Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • 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.

    That sort of thing could be important. That's why we need to look at a mesh that worked.

  • 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.


    I totally agree IHFB, but you also need to extend that to cover pathobelief.


    Now, w.r.t my contributions to the field and these discussions, did you have anything specific I could actually respond to?

  • I would like to share what I posted on the CMNS forum.

    According to my theory, the nanocracks remain stable only as long as they contain D or H atoms. Once all the hydrogen leaves the sites, they will grow bigger and become inert to LENR. Consequently, replacing D2 buy Ar would be expected to stop LENR. This process results from a purely conventional chemical effect. Adding Ar would prevent the D that fused from being replaced, thereby causing the cracks to become too large. The same effect would result if the material were heated in vacuum at high temperature. Once large cracks form, the material can not be reactivated because these weak regions will release all the stress caused by deloading, thereby preventing reformation of nano cracks. This effect would be especially rapid in this configuration because so little Pd is present where some stored D could replace the D until that supply had become exhausted. Unlike a Pd sheet, this configuration will rapidly respond to external conditions.


    I predict that if the D2 were replaced by H2, the excess power will be rapidly reduced by a factor of 10. But if the H2 is then replaced by D2, the excess power will gradually return. Tritium will be produced during the process.


    As for the effect of too much pressure, I propose too much D2 pressure would result in too much stress, thereby causing the gaps to become too wide to support LENR. The effect of pressure is much greater for this configuration compared to a Pd sheet because so little Pd is available in which the stress must be dissipated.


    I suggest useful information might be revealed if people would try to apply their own favorite theory to explain the observed behavior in a logically consistent way and make testable predictions as I have done.

  • I would like to share what I posted on the CMNS forum.

    According to my theory, the nanocracks remain stable only as long as they contain D or H atoms. Once all the hydrogen leaves the sites, they will grow bigger and become inert to LENR. Consequently, replacing D2 buy Ar would be expected to stop LENR. This process results from a purely conventional chemical effect. Adding Ar would prevent the D that fused from being replaced, thereby causing the cracks to become too large. The same effect would result if the material were heated in vacuum at high temperature. Once large cracks form, the material can not be reactivated because these weak regions will release all the stress caused by deloading, thereby preventing reformation of nano cracks. This effect would be especially rapid in this configuration because so little Pd is present where some stored D could replace the D until that supply had become exhausted. Unlike a Pd sheet, this configuration will rapidly respond to external conditions.


    I predict that if the D2 were replaced by H2, the excess power will be rapidly reduced by a factor of 10. But if the H2 is then replaced by D2, the excess power will gradually return. Tritium will be produced during the process.


    As for the effect of too much pressure, I propose too much D2 pressure would result in too much stress, thereby causing the gaps to become too wide to support LENR. The effect of pressure is much greater for this configuration compared to a Pd sheet because so little Pd is available in which the stress must be dissipated.


    I suggest useful information might be revealed if people would try to apply their own favorite theory to explain the observed behavior in a logically consistent way and make testable predictions as I have done.

  • 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.


    It is true that in any normal scientific situation such minute analysis of results from a paper is just silly. Why?

    • Results are replicable, the person who generates them will repeat and correct any errors.
    • Results follow patterns (Arrhenius curve or whatever) that make it much more obvious when there are mistakes or artifacts


    In the case of Mizuno LENR results neither of these things applies, AFAIK. At the point that these results are replicable - even at the level of a given Mizuno working reactor being testable by an independent 3rd party - everything changes. Had Mizuno given a characterisation of the temperature vs power out from his reactor it is likely that would be the focus of criticism, e.g. "It looks like a calorimetry artifact because power out varies linearly with temperature uplift from ambient". The point is that such a relationship would give a lot of additional info.


    Also note that 70% of that 89 pages is repeating points for others not understanding points made, rather than presenting a critique. 10% of it is RB presenting in technicolour past posts from THH with commentary. Etc. Neither of those activities are down to skepticism of any stripe.


    THH

  • I understood that Lenr progress seems to endanger your work also for your colleagues, what makes you say that ?


    I have explained this before, but since you asked 'politely' I will do so again.


