MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from can

Zhang suggested the following procedure on page 22 of his report:

• Heat above 100 °C
• Apply a vacuum
• Cool down to room temperature
• Admit 1.5 ml D2 to 0.3 MPa (3 bar)
• Let it soak for 24 hours
• Apply 77W power for heat measurements

Apparently the excess heat event was short-lived but repeatable. When it would completely subside, D2 would be removed, then admitted again at 3 bar. The main difference from Mizuno appears to be the operating pressure, but the report does not make it entirely clear if pressure was decreased just before increasing temperatures.

Sounds like these experiments in some implementations are hydrogen and input energy starved. can What you have said strikes a nerve and i think you are very close to a true interpretation. These penitrating "nuclear fragments" that are neutral and dont ionise could be atomic dense hydrogen instead of neutrons possibly the reactions are not as energetic as the fusion assumtion might entail but happen more frequently or at a faster rate. How sure are we that these particles are moving at 10s of MeV? And if they are how sure are we that the energy imparted came from one originating nuclear reaction? Could be collective energies released by multiple reactions being transferred to a few particles by the lattice then ejected. I would propose these non-ionizing neutral particles are a lower energy form of atomic hidrogen that decays because it is only stable in a picoscale bond with another nuclei. Who knows though 😉.

Alan Smith

I was basically suggesting that if the signal isn't actually from RF more efficient detectors could be used, and that perhaps after calibrating the detector energy scale such peaks could turn out to be at peculiar energy levels.

LeBob

The energy spectrum of the signal has been measured under a variety of conditions, as well as signal decay time constants using laser triggering and accurate signal timing with detectors at varying distances along the particle flight path. Magnetic deflection experiments have been performed as well.

The measured signal seems to be consistent with mesons and muons according to Holmlid's experiments. However he's sometimes written that the precursors to these particles are short-lived neutral composite fragments (of 3–6 atoms, apparently, according to page 37/41 here) of ultra-dense hydrogen clusters ejected from the source, which in isolation subsequently rapidly decay to mesons.

To clarify, these short-lived neutral precursors are a separate thing from the neutral kaons mentioned earlier, but there aren't detailed studies about them yet. These are the ones sometimes called "quasi-neutrons" or "quasi-dineutrons" (in the case of D), and could be more similar to what you're proposing in your comment and possibly have other unusual properties (like for example to resemble neutrons—although I'm not sure what this implies exactly—as mentioned in passing here).

However, this is probably starting to get a bit too much off-topic for this Mizuno replication thread.

Quote from can

An alternative but somewhat speculative method could be having a metal plate facing the reactor (but not in electrical contact with it or other parts of the setup) and attempting to measure a signal from it in a similar manner. [...]

For what it's worth, from a preliminary test with a microphone preamplifier I realized that the proposed method acts as a better antenna than I thought and picks up all sorts of environmental electrical noise, mainly the mains hum. So it would probably not work as initially assumed, but I haven't tested it with a beta check source (which I don't have) or under different conditions (e.g. near particularly noisy equipment or perhaps also in front of an electrolytic cell).

With Holmlid's method of using a photomultiplier tube, only electrons energetic enough (emitted by foils in front of it or the metal enclosure from the incident mesons/muons reacting with them) to pass through its glass window will be amplified (as well as photons from the scintillator if/when used). The noise floor with it will be very low, with very little chance for external interference to affect the signal.

EDIT: after another brief test, besides background hum it mostly picks up strong sharp noise like sparks, etc. I guess it's to be expected.

Just a thought but... What would the capacitance of the plate be? Then if you know the likely charge of the object hitting it perhaps you can estimate the voltage of the signal using V=Q/C ? I suspect it might be a bit small? ..or is that not how you think it might work?

Static electricity might be a big issue?

CWatters

It's a 410x460mm, 0.5 mm-thick steel plate (from a computer case) connected through a 10 ohm resistor to the positive wire of the line input of a microphone preamplifier. If I disconnect the wire from the plate, the signal drops to near zero at the current amplification level, so the plate is indeed doing its intended job. I attempted some form of rudimentary electrical insulation with plastic spacers and I could decrease the background noise level by about 8–10 dB(V).

In theory, if the signal across the resistor was large enough to be measured directly (with no amplification) with an oscilloscope, the number of charges collected by the plate could be calculated (1 C = 1 A × 1 s). This could possibly be accomplished also by software assuming that the reference voltage at 0 dB is 1V RMS (see here), but it might not be reliable. One would then have to somehow find a way to determine if the signal is just due to electromagnetic waves or actually particles with mass moving at speeds lower than that of light.

I was suggesting working the numbers the other way around, eg estimate what charge you expect to hit the plate in order to calculate the likely signal amplitude.

