Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • The pressure was a little high. I do not know if it was well conducted. I would have to see more details. Anyway, one test does not tell us much. Mizuno did this for a while before it worked. As noted in the previous paper (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf), it produced ~12 W excess at first, and very often no heat at all. A person trying to replicate who is lucky might see 12 W after several months of effort, and then might gradually learn to ramp it up. I would be astounded if anyone achieved the high power results shown in Table 1 at first. As I said before, that would be a miracle, not a replication.


    In any sort of laboratory investigation, having to hunt for the settings that yield optimal performance is pretty common in my experience. In the hunt, one overcomes a thousand and one difficulties almost without realizing it. This is a problem for replication because published works usually describe the final working procedure rather than all the troubles encountered and solved during an investigation. The typical way around this in academia is to send a student for a couple of months to someone's lab where a technique is already working. Hard-to-state knowledge is transferred by some form of osmosis and is then more readily transferable back to the home lab. I don't know if a visiting replicator position would be possible in Mizuno's situation, and it would be a big ask from replicators who are for the most part not externally funded, but it would be beneficial if it could be arranged.


    In the absence of a personal visit though ... can you, Jed and Mizuno, look back and suggest any as yet unpublished move that helped to boost small and unreliable effects into something substantial?

  • My understanding is that they did run it at low pressure (300 Pa), except at the very end where they injected 30, then 100mbar. So they worked outside the low pressure range but only after getting a null result.


    What is the theory on why too much pressure would negate a positive reaction?

    I would think it the opposite. If the a triggering mechanism (or NAE creation) is to embed D2 into cracks / crevices in the PD /NI mesh, then a higher pressure would apparently be better.


    But then absolute triggering parameters are not known, otherwise there would be no problem in getting a reaction to occur! I cannot think of any particular scenario where the slightly higher pressures seen would hinder the embedding, so I am curious as to thoughts of others.


    MagicSound indicated the silver solder might be an issue, but I assume he was indicating that it might not be a tight seal to the very high vacuum. It would think it unlikely that silver solder, some distance from the mesh would stop all reactions? If so, what is the proposed mechanism? I understand we might not know, but there should at least be some logical mechanism.


    The cooling issue with liquid calorimetry has been discussed and a theory as to why it is detrimental to successful reactions has been given. It is a logical function and somewhat predictive. As others have mentioned, it probably can be resolved by various means, however, it could also prove to be very difficult to accomplish.


    I think it might be useful to combine Dr. Storms quest for theory at the same time as a push for actual replication. If theories can be developed as to why high pressure cancels a reaction, then a researcher can modify the test parameters to check. The resulting data can assist not only in a successful replication but also build a case for theory.


    To blindly state "pressure was too high" could be leading down a rabbit's hole. It may have nothing to do with the reaction.... or it could be absolutely required. However, without developing a theory along with replication, it is a blind chase..... one that might lead to another 30 years of "LENR exists but cannot be reliably replicated".

  • In the absence of a personal visit though ... can you, Jed and Mizuno, look back and suggest any as yet unpublished move that helped to boost small and unreliable effects into something substantial?


    If there was anything more we could suggest, we would have included it in the recipe. However, as I said in the recipe, this is for people who are skilled in the art. That means people who know how to make leak-proof vacuum chambers that do not contaminate the gas with something like solder; people who know how to operate mass spectrometers; people who will not accidentally ingest nickel dust, and so on. I myself am not one of those people. I could not do this experiment. Consequently, I cannot add anything to the recipe.


    I think a person has to know a great deal just to follow the instructions. If you don't know this stuff, I cannot imagine you will succeed. It would be like me trying to cook a cordon bleu gourmet meal suitable for a first-class restaurant.


    In other words, this is a little like an operating manual for an airplane. The manual can only be understood by experienced pilots. It is only useful to them. There are dozens of details they know already which are not listed in the manual. A person who has not trained to fly airplanes could never learn to fly a modern airplane even with a superb manual. Here is what I have actually accomplished in aviation. I can fly a model airplane. Then after ten minutes of instruction, I could "fly" a full scale climb-inside flight simulator (FAA certified, $90 an hour) for a twin engined airplane, and I was able to take off and land after crashing a few times. If you were willing to risk your life, you might take off an land a pre-WWII airplane such as a Tiger Moth or an N3N. But you could never fly a Cessna.