    I personally study metal hydrides. I work at a National Lab that is co-located with the DOE's tritium production facility, and our job is to ensure tritium production for the DOE is uninterrupted and error-free. At various times, I personally study Pd, Pd on SiO2, Pd alloys, Zr, Er, Ti, U (infrequently these days), La-Ni-Al alloys (which after air exposure form surface Ni crystallites with La2O3), mischmetal-Ni-X alloys, and almost anything else that takes up hydrogen. Our processes primarily use Pd on SiO2, Pd-Ag hydrogen purifiers, and La-Ni-Al alloys.


    We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, making sure we have no accidental releases of any hydrogen isotope in all our facilities, including R&D facilities, due to the concern of hydrogen fires and radiation release and uptake with respect to tritium. Our two biggest concerns in that arena are (a) runaway heaters, and (b) fires. If LENR exists, it represents something not in our considerations, but something that is clearly in the (a) category. We need to know if it is a threat,m and if so, to build that into our safety envelope.


    Further, with respect to me or a colleague doing F&P type work, we really hate explosive mixes (which is another common concern of our due to the potential for accidental air ingress into our processes) and we will only deal with them after very detailed safety considerations, which take a lot of time and money to complete. Therefore it is very unlikely I can even do this type work myself. On the other hand, with enough justification it could be done. So, justify it for me, beyond reasonable doubt. Hint: Ignoring my concerns will not help justification. I know all of you don't care what I or we do here, but you asked why. So I answered, again. Politely.

  • We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, making sure we have no accidental releases of any hydrogen isotope in all our facilities, including R&D facilities, due to the concern of hydrogen fires and radiation release and uptake with respect to tritium.


    Tritium is unwanted in LENR. Most likely generated in highly loaded Pd H/D LENR even with pure D what is sometimes as bad as 99.95%. But in low pressure reactions the intermediate formation of D*-H* is much less reactive as it needs a cluster to get over the activation barrier.

  • kirkshanahan

    I have explained this before, but since you asked 'politely' I will do so again. we started badly :)


    I personally study metal hydrides. I work at a National Lab that is co-located with the DOE's tritium production facility, and our job is to ensure tritium production for the DOE is uninterrupted and error-free. At various times, I personally study Pd, Pd on SiO2, Pd alloys, Zr, Er, Ti, U (infrequently these days), La-Ni-Al alloys (which after air exposure form surface Ni crystallites with La2O3), mischmetal-Ni-X alloys, and almost anything else that takes up hydrogen. Our processes primarily use Pd on SiO2, Pd-Ag hydrogen purifiers, and La-Ni-Al alloys. Lenr community has spent a lot of time and money on hydrides, today, I don't think it remains the good way anymore.


    We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, making sure we have no accidental releases of any hydrogen isotope in all our facilities, including R&D facilities, due to the concern of hydrogen fires and radiation release and uptake with respect to tritium. Our two biggest concerns in that arena are (a) runaway heaters, and (b) fires. If LENR exists, it represents something not in our considerations, but something that is clearly in the (a) category. We need to know if it is a threat,m and if so, to build that into our safety envelope.yes, of course will see on lithium batteries's side that ignite for no reason :)


    Further, with respect to me or a colleague doing F&P type work, we really hate explosive mixes (which is another common concern of our due to the potential for accidental air ingress into our processes) and we will only deal with them after very detailed safety considerations, which take a lot of time and money to complete. Therefore it is very unlikely I can even do this type work myself. On the other hand, with enough justification it could be done. So, justify it for me, beyond reasonable doubt. Hint: Ignoring my concerns will not help justification. I know all of you don't care what I or we do here, but you asked why. So I answered, again. Politely.

    I am also interested about space's things and if I was the Von Braun 2.0, I will be particularly vigilant about this point, about a trip to Mars, remember Apollo 13.

    Too few results, so too few accidents ..

    Apart from irradiations, Marie Curie hasn't encountered too many problems, it became complicated from 17 12 1938, there will inevitably also a "17 12 1938" concerning Lenr field 8)

    Once our experiment went from 300 ° to 650 ° in 4s, 5Kw, it stopped because a fitting broke in relation with an impressive pressure rise.



  • Our two biggest concerns in that arena are (a) runaway heaters, and (b) fires. If LENR exists, it represents something not in our considerations, but something that is clearly in the (a) category. We need to know if it is a threat,m and if so, to build that into our safety envelope.


