MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

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

    That's funny! But they have produced more than a few watts. The PPPL produced 10 MW, albeit only for a fraction of a second. I think it was 6 MJ total. They said it was "enough for the needs of 3,000 homes," which is sorta true, if your goal is to irradiate 3,000 homes with neutrons for half a second. I guess that would be a public service. It is unclear who "needs" it. Does neutron radiation kill cockroaches? I think homeowners would prefer electricity.


    Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
    The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) operated at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) from 1982 to 1997. TFTR set a number of world records,…
    www.pppl.gov


    QUOTE:


    In December, 1993, TFTR became the world's first magnetic fusion device to perform extensive experiments with plasmas composed of 50/50 deuterium/tritium -- the fuel mix required for practical fusion power production. Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7 million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of more than 3,000 homes. These experiments also emphasized studies of behavior of alpha particles produced in the deuterium-tritium reactions. The extent to which the alpha particles pass their energy to the plasma is critical to the eventual attainment of sustained fusion.

  • Consequently, in 1994, TFTR produced a world-record 10.7 million watts of controlled fusion power, enough to meet the needs of more than 3,000 homes.

    The problem with this brand of physicists is that they can solve complex math problems but cannot cook an egg....

    10.7 mio watts is 10'000kW what serves about 2.5 homes/year. But I doubt that they produce 10.7 mio watts because they certainly did not subtract all input energy. So net will be minus - 100MW... So they eat the yearly current for 25 homes...

  • In a broader sense, it's also akin to the Mizuno results because it's a gas loading experiment,

    Mastromatteo looks to be very active

    -extensive R&D experience..not just CF..

    -seems to have access to finance without manufacturer's yen

    here is a previous presentation conclusion earlier this year..laser stimulation


    • La spiegazione delle osservazioni qui descritte sembra ancora lontana:

    • L'attivazione casuale della superficie del materiale attivo indica una bassa probability delle condizioni di «