MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • Apologies to RB, whose post ended up at the top of this thread. Since a cannot post above it, and want this info from Jed at the top of the thread, a hijack seems to be the answer. This thread is meant for Mizuno replication posts only, so for convenience I am qoiting Jed's post with links from the top of the first Mizuno announcement. Alan


    JedRothwell posted


    "In the upcoming ICCF22 conference, Tadahiko Mizuno will report increased excess heat with nickel mesh coated with palladium. The results are dramatic, so we decided to upload a preprint of his paper. To understand the calorimetry, you have to read his ICCF21 paper. Unfortunately, the ICCF21 Proceedings have not yet been published. So I decided to upload preprints of both papers:


    ICCF21: Mizuno, T. and J. Rothwell, Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel (preprint). J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2019. 29


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf


    ICCF22: Mizuno, T. and J. Rothwell. Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel (Preprint). in The 22nd International Conference for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-22. 2019. Assisi, Italy


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf


    Here is the abstract for the latest paper:



    Abstract


    We have developed an improved method of producing excess heat with nickel mesh coated with palladium. The new method produces higher power, a larger output to input ratio, and it can be controlled effectively. With 50 W of input, it produces ~250 W of excess heat, and with 300 W it produces ~2 to 3 kW. This paper is a comprehensive description of the apparatus, the reactant, and the method. We hope this paper will allow others to replicate the experiment.


    ?thumbnail=1



    JR's post ends here, below isd robert bryant 's work



    The material specs of the reactor body are important for some chemical reactions


    elevated temperatures (100−250 °C) under reducing atmosphere (hydrogen gas at 800 psi) leads to the formation of insoluble inorganic precipitates,

    identified as mixed chromium oxides by scanning electron microscopy X-ray fluorescence (SEM-XRF).

    A catalytically active metal surface is generated,

    Ǻ thick chromium oxide layer that normally passivates 316 Stainless Steel (316SS) against corrosion is etched away,

    and the reactor body itself becomes an active hydrogenation catalyst. The effect is specific to aqueous acidic medium.

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cs200053h


    I'd would stay with 316 rather than 304..even though this is not a chemical reaction

    just in case the molybdenum is a factor.

  • but basically Mizuno started this line of research as a hybrid between dense hydrogen and P&F

    Jones Beene is in error.. Mizuno has been doing this line of research before holmlid's dense hydrogen postulate.


    There is nothing special about 630 ev in Mizuno work

    He has mentioned ev's in 2017


    The reaction activation energy Ea was calculated on the basis of the linear region

    between 100 and 523◦Cin Fig. 40 to be 0.165 eV/K/atom"


    In addition Beene claims without substantiation

    Basically – this effect in highly unlikely to be based on nuclear fusion"


    I have read similar claims from skeptics on this forum. This is an AESOP fable.


    The large heat is very likely to be based on nuclear fusion.

  • So I do not see how it could affect the reaction.

    I think Wyttenbach may be hinting at a long range magnetic effect that decreases rapidly over 0.5 cm.

    The different metal nuclei ( some metastable) Fe.. Ni Cr.. Mn Mo Cu Co in the reactor body may be interacting with Pd/Ni(Fe, Cu, Mn) in the mesh.


    It may be important to keep the mesh very close to the reactor body.

    This proximity effect is easy to check out... it may have been already.

  • what sort of pressure relief

    It probably doesn't need any pressure relief

    since the pressure is only 300 Pa.. compared to 101,300 Pa for atmospheric pressure.

    the volume is about 5 litres.


    the mass of deuterium fuel gas is very small ... only 2.8 mg.


    to reach even 1 atmospheric pressure

    the temperature inside

    would need to be 97,000 Centigrade.

  • Thanks for the gauge information. I understand the device needs no pressure relief if it's operating normally under a partial vacuum. The question referenced what might happen in the very improbable event that something lets loose inside the reactor, for example an unexpected release of extremely large amounts of heat that converts some parts to a very hot vapor or gas. In that case, it occurred to me that the sealed strong stainless steel container would become a bomb. After all, the reaction and its properties are, as per what was written, entirely unknown. It would seem reasonable enough to add some sort of burst disc or other safety device. Just curious but it's OK. I recall LENR experimenters tend not to use safety barriers and like to live dangerously.

  • All quite encouraging, I must say; and with this amount of detail, how different from the "Rossifuscation" we are used to!


    A couple of questions, if I may...


    Was the query about the length of the sheath heater resolved? (It seemed that the one specified was longer than the reactor, so there was a question about whether it was bent for use)


    I see that the reactor is closed at each end with a plate bolted to the flange of the reactor body. Is this a gas-tight, metal-to-metal seal, or is any form of sealant or gasket used?


    In the same vein, how are the entries of the heater and the gas-loading/deloading pipe made gas-tight? Is any sealant used?

  • Nigel Appleton


    Jed has said he will find out precisely hos the heater is bent to fit inside the reactor. Re your other queries, the ends of the reactor are precision-machined high-vacuum sealing flanges, Possibly with soft copper gaskets for this temperature range, As for the cable pass-throughs, I'm sure they are sealed, but have no other details.

  • How many times have we been down this road of exciting new results only to discover it's either a mistake or can't be replicated?

    I do not think that has every happened with with such good calorimetry and such a high signal to noise ratio. It has happened with marginal results. Also, this material is similar to the Pd on Ni materials that Takahashi and others have been using for several years. They have reported success. The material from Ames Nat. Lab. worked particularly well. So this is not a unique or one-off result without support elsewhere in the literature. It is a variation, different enough that it needs replication to confirm, but not completely different.


    The extent of "difference" is a matter of opinion rather than a hard and fast standard. I would say, for example, that Swartz's materials and conditions are more removed from other results than this one is, so his claims need confirmation more than Mizuno's.

  • Alan Smith

    your english is too english, i didn't well understood, if heater is really folded ? in this case, how long is it ?


    Nigel Appleton


    Jed has said he will find out precisely hos the heater is bent to fit inside the reactor. Re your other queries, the ends of the reactor are precision-machined high-vacuum sealing flanges, Possibly with soft copper gaskets for this temperature range, As for the cable pass-throughs, I'm sure they are sealed, but have no other details.

  • The given size for that model is 2 meters long., since the reactor is NOT 2 meters long, it must be bent somehow. I was curious as to the shape, but Jed hasn't AFAIK come up with an answer.


    No answer yet. Mizuno has been very busy. I think the sheath heater is flexible but stiff, so it holds its shape after you bend it.


    It seems like a bad choice to me. I would prefer a rod. I asked Mizuno why he selected this. He said, "because it was the cheapest one."


    Don't forget, it has to be high temperature resistant. You don't want it breaking down and leaking gas into the reactor.


    Someone asked me why you need a 500 W heater when the heating is much less. Two reasons, I think:


    1. In one test he did input 500 W.

    2. You need 500 W to calibrate with an empty reactor. You should calibrate across the full range of output power expected from the test.

  • We want quality rather than quick


    We want signal rather than noise.

    SOT do you have some quality signal somewhere


    The noise is ok for an epic movie "COLDFUSION NOW WON..

    earthquakes, recrimination, deaths, explosions, bigOIL, big FISSION,bigCOAL, bigFUSION

    later .. SOT do you want credits for "screwed over by M.N":)

    but right now you are confusion, SOTfusion

    We could say the same here



    Not an empty box almost

    .. 3 mg deuterium, 50 mg Pd, a heater at the centre,

    mesh abutting the inner wall

  • It is clear to me that posters have not read the latest preprint provided in the first post of this thread.


    Many questions are answered in it. Many questions are created by it.


    You can help answer these questions by making a spreadsheet to accompany the spreadsheets here.



    I will produce a labeled, to scale, unambiguous diagram of the reactor. This work has already begun.



    This drawing is a slice of the R20 Reactor. Blue is Ni Mesh. The central object is the sheath heater. All sizes and positions from the Preprint Paper.


    Read the papers.

  • The central object is the sheath heater. All sizes and positions from the Preprint Paper.


    The sheath heater is 2 m long so it must be folded, or perhaps twisted together. I do not know how it is configured.


    You can see from Fig. 12 that the stack of three meshes placed in the reactor is higher than shown in this schematic. They do not lie flat, as you see in Fig. 11.


    Honestly, such a simple schematic serves only to give the reader a general idea. The general idea being: "this is incredibly simple." The photos and text should tell a reader who is skilled in the art everything he or she needs to know. I hope.


    More complex reactors might be devised for this experiment, but I advise against it. Not until you replicate. Do not put a thermocouple in the reactor, or any sort of detector. Every hole in the flange you make and every gadget you stuff into the reactor is a potential source or trouble. Keep It Simple.