine that they could build in a few weeks and use to heat their basement lab over the deep winter. They only have to see one in their city working over the 3 months of winter to know its real and change their mind.

    Quote from anonymous

    We don't need to know the underlying atomic (or subatomic) physics now for this to be proof positive

    I totally agree.. as can be seen from Gundersen's presentation it takes many years painstaking lab work.

    Quote from anonymous

    They only have to see one in their city working over the 3 months of winter to know its real and change their mind.

    Totally agree.. but next winter is 6 months away.

    Summer/autumn is good also.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I still say you should show up with a working model at an HVAC trade show.

    In all seriousness, I do not think anyone should transport one of these reactors anywhere, at this stage. They should only be loaded with deuterium and operated in a lab with radiation safety monitoring equipment and safety equipment. I think there is very little chance they will produce radiation, but some cold fusion experiments have, so let us not take any chances.


    This is a remote possibility, but I fear a reactor might self heat and cause an accident. It is hard to judge whether that is a real possibility. But if there is the slightest chance of that, we should not transport them for now.


    I see no risk in fabricating the meshes and applying Pd at another location, mailing it, and then exposing it to deuterium. It cannot self-heat before it is exposed to deuterium.


    If this works and it is widely replicated, we will soon know more about it. I suppose it will soon be safe to transport a reactor. What's the rush? Maybe we should ask, what's the point? I hope it will be easy to recreate the reactors from scratch in any lab.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    And I just want to say if anyone cares, that I am still very skeptical of this demonstration.

    I would be skeptical of the demonstration, but the data from the calorimeter backs it up. I have not discussed the details of that yet. We are still working on it. The calorimeter results can be extrapolated to higher levels. The demonstration by itself would prove nothing.



    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    And if a working model is not shown at ICCF or some place similar, then my skepticism will be much greater.

    Then your skepticism will balloon to new heights. I have been in touch with several people about this. No one I know would consider bringing one of these things to an ICCF or anywhere else. Not just for the reasons above, but also, as a practical matter, this would be a nightmare. You have to bring a bunch of sensitive instruments such as vacuum pumps and ULVAC, GCMT GTran ISG-1 meters. They weigh a lot and when you drop one, you are out thousands of dollars. That's what the earthquake did to Mizuno's instruments. Setting up a proper air flow calorimeter takes days or weeks. Setting up a crude one would not convince anyone. A demonstration outside the calorimeter is only convincing with calorimeter data to back it up, as I just said.


    No one with experience doing calorimetery would believe a result without spending several day watching calibrations, and analyzing data, doing a traverse test, a smoke test, etc. In an experiment of this nature, even with 250 W of excess heat, all you see is a bunch of numbers on the screen. It is not convincing until you understand what you are seeing, which takes me several days. It is also boring. As Ed Storms says, it is like watching paint dry.


    You should not bring a business trade-show set of standards to fundamental physics research. Would you demand the plasma fusion people set up a Tokamak at a physics conference before you believe their results?

    Ordering through https://www.apmex.com/ would cost about 76 USD.

    1 gram Palladium Bar - Valcambi Suisse: $62.14

    Shipping, Handling & Insurance: $9.95

    Taxes: $3.73

    Order Total: $75.82


    One gram could perhaps treat 60 sheets.

    Impractical past 30 sheets I suspect.


    This is a very small piece of Palladium. Roughly 3mm X 4mm X 8mm. Very close to 83 cubic millimeters. Thoughts?


    A holder would be needed to do the burnishing with such a small piece.


    68 USD delivered by Amazon. ;)

    Quote

    Would you demand the plasma fusion people set up a Tokamak at a physics conference before you believe their results?

    Sure I would, if the Tokamak in question were the size of a small suitcase and heated my living room better than a Lasko ceramic heater and did it on less than 500W input!


    Seriously, I see your point. Then invite some truly impressive people, not usual suspects, to witness a demo and as "Dr. Mike" used to demand to do to Steorn's Orbo, take a screwdriver to it. Of course, Dr. Mike never got to take that proverbial screwdriver to anything made by Steorn.


    I mean, you do want something good to happen to this and the sooner the better and with Mizuno and you getting credit for your respective contributions, right?

    Quote from anonymous

    We only need a "dummy" i.e. control gas in the reactor. Because of the design of the experiment, the heat has to come out somewhere from the core heater or the reaction itself. If the reactor is first loaded with say helium or nitrogen and then run, and the temperature at the reactor cylinder thermocouple(s) and the Delta-T between the input and the output airflow is measured and recorded; and then the reactor is loaded with the D2 gas to near optimal parameters and the core heater is turned on to the same power setting; if the temperature is significantly higher for both the output airflow and the cylinder thermocouples, that is proof positive for excess heat from the rig. Simple -- no extra swapping of components, just hook up the inert gas cylinder first, run the control run; and then pump it out, load it with the D2 gas for the active run, and take the data. This would end any doubt that LENR works.


