Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    Holmlid states:

    The difference between the results using D(0) and p(0) needs to be discussed. From several experiments, it seems likely that positive kaons are formed at lower density of H(0), while negative kaons are formed preferentially at higher density. In the present experiments, that should mean that positive muons should be formed using D(0), since the signal in Figs. 5 and 6 is slightly lower for D(0). This agrees with the conclusion that D(0) here gives more positive muons and thus a time constant close to the free muon decay. The reason for this density effect is however not obvious. One might speculate that in D(0) only every second nuclei is a proton, and thus that the 2 p → 3 K transition is less likely, but this does not give any clue to why positive muons should be formed more often in that case. Another possibility would be that at high density, neutral kaons are formed preferentially and at low density, charged kaons are more common. However, charge asymmetry is required to explain the observations in such a case.

    Anybody's guess as to what the ratio of negative to positive muons created in Mizuno's reactor could be. Clearly there are many possible LENR reactions going on here to generate excess heat, muon-catalysed fusion of D-D just being one of the more well established mechanisms among others. I would replicate Mizuno's reactor with thick stainless steel walls because D would be absorbed into the Fe metallic lattice and possibly undergo fusion here too, thin walls may form small (NAE) cracks letting in air etc

    Quote from Dr Richard

    Anybody's guess as to what the ratio of negative to positive muons created in Mizuno's reactor could be. Clearly there are many possible LENR reactions going on here to generate excess heat, muon-catalysed fusion of D-D just being one of the more well established mechanisms among others. I would replicate Mizuno's reactor with thick stainless steel walls because D would be absorbed into the Fe metallic lattice and possibly undergo fusion here too, thin walls may form small (NAE) cracks letting in air etc


    Perhaps I should emphasise that there are more than one method to derive energy from D(0) which should be clearly separated.

    Each method can be triggered under a specific condition and require a specific procedure.

    The method to derive heat from absorption of charged particles is clearly different from deriving heat from fusion.

    These different methods are exactly what Norrønt Fusion Energy As is developing.


    In the case of Mizuno's R20 reactor the conditions in which it is currently operated points (in my view) mainly to non-fusion, absorption of charged particles.

    Potentially the R20 could also be used for mainly fusion, but conditions will be different from the current one and it may require an additional trigger source, e.g. laser.

    Quote from nickec

    Would reducing reactor wall mass result in lower performance?


    In my view it's far more important to know the exact composition of the steel Mizuno did use. Mn,Ni,Co etc. can be partners in the energy release reaction, what will be much more important. A thicker wall should have only a small impact on heat transportation.

    • Official Post

    anonymous


    For several reasons. You need to buy the bottle and the valve. £300.00 approx here. And they don't offer a refill service ( in the UK at any rate). now look at the math. 10 liters of D2 at STP is less than 2 grams. So the cost is around £150/gm. I can get that from heavy water at high purity for less than £20 and a little trouble. Finally, Sigma-Aldritch are a nightmare to deal with if you run a small independent research company. They are (in the EU at least) just not interested in supplying non-corporate outfits.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    In my view it's far more important to know the exact composition of the steel Mizuno did use...Mn,Ni,Co etc. can be partners...


    note to Nick


    304 lacks the 2% Molybdenum of 316

    Molybdenum has seven different isotopes



    Cobalt in 316 is variable


    I have been running into a lot of stainless suppliers that have cobalt in their 316 Stainless.

    The ASTM/ASME specs make no allowance for cobalt however on the web

    I have found some papers that say cobalt is allowed by some of the EN standards.

    I can not get EN standards though. Some of our European suppliers that supply

    to EN are the ones with Cobalt but I have even found it in US suppliers who hold to ASTM/ASME.

    One European research paper I found says the limit is .20 but most of the suppliers are at .3 or so.

    One US supplier today even had as much as .5 Co in a 316.

    Should I be concerned about this???? I

    https://app.aws.org/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=27726

    A person who is thinking of replicating Mizuno's experiment asked series of questions in English. I wrote some responses myself. Then I translated everything into Japanese. Mizuno confirmed my responses and wrote some additional comments. I translated his responses back into English.

    I recommend this method of communicating to avoid confusion and make life easier for both parties. It is good to have everything in writing. Frankly, this is probably a more effective way to communicate and to nail down the details than travelling to Japan and asking questions. This is especially effective in the initial phases of a replication.

    Here are some of the questions with Mizuno's answers, translated, condensed and rewritten by me.


    Q: Does the mass of reactant matter?

    A: The more reactant you have, the better, so please put in as much as possible.


    Q: Is there an optimum number of layers?

    A: Probably, the more layers the better, without an upper limit.


    Q: Is the choice of Pd important?

    A: Probably not. But you should rub it hard. The hypothesis is that by strongly rubbing the Pd into the Ni, you break up the oxide layer and create complex phases of metal on metal. That’s what I think is happening, but I do not understand the mechanism yet.


    Q: What about the choice of detergent, or the choice of the scrubbing pad?

    A: I do not suppose the choice of detergent has an effect on excess heat generation. It probably has nothing to do with it. Just use whatever type you like. However, be sure to rinse thoroughly. This is necessary. I also doubt the choice of scrub pad has anything to do with heat generation. However, be sure to scrub the mesh thoroughly and then wash with alcohol.


    ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY ME:

    I doubt the source of meshes matters, as long as they are Nickel-200, 180 mesh.


    My gut feeling is that any source of Ni or Pd will work, as long as they are of sufficient purity and you avoid contamination, or you clean off contamination. This method of applying Pd is so crude, there must be large variations in the resulting material. So it seems unlikely the details matter. I think that the source of material is probably less important than material preparation. You have to clean the mesh and roughen the surface as instructed. Probably the mass of reactants and the geometry are important.

    Interested to know which other LENR's could be operating to generate such high levels of XSH - but think we have to sacrifice the theoretical for the practical and proceed with replicating these as useful space heaters pumping out kW of heat for 100W inputs. Certainly keep my greenhouse warm this winter!

    Quote from Jack C

    [I'm not referring to the calibration of the thermocouples. I'm referring to the calibration of the calorimeter. A difference in heat conduction due to different amounts of contact between the reactor and the bottom or sides of the calorimeter is a likely culprit.]


    It can change when he loads the fuel and puts it back together.


    You don't start calibrating until the fuel is loaded, the reactor is put back together, the reactor is placed in the calorimeter chamber, and the chamber is closed and sealed. You can't calibrate before these steps are finished. You can't do anything. Nothing changes until the tests are done and you recalibrate. This is how all experiments work.


    The calibration constants always change a little when you do these steps. There are always small differences from one test run to the next. You have to measure the constants every time if you want a precise answer.

    Quote from nickec

    I wonder if I can lay my hands on a used or discarded lecture bottle, and if I can clean/purge it, if Cambridge would charge it with Deuterium gas.


    Alan Smith Are you electrolyzing the D2O like the Fusor people sometimes do?

    Although I sometimes use lecture bottles, I often use:

    https://www.fuelcellstore.com/horizon-hydrostik-pro-fch-020

    a hydrostik charged from

    https://www.fuelcellstore.com/horizon-hydrofill-pro-fch-020

    using D2O.


    it is a bit expensive at first but saves money in the long run and avoids all those pressure reducers.

    JedRothwell

    Quote

    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.


    I couldn't disagree more. Imagine a setup like is shown in the photo in the recent Mizuno paper where a small heater radiating an obvious appx 3kW is sitting there powered by only a 300 or 500W supply cleanly connected and clearly metered. I'm not saying that is definitive, there is always sleight of hand to consider. But what a spectacular demo that would be. And how easy would that be for Mizuno or his coworkers to do, if the data in the paper are correct. Try to see this from the perspective of someone who is open minded but definitely not convinced cold fusion claims are real and who keenly remembers Rossi.


    Next, imagine a wealthy investor in front of that heater, with access to a team which can review numbers marching across a screen, etc. etc.


    And hopefully, the whole time, a busy bunch of home brew inventors are trying to replicate the work. It should be an interesting few next months if all this holds together. Still an "if."

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I couldn't disagree more. Imagine a setup like is shown in the photo in the recent Mizuno paper where a small heater radiating an obvious appx 3kW is sitting there powered by only a 300 or 500W supply cleanly connected and clearly metered. I'm not saying that is definitive, there is always sleight of hand to consider. But what a spectacular demo that would be.


    Actually, it is not spectacular. It can be difficult to estimate how much heat something like that is producing. You can be much more certain with a device in a calorimeter. If I wanted to impress someone with a kilowatt scale reaction, I would put it in some sort of calorimeter. Even a crude one such as a cardboard box with an electric resistance heater for comparison would be better than an open-air demonstration.


    As I said in the paper, the kilowatt-scale reactions exceed the capacity of his air-flow calorimeter. He & I are discussing what sort of calorimetry can be done.


    I thought twice about including any mention of the open air test. I would not have mentioned it if there were not other evidence from the calorimeter indicating it is probably valid. Some as extrapolations. The other reason I decided to include it is I thought the photo with the deer sculpture was cute. I couldn't resist including it. I might have chopped out the deer part, which is kind of amateur. I have other photos of that reactor that are more professional, but dull. Here is a shot taken from the front:



    That's no fun.



    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    And how easy would that be for Mizuno or his coworkers to do, if the data in the paper are correct.


    It is harder than you think. Also, he has no coworkers. The data in the paper does not make this seem easier to me.



    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Try to see this from the perspective of someone who is open minded but definitely not convinced cold fusion claims are real and who keenly remembers Rossi.


    Anyone who remembers Rossi will not want to see an open-air demonstration! That's what Rossi did. You want to see a good calorimeter. Anyone who is not already convinced of cold fusion claims by McKubre or Miles will not be convinced by this. Such people should ignore the field and not waste their time, or our time.



    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    And hopefully, the whole time, a busy bunch of home brew inventors are trying to replicate the work.


    I hope that does not happen! Nothing good can come of that. I assume "home brew inventors" do not have turbomolecular pumps or weight scales that can measure milligrams, so they cannot do this. That's a blessing. Only people skilled in the art in fully equipped laboratories should try this.

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.