CWatters

I haven't been able to readily find information on calculating the self-capacitance of a single plate, which is what I think would be needed here if I understand correctly what you asked. It should be a different value than the mutual capacitance between two plates. The mutual capacitance is what is most often known as simply "capacitance".

https://physics.stackexchange.…of-a-single-charged-plate

https://physics.stackexchange.…-plate-capacitorconductor

Under present conditions I don't think the plate would be building up a charge (e.g. like a rubber balloon). There should be a current readily flowing to the pre-amplifier input and such current could be actually measured with a properly crafted setup. Mine is just a hackjob for testing the idea for potential use as a supplementary measurement in Mizuno-type replications (or any other LENR replication) as I previously proposed; photo below.

The main reason why implied working the numbers the other way around is that I have no theoretical pre-estimation on the number of charges that could be hitting the plate, and if anything that is what I would be trying to find out.

After deriving this value one could extrapolate the number of charges emitted on a full sphere around the target, and assuming that 1 charge=1 particle, the theoretical total energy emitted in the form of nuclear particles, assuming each has at least a few MeV of energy, could be calculated. Without confirming that there indeed is nuclear particle emission going on (unlikely, but one could hope), this would very likely give an extremely optimistic excess power value, though.

In my experience, this type of arrangement will be very sensitive to false detection of RF. Such signals would originate from any sparks or other HV leakage currents in the apparatus, from mains wiring in the premises, or from static discharges in dry ambient air. At minimum, the setup should include a robust and proven Faraday cage around the detection plate, and well shielded cable from the plate to the amplifier front end. Whether charged particles would pass through the cage is another issue needing thought.

Consider that a sensitive audio amplifier with high impedance input might be able to detect an input current pulse of 1 nano coulomb. That would represent 6.24E9 elementary charges, so a pretty significant nuclear event would be needed for this kind of detection to work.

A bit of info here may be useful.

https://electronics.stackexcha…megohm-resistor-be-useful

magicsound

The first thing I noticed when I first tested it was indeed a non-negligible amount of background noise from the mains and other external sources, but I had no idea if the same would also occur on a properly crafted and shielded setup.

The rationale was not that it would detect charged particles emitted from the source, but electrons within the plate material produced by the interaction with otherwise difficult to detect, unusual (or supposed so) radiation/particle types. Of course, one would need to be sure that it's not just intense RF, but it would also not be intended to be the only detection method.

can If the particles have substantial kinetic energy (relativistic betas for example), or they are neutral particles that interact with the plate material, there might conceivably be enough secondary emission electrons to be detectable. This is not thermionic emission, where the high work function of some metals (Cu, Ag, W) is a factor. Instead, it depends on the energy of the driving particle. For some discussion of the effect in different materials, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/…neering/electron-emission

The V2 - V3 *3 = I cleaned up perfectly when I did it there, but it did the opposite at the 50V supply (pic L). I unsoldered one lead of the 100u cap and it returned to flat (pic R).

.

Quote from magicsound

can If the particles have substantial kinetic energy (relativistic betas for example), or they are neutral particles that interact with the plate material, there might conceivably be enough secondary emission electrons to be detectable. This is not thermionic emission, where the high work function of some metals (Cu, Ag, W) is a factor. Instead, it depends on the energy of the driving particle. For some discussion of the effect in different materials, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/…neering/electron-emission

So there is a very real possibility that electron emissions are a significant part of the detected rays and particles. Concidering that a neutron detector or a gamma detector must have a less than perfect margin of error and is very likely to count other particles or interactions in particular situations! If electrons can be flung off the reactor/chamber due to whatever fields and energies are invoked by the reaction how much of the signal on the metal plate set up could that account for?

Quote from LeBob

So there is a very real possibility that electron emissions are a significant part of the detected rays and particles. Concidering that a neutron detector or a gamma detector must have a less than perfect margin of error and is very likely to count other particles or interactions in particular situations! If electrons can be flung off the reactor/chamber due to whatever fields and energies are invoked by the reaction how much of the signal on the metal plate set up could that account for?

This may be a real possibility but it seems to be very unlikely to produce a detectable current flow. In the absence of a polarized electric or magnetic field in the target environment, any electrons liberated from the metallic target would still be bound to the lattice by local fields. Thus there would not be a flow of current away from the target. If the secondary electrons (or ions) were given sufficient kinetic energy to leave the target, a positive static charge on the target would result. In the absence of a return path (by plasma conduction for example), detection would need an electroscope rather than a current detector. So it might be more useful to attach something like this to the plate rather than an audio amplifier. This has the added advantage of immunity to RF and transient magnetic-induced noise.

Because the quantity of electron emission would probably be very small, insulation of the plate would have to be exceptionally good for any detectable charge to accumulate.

Tuesday...working out how long until it settles. Fixed where fan watts was displayed instead of fan amps...

.

I might have had an interesting event in the calorimeter today.
It will be cooling off for a couple hours, and then I can pull the data and confirm.

Must be cold fusion. It's colder at the same input....

.

Hahaha...