MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Daniel_G

I’m not sure what you are asking for. You are asking for the individual time vs temp curves for each input power? Yes I don’t mind to publish those data here but it’s a ton of data. Let’s ask Jed if we can upload to LENR-canr and post a link here.

First, let me thank you for your willingness to be transparent and open regarding your results!

I particularly had in mind the calibration data that you measured for your incubator-style calorimeter. In other words, the steady-state relationship between temperature and input power that characterizes the calorimeter. The individual time-temperature curves would be great as well.

More globally, if Jed sees fit to use part of his LENR-CANR library as a repository for this sort of data, that would be a hugely positive development!

Quote from Daniel_G

Yes I don’t mind to publish those data here but it’s a ton of data. Let’s ask Jed if we can upload to LENR-canr and post a link here.

You can upload ANYTHING you like to LENR-CANR.org. If the file is large, you can transfer it via Google or one of these file sharing services. I have an extra large Google drive that I can give access to.

I convert everything to Acrobat format. * I have the fully paid-up Acrobat program, so I will do all conversions.

* As one expert put it, Acrobat is where documents go to die. But it is universally readable no matter what your host computer language is. Formats such as Microsoft Word often have unreadable portions and formatting problems, especially the equations.

I am thinking of csv files for the numerical data.

Quote from Bruce__H

I particularly had in mind the calibration data that you measured for your incubator-style calorimeter. In other words, the steady-state relationship between temperature and input power that characterizes the calorimeter. The individual time-temperature curves would be great as well.

The individual curves asymptotically approach equilibrium temperature over time. Once they reached steady-state we took a range of 200 samples and performed an average and standard deviation calculation to arrive at each data point. SD of <0.5C was typical.

I challenge any other type of calorimeter to provide this level of precision coupled with the ability to operate for indefinite time periods that are necessary for publication quality LENR reactors. I am not all knowing but after extensive investigations and discussions with leading calorimetry experts and authorities we came to the conclusion about this method.

Good news. We have another successful Mizuno replication reported today by Ubaldo Mastromatteo at Assisi (IWAHLM). Celani (part of the team along with Lorenzetti, and Correoni) was in the audience and frequently provided additional information. The reactor they used was a replica of Mizuno's R20.

In the question period afterwards, Bob Greenyer gives some very interesting advice on how the Russians increase the excess heat in such a set-up, and then measure the strange radiation.

Quote from Shane D.

Good news. We have another successful Mizuno replication reported today by Ubaldo Mastromatteo at Assisi (IWAHLM). Celani (part of the team along with Lorenzetti, and Correoni) was in the audience and frequently provided additional information. The reactor they used was a replica of Mizuno's R20.

In the question period afterwards, Bob Greenyer gives some very interesting advice on how the Russians increase the excess heat in such a set-up, and then measure the strange radiation.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

I am watching it now, but I would say that is not a Mizuno replication per se, they are re cycling a reactor they previously used to attempt to replicate Mizuno. This one is with powdered Nickel / copper and other ingredients in the powder.

I think the experiment of Ubaldo Mastromatteo is more close, indeed very similar, to those that Akihito Takahashi reports in his ResearchGate page ( https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akito-Takahashi-2 ).

I am happy to see his results, as he took great care with the calibrations and the thermometry, we can be sure it is indeed Excess Heat, and in that sense, at least for me, it's closer to a first analog result of the NEDO project nano powders, outside Japan.

In a broader sense, it's also akin to the Mizuno results because it's a gas loading experiment, so is not entirely wrong to think is a sort of Mizuno modified analogue.

Quote from RobertBryant

Mastromatteo results... xs heat ~300KJ/mole " = ~3 eV per atom? ... for those who like ev;s,,

assuming it is a mole of H atoms

I think is a good result because the methodology is very meticulous to rule out errors. Not MegaJoules tho.

Quote from RobertBryant

Mastromatteo results... xs heat ~300KJ/0.0022mole"

= ~680 eV per atom? ... for those who like ev;s,,

assuming it is a mole of H2

I seem to remember somene talking about ~1000ev from the formation of dense hydrogen..

something to chew on...

Display More

Probably the material is still inneficient in the expression of active sites.

Took another look and I stand by my assessment, this was the first independent replication of results like the ones reported by Takahashi, with nano powders. It has been said more than once and by several people that the Japanese NEDO program has excellent materials but that they are not sharing much about how they are made. We know they have also learnt how to re activate these nano powders after their excess heat capability declines with use.

This stems from the issue that at higher temperatures the nano powders tend to sinter, and the whole point of the specific formulation of the Japanese nano powders is to avoid that.

Mastromatteo is working with a powdered metal that is still not as good as the Japanese nano powders, and it also looses ability with repeated use. But it shows clear excess power, which is the take away from this presentation.

Quote from Curbina

this was the first independent replication of results like the ones reported by Takahashi, with nano powders.