    (This is getting off topic, but a person with no training and no manual can learn to drive a Tesla automobile. I just did that last week. It is quite different from driving an ordinary car or a Prius. It is easier in many ways, but it does require a feel for computers. It is basically a computer and a battery on wheels. It wants to do things that a driver normally does for himself, which takes some getting used to. It is the extreme opposite of a manual shift automobile. I wonder of my late mother could have done it. She learned to drive Model T Fords when she was 13. Those things are difficult to operate! She drove WWII era trucks, tractors, cars of all sorts, and "anything with wheels." But she was not good with computers. I wonder if she could have done it? I am sure that after an hour or two she could have. Some technology is more difficult to use -- at first -- because it is so easy and automatic.)

  • What is the theory on why too much pressure would negate a positive reaction?


    There is no theory for cold fusion. Nothing is based on theory. This is entirely based on observations and trial-and-error improvements, like pre-modern technology, or like cooking done by someone without knowledge of chemistry and physics.



    To blindly state "pressure was too high" could be leading down a rabbit's hole.


    We are not blindly stating that. High pressure was tested it did not work, as I think I stated in the paper. With the latest materials and cell, even 6000 Pa did not work well.

  • All the literature about gas-loading metals suggests that high pressure (BarG+) is beneficial. The fact that Mizuno was seeing anomalous heat right down at 3 Pa is certainly counter-intuitive. That doesn't mean to say it is wrong, it just means that this is a very unusual version of cold fusion.

  • As the pressure increases, more of the heat transfer from the heater to the mesh is through convection and less through radiation. If the IR intensity is controlling the reaction rate, higher pressure should reduce the rate.


    The vacuum inside the reactor is a key difference between Mizono's and other less successful experiments.


    There is a big difference between 3 and 6000 Pa:


  • Quote

    Have you tried doing this? [temperature controlled high temperature liquid flow calorimetry] Mizuno and I spent quite a lot of time trying. It is lot harder than you think.


    I have done similar experiments at lower temperatures with a variety of heat sources but none required maintaining specific, high temperatures. However, for those who want to try it, the GSVIT liquid cooled high power and temperature calorimeter (use Google translate) would be worth a try. I have no illusions that this would be easy.


    BTW, I have no problem with Mizuno's calorimetry, as long as the power and power ratio (out/in) are so high and the calibrations are so "right on". I think picking apart small details of the calorimetry is silly. Large error sources would be another story but it is puzzling what such a source could be, absent deliberate deception, especially considering the calibrations. I have not read any theories for such errors here. Did I miss it?

  • I think a person has to know a great deal just to follow the instructions. If you don't know this stuff, I cannot imagine you will succeed. It would be like me trying to cook a cordon bleu gourmet meal suitable for a first-class restaurant.


    Having said all that, this experiment if far easier than the original Fleischmann Pons experiment. It takes much less time. A month or two, compared to a year or two. See the procedures for the F-P experiment here:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf


    Getting back to my analogy, I suppose this is like making a "simple" gourmet omelette such as you might get in a top-notch French restaurant, compared to a full 6-course meal (the F-P experiment).

  • Do any of the sides of the acrylic calorimeter box come off, or is it just open on the bottom?


    The box is glued together. It fits into indentations in the bottom material. See p. 3 photo:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf


    How far from the bottom is the air entry hole? It looks to be about 5 cm up, centered on the 75 cm long side.


    I don't recall. I think you can estimate from the photo on p. 3.


    Are there extra holes for gas tubes and wires?


    They go through the air inlet hole.

  • I have done similar experiments at lower temperatures with a variety of heat sources but none required maintaining specific, high temperatures. However, for those who want to try it, the GSVIT liquid cooled high power and temperature calorimeter (use Google translate) would be worth a try. I have no illusions that this would be easy.


    I do not understand why this would be worth a try. We have a method that works. The experiment has enough unknowns already. Why go around looking for new ways to make it less like the original?

  • The fact that Mizuno was seeing anomalous heat right down at 3 Pa is certainly counter-intuitive.


    It sure surprised me.


    Mizuno believes that higher pressure puts too much deuterium into the system it stops adsorbing into the nickel adhered to the palladium. In a Japanese document (translated by me) he explained:


    "Assuming that a reaction is induced in the Pd-Ni mixed layer or the Pd/Ni interface, the test results can be easily explained. Even if the deuterium pressure is high, the reaction does not increase and reaches a maximum at about several hundred Pascals. It is presumed that this is because the adsorption at the internal interface or the Pd-Ni mixed layer is the simplest Langmuir type. That is, the excess heat generation reaction becomes constant at low pressure hydrogen pressure, and the effect is not only low even if the internal deuterium concentration is high, but conversely, if the deuterium concentration in the interior is high, the reaction at the interface or in the two-mixed metal layer will drop due to a decrease in adsorption."


    He went on to say that if cold fusion works with pure Ni, it should work better at higher pressure and higher loading of the Ni. That is expected. This reaction occurs in the interface between the Ni and the Pd, so low pressure and low loading works better.


  • Thank you. This is an interesting point and certainly does support Mizuno's statement.


    What is more, if higher IR does kick up the reaction, I would think it feasible to conduct a reactor test with a high level of IR injected into the reactor, possibly via selected heating elements or even possibly external via using a transparent tube.


    I am not suggesting that people jump to this step right away, but these insights kept in a log so that once a reaction has been confirmed, then further development would be assisted.


    In the meantime, these insights that are founded on known parameters such as Mr. Horst provided, adds weight for other replicators to follow these specific parameters and or insight on how to better create the conditions.

  • Thanks. It is being constructed now. I am just trying to keep it the same as possible as Mizuno’s.


    Can you confirm the model of fan being currently used? There seems to have been two different ones based on photos and power consumption. One was a “Servo” brand and the other a “San Ace”.

  • Looking at the photo, it seems like a rectangular hole is used, which is much larger than a 5 cm diameter hole.


    Edit: The paper mentions “one of his calorimeters”. So maybe two different ones are being described (different fans, holes, etc.), without being clear about which one is which.


    Can you please clarify which calorimeter is the one used for the recent high output results, with any useful notes like inlet position, size etc.

  • Looking at the photo, it seems like a rectangular hole is used, which is much larger than a 5 cm diameter hole.


    Honestly, I cannot tell. Someone who saw it a few weeks ago told me the wires and pipes are now going in through the air inlet hole.



    (By the way, this photo shows the box without insulation. When the reactor is in operation, the whole box is covered with insulation. You can't see inside it. There has been some confusion about this.)

  • Honestly, I cannot tell. Someone who saw it a few weeks ago told me the wires and pipes are now going in through the air inlet hole.



    (By the way, this photo shows the box without insulation. When the reactor is in operation, the whole box is covered with insulation. You can't see inside it. There has been some confusion about this.)

    Sorry, I edited my comment above that you responded to with some extra questions.


    I suppose I can get both the 5 cm hole and a larger rectangular hole cut, then plug them up as required to compare the effect of both styles of inlets. Probably the larger rectangular hole is better since it is less restrictive, but maybe it doesn’t mix as nicely... maybe it makes no sensible difference.

  • JedRothwell

    Quote

    I do not understand why this would be worth a try. We have a method that works. The experiment has enough unknowns already. Why go around looking for new ways to make it less like the original

    Actually, I have to agree with you and retract the remark. I tend to forget how overwhelming the evidence is (if it's real) thus far. There is absolutely no need for more precision. However, to be fair, I was thinking of how to test the 3kW output reactor and you clearly said it can't be done with the existing air calorimeter. Of course, the smaller reactor with its smaller power out (50W in, 250W out IIRC) is ample, even for my skeptical nature.

  • The rectangular calorimeter inlet hole seems to be about 10 cm wide x 20 cm high.

    That is 10 times the area of the 5 cm round hole.


    It would be very helpful to get the actual rectangular hole size and position verified before all the pieces are cut and glued together.