    (The above assumes as per Jed's discussion that the D2 valve is turned off when running the active experiment, and that the control gas valve is turned off when running the control experiment, and that there is no leakage of D2 gas from the pressure side of the valve during the active test that could by some weird coincidence oxidize the D2. I think that those items are easy to rule out for Mizuno or any replicator using for example pressure gage in the reactor and the pressure gage on the D2 or control gas rig. Simple alternative arrangements (i.e. two valves, one on the tank side and one on the rig side, with a pressure gage in between) can rule out any significant D2 being introduced.


    In 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!


    Simultaneity is very important in my point of view. To turn-off and then turn-on the reactor takes time and this may add variables and, with those, doubts. If the current throughout the heaters is the same (as when they are in series) and the gas and its pressure is the same in both (same plumbing) at the same time in the active and dummy reactors, only the active elements in the active reactor would explain significant difference in temperature.

    Quote from Alberto

    Simultaneity is very important in my point of view. To turn-off and then turn-on the reactor takes time and this may add variables and, with those, doubts. If the current throughout the heaters is the same (as when they are in series) and the gas and its pressure is the same in both (same plumbing) at the same time in the active and dummy reactors, only the active elements in the active reactor would explain significant difference in temperature.


    I respectfully disagree. I'd rather have the SAME equipment than simultaneity as otherwise I have to prove that the cylinder rig in A vs B is thermodynamically calibrated to be the same. Swapping gas also saves complexity, and hence both time and money in the build out of the rig. But, I would accept just as well another experimenter building a simultaneous tube rig, i.e. it's their money and time so they can prove it any way that they want. Hopefully we all get the same results ... greater than 5x power out to power in at 300 watts in. That is solid proof in my mind and way beyond the signal to noise ratio of any experimental error. 1800 watts out is a BIG space heater -- it will get real hot. I don't need thermometers or RTGs to know real hot, so I can move on without torturing myself if the equipment is properly calibrated as the answer would be obvious to anyone with normal thermoreceptors in their hands. Even editors from Nature.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Seriously, I see your point. Then invite some truly impressive people, not usual suspects, to witness a demo

    I have been to visit various labs, sometimes with other people, sometimes by myself. You don't actually see a "demo" in the sense of trade show demo. You see a bunch of numbers marching across the screen. You look at the wall thermometer and confirm the inlet RTD is same temperature. You look at this, you look at that, and a week after you return you realize you forgot to look at something else. It is more like an undergraduate science lab than something that will convince you that day. You may recall trying to measure an electron volt with the Millikan drop technique and it wasn't until a week later that you began to understand what you were seeing. You are not likely to find a problem in a lab visit either, unless it is a particularly bad experiment.


    Before you go, you should read the papers and know what you are going to see. You arrive with a list of questions, which the researcher seldom gets around to answering.


    It is a learning experience, but unpersuasive. That's how it is for me, anyway.


    I have been in conferences and lab visits in Japan with people who do not speak Japanese. That seldom goes well. They often come back with misconceptions and confusion. I can't help much, because I have no ability to do simultaneous interpretation. I get hopelessly confused. That is a special skill I do not have. I recommend they hire an interpreter.


    Honestly, I think the best thing to do is read the report, think about it, write a long list of questions, and have me translate them for Mizuno, plus answer the ones I can. I have done this a couple of times for this experiment already, and many times for previous experiments, and for other Japanese researchers. Try doing the experiment. After you fail for a few months, then perhaps it is time to visit the original experiment, because you will have a feel for it.


    Also, by the way, if you do not think the data in this paper is pretty convincing, there is no point to going. You are not going to see anything more convincing than this. Just a whole lot more of the same. It is just a bunch of numbers marching across the screen, as I said. Real-time graphs are no different from Acrobat file graphs.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I mean, you do want something good to happen to this and the sooner the better and with Mizuno and you getting credit for your respective contributions, right?

    I think the best way to do that is to publish every detail we can, help as much as we can, and hope that people can replicate. Researchers do not believe results they see in other labs. They only believe their own instruments. That's understandable. They spend months working with their own instruments, so they trust them. They spend only a few hours in a lab visit.


    I am not opposed to lab visits. They can be helpful, especially when you have floundered around all summer trying to replicate with no success. But they are not going to persuade most scientists.


    I doubt anyone skilled in the art imagines that this experiment can be replicated in less than 3 months, or maybe a year. Anyone unwilling to devote 3 months to it should not try to replicate.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.