Sort of. Takahashi was a replication of Arata. Arata started with pure Pd-black (black = nano-powder, like lamp-black, which is soot). Arata later went on to the complex mixture that Takahashi uses. Brian Ahern replicated Takahashi fairly closely with material made at a U.S. National Lab. The same method of manufacturing was used. I do not know if the alloy was exactly the same, but it was close. This has not been published as far as I know.

Quote from Curbina

Probably the material is still inneficient in the expression of active sites.

Yes. So you cannot estimate the number of electron-volts per unit of mass. You have no idea how much of the metal is participating in the reaction.

Quote from JedRothwell

So you cannot estimate the number of electron-volts per unit of mass.

You can give a good estimate based on total energy out and number of atoms in the reactor powder.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You can give a good estimate based on total energy out and number of atoms in the reactor powder.

That is a minimum bound estimate. You know the minimum energy per atom is: atoms of metal divided by electron volts. Say that comes out to be 680 eV/atom, as estimated above. Based on observations by Pam Boss, Ed Storms and others, it seems likely that only a small fraction of the metal reacts. Less than 1%, I think. If it is 1%, that would be 68,000 eV/atom.

Actually, a nuclear reaction produces millions of electron volts per reaction. That's a sure thing. So it is probably a lot more accurate and informative to work back the other direction, and go from electron volts to estimate the number of hydrogen or deuterium atoms participating.

The report is ~300 kJ/0.0022 mole of metal

A D+D reaction produces 24 MeV. H+H produces 1 MeV. Say these reactions are 1 MeV per pair of H atoms. 0.5 MeV per atom.

Okay, 300 kJ = 2e+24 eV. Each hydrogen reaction produces 500,000 eV, so I guess that is ~4e18 hydrogen atoms. I suppose the metal is usually intact after a reaction, and one metal atom can catalyze more than one reaction. The reaction spots are concentrated in small areas, so I suppose that happens frequently. That reduces the total number of metal atoms to some number less than the number of hydrogen atoms that reacted, to some number less than 4e18. Let us simplify and assume each reaction was done by only one metal atom. The Storms hypothesis would say that's completely incorrect, but let's go with that for now.

0.0022 moles = 1e22 atoms in the metal, divided by 4e18 hydrogen atoms that reacted = ~1 in 3,500 metal atoms. or 0.03%.

Right? Someone should check my arithmetic.

Cold fusion is now on the stage to improve heat generation per volume of the reactor and it must be easy to use for hours application, thus, hazardous gas’s of D2 is not fit to house use.

Cold fusion is not on the replication stage.

Because plasma fusion and laser fusion seem to be successful.

They have very high heat generation at the sacrifice of huge reactors with much safer than atomic power plant.

What about cold fusion?

If cold fusion reactors to be small to install the house, it may be useful. But power generation can cover the house electricity.

I hope venture company think this way.

Quote from nkodama

Cold fusion is now on the stage to improve heat generation per volume of the reactor and it must be easy to use for hours application, thus, hazardous gas’s of D2 is not fit to house use.

Only a tiny amount of D2 gas would be needed for a cold fusion generator or automobile. It could easily be contained in a sturdy tank a few centimeters long. An automobile will use about 1 g of deuterium per year. Even if the tank is breached and the gas leaks out, it not likely to explode. It will rapidly mix in the air to such a low concentration it cannot explode. An explosion from natural gas, such as when a stove flame goes out, or from butane or lighter fluid are far more dangerous than a small deuterium or hydrogen tank. These things are common in many houses today. They will be less common with cold fusion, so the danger of fire will be reduced.

I doubt that a home generator would need more than 20 g of deuterium. That is enough to form 100 g of water, or 5 moles. The heat of formation of water is 285,820 J/mol so that's 1.4 MJ. Gasoline has 45 MJ/kg, so that's how much 31 g of gasoline or butane produces. Granted, setting fire to 30 g of gasoline or 3 broken butane lighters indoors would be hazardous, but if the flames were from a gas that leaked out of a broken tank over several minutes they would probably not cause much damage.

If cold fusion devices needed kilograms of deuterium gas, that would be another matter.

Quote from nkodama

Because plasma fusion and laser fusion seem to be successful.

They are not at all successful! They produce massive doses of radiation and there is no practical way to generate electricity with them.

Quote from nkodama

If cold fusion reactors to be small to install the house, it may be useful. But power generation can cover the house electricity.

Decentralized small cold fusion generators would be far cheaper than power company generators, even if both used cold fusion. The power company needs a distribution network. That costs 1/3rd to 1/2 the cost of electricity. It will not be needed with small cold fusion generators.

Quote from nkodama

Because plasma fusion and laser fusion seem to be successful.

Yes these produce a deadly shower of high speed neutrons and afford a large gym hall of equipment for a few watts...

Only stupid people do classic plasma fusion. Z-pinch could be more economically but as said this also means more deadly neutrons...

So forget and T,D hot fusion except you are SUN... that mainly uses the carbon cycle (that of course is just the excited intermediate...

Homlids advanced fusion :: https://sci-hub.se/10.1063/1.3514985