Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • Takahashi etal observed similar transient excess heat in their Pd/Ni/Zr nanoparticle experiments - again using much higher D levels than Mizuno's recommendations. Maybe Zhang will have better results using only 100 Pa deuterium.

  • Do we know if he used meshes prepared by Mizuno? Or prepared by himself?


    I wonder if there are lessons learnt about what steps might have differed from the preparation by others which were less successful so far. Was the out gassing preparation phase more thorough for example.


    Anyway it’s great to hear we are starting to get interesting results. Thanks to Jed for updating us with this good news.

  • In the same spirit an important work will be shared at next ICCF .

    i leave you to make your technical conclusions.


    So it seems Mastromateo had already replicated Mizuno even before of Mizuno’s publication.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • yes, now we have a good basis of comparison between results from Japanese powders, MIzuno R20 postulate and this paper I shared above.

    Always this famous Pd that helps to strongly load nickel here which remains, if alone, a real barrier to hydrogen.
    Well, as for Pd/D experiments, I'm not sure that full loading will help to make KW.
    It will be necessary to study impact of Japanese ceramic spacers, IRs and other things that are surely influential.
    Btw, 30 years after P&F, maybe future experiments will be more interesting because we will be more often an XH average in the tens of watt ( and more) rather than in watts.
    Could we already buy a mortuary crown for our septics, I remain skeptical on this subject :)


    Takahashi etal observed similar transient excess heat in their Pd/Ni/Zr nanoparticle experiments - again using much higher D levels than Mizuno's recommendations. Maybe Zhang will have better results using only 100 Pa deuterium.

  • @Cy


    The use of Pd coatings to promote hydrogen absorption is well known. When I joined the hydrogen processing group in 1995, a PhD materials scientist told me his thesis work was loading niobium with hydrogen, which could only be done if it was Pd coated. He had already been working for several years.


    In ~1995 I submitted a funding proposal that suggested I would coat TiFe, a hydride former, with Pd to accelerate the kinetics and ease the activation process.

  • lenr.sepl.ru published Mizuno replication results from an unknown source. Follow two links to English docs from here http://lenr.seplm.ru/articles/…rofessora-midzuno-v-kitae


    That is the same Zhang replication Jed linked to. However, the Seplum article has an additional page 2 with more data I did not see in Jed's. As you point out, right under the article's title are the links to Pages1/2, in English.

  • You must know that investors want to know time needed (the shortest possible) to earn $ 2 when they wagered 1 dollar.

    Researchers on the other hand spend their time suggesting research and others and others.

    no one understands each other and 30 years go by ! :)


    @Cy


    The use of Pd coatings to promote hydrogen absorption is well known. When I joined the hydrogen processing group in 1995, a PhD materials scientist told me his thesis work was loading niobium with hydrogen, which could only be done if it was Pd coated. He had already been working for several years.


    In ~1995 I submitted a funding proposal that suggested I would coat TiFe, a hydride former, with Pd to accelerate the kinetics and ease the activation process.

  • What irks me is people who fail to understand the crucial role of skepticism in scientific progress, and who therefore immediately assume a skeptical point of view is bad.


    How would you know? You are not skeptical. You are a true believer in your own theories. That is why you cannot see that Marwan et al. conclusively disproved all of your claims, and why it never occurs to you that calibrations disprove your claims. You are the least skeptical person I know. A true skeptic is skeptical of his own beliefs, first and foremost.


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

  • Skepticism is healthy especially from experts. The only other low pressure D experiments using a similar range to Mizuno I know of are Holmlid's - which again opens the suggestion of low-energy mesons (muons) and neutrinos being active LENR components - coupled with fractofusion evolving NAE's leading to localized high voltage D acceleration and possibly D-coupled rotator high magnetic field collapse - it becomes extremely complicated.

  • @Jed


    How would you know? You are not skeptical. You are a true believer in your own theories. That is why you cannot see that Marwan et al. used what is commonly known as the Strawman Fallacy to misrepresent Shanahan, and thus disproved nothing Shanahan said. A true skeptic is skeptical of his own beliefs, first and foremost.

  • we are no longer in 1989 and I think that no one will be able to stop LENRs now :)


    @Jed


    How would you know? You are not skeptical. You are a true believer in your own theories. That is why you cannot see that Marwan et al. used what is commonly known as the Strawman Fallacy to misrepresent Shanahan, and thus disproved nothing Shanahan said. A true skeptic is skeptical of his own beliefs, first and foremost.

  • Prepared by himself, as described in this paper.


    One other departure by Zhang from the protocol was not yet mentioned. His soak at 90°C was done with DI water rather than tap water (pg. 16 of his report). I reported earlier that the use of tap water in the mesh preparation as specified by Mizuno leaves a considerable quantity of Calcite crystals on the mesh, which are subsequently incorporated into the Pd deposited by burnishing.


    I have added an SEM/EDS image showing this behavior to my live doc:

    https://docs.google.com/docume…AYv7j13o/edit?usp=sharing


    Whether this is significant to the experiment is unknown, but it seems worth further discussion.


  • Good observation. The list of variables that might influence the reaction is of course long, but this one (soaking in tap water vs. DI water) is at least straightforward to test for replicators.


    Another variable we previous discussed is the reactor chamber material. In the 2017 Mizuno paper it is specified as SS316, but it isn’t specified in the 2019 (R20) paper. I think it would be very valuable to get a confirmation of the type of steel used for the R20 reactor just to remove this from the list of unknown variables (if it turns out R20 was made of different steel than R19, that opens up a new set of questions...)

  • Quote

    we are no longer in 1989 and I think that no one will be able to stop LENRs now :)

    No one is trying. I doubt anyone ever tried. Maybe some people did not want resources spent on it because they thought those resources would be wasted, based on how they saw previous research. LENR proponents are their own worst enemies, for example JedRothwell , because of their attitude towards critics not to mention, especially in Jed's case, misquoting skeptics.

  • What irks me is people who fail to understand the crucial role of skepticism in scientific progress, and who therefore immediately assume a skeptical point of view is bad.


    What irks me is people who fail to understand the crucial difference between skepticism in which ideas and results are challenged in a respectful, constructive manner, and pathoskepticism in which a coordinated effort is made to stifle progress, squelch any significant funding, attempt to destroy the reputations of other scientists who dare pursue an experiment, and so forth.

  • Which skeptics on this forum are practicing which form? Who is currently (2019) practicing pathoskepticism where it matters?


    I’d say anyone who refuses to acknowledge that it’s Bill Gates’ signature on that LENR funding contract is a pathoskeptic for sure.


    Also anyone who, despite repeatedly being shown the evidence, denies “anybody has tried to stop” research into LENR is definitely a pathoskeptic, or just isn’t paying enough attention.


    But those people who refuse to read published papers, instead preferring to reel off their now-standard I’ll-informed opinions, are clearly not pathoskeptics.


    They’re just idiots.


    And finally, anyone who creates 89 pages of discussion debating the relevance of their guesswork into 15% (or whatever, I lost interest a long time ago) error margins, when the reported output is several multiples of the input, is telegraphing a few pathoskeptic tendencies... to say the very least.


    Any of those sound familiar to you at all, grasshopper?