    If the existence of LENR implies major safety concerns in your workplace, wouldn't it be safer to assume that the LENR results are real, rather than assume that they were due to calibration errors etc? How is LENR not in your considerations when you have been exposed in the field for so many years? To your credit you are at least here keeping track of the latest results.

  • If the existence of LENR implies major safety concerns in your workplace, wouldn't it be safer to assume that the LENR results are real, rather than assume that they were due to calibration errors etc? How is LENR not in your considerations when you have been exposed in the field for so many years? To your credit you are at least here keeping track of the latest results.


    It's all about what to do if I assume as you suggest. I would think if I thought LENR did what you all say, I should embark on that effort I indicated to fold that thinking into our safety envelope, wouldn't you? That involves lots of people. You all here are correct that the mainstream thinks cold fusion is junk science. All those people are mainstream. If I say "We need to fold LENR into our safety thinking:", they will ask "Why?" If I don't have a real good justification that shows I have heavily substantiated concerns, they will say "CF is junk science. Go away." If there are mundane chemical/physical means to get the signals you all claim are LENR that haven't been fairly explored and eliminated, I don't have heavily substantiated concerns. 'They' will say "The signals are likely errors. prove they're not." (if they get past the 'Go away' part, that is...).

  • You all here are correct that the mainstream thinks cold fusion is junk science

    The two university scientists.. recently ..one in Australia and one in NZ that I have talked to believe that the LENR effect is real

    but that the limitation on technological application is that it is difficult to reproduce..


    They do not think that LENR/ cold fusion is junk science..to use KS's rhetoric.


    Perhaps Kirkshanahan's idea of mainstream are derived from his decades

    experience and livelihood of working in the DOE facility on the River Savannah

    where the Savannah nuclear environment streamlines scientific thought.

    Perhaps DOE thinking dominates parts of the US?


    Robert Godes recenty reported a far better reception to his reactor in Australia

    than in the US.

  • Shanahan's concern about unexpected energy release in his deuterium or tritium supplies and experiments reminds me of the old story about the chicken and the pig. When one considers a dish of ham and eggs, the chicken can be said to be involved but the pig is committed. In this sense, most skeptics and believers on forums are somewhat involved but Shanahan and the crew that works with the hydrogen isotopes are truly committed.

  • I am so far almost dissapointed that neither THHuxleynew nor kirkshanahan have started the dissection of Zhang’s calorimetry to prove he is “just another moron seeing excess heat where there’s none”.


    Since his calorimetry shows zero excess after a short initial transient it seems quite accurate? That is, unless these systems have some sustained temperature-dependent LENR reaction as Mizuno observed.


    The low (max 10%) transient is anomalous, but not large. Perhaps some surface change that is triggered by temperature? Perhaps some effect on the outside of the reactor? The dependence of this effect on the gas and sequencing of historic bake events would give insight but we just don't have enough information yet for anything replicable to be discerned.


    Ed'd suggestion that an H2 run be compared with a corresponding D2 run is good. Alternating several times with all other conditions identical to check whether this is not some sequencing effect. The predicted difference there would make these results more interesting.


    Bottom line: this transient is not what Mizuno observed, and these results do not replicate his. We appear to have two distinct anomalies/mistakes/errors (take your pick in each case).


    THH

  • 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.


    Also note that 70% of that 89 pages is repeating points for others not understanding points made, rather than presenting a critique. 10% of it is RB presenting in technicolour past posts from THH with commentary. Etc. Neither of those activities are down to skepticism of any stripe.


    The thing is, Huxley, the source* you quote to argue that the flow in Mizuno’s pipe is less than he reported, itself contains no estimates of the magnitude of error in its own formulas. Which, seeing as how it’s essentially just a rehashing of empirical science from the 1800’s, is likely pretty large.


    I think it’s well understood that a pathological skeptic is always minimally sceptical of his own claims, or the claims of others that agree with his preconceived notions...


    So yes, it does seem a little suspicious, that when comparing two somewhat incompatible results, there is an immediate assumption that all the the error is inherent in one, whilst the other is considered a work of such high accuracy that even the mere thought that it may contain its own error boundaries apparently doesn’t cross your mind?


    Classic!


    * http://www.itcmp.pwr.wroc.pl/~…bulent_flow_Modelling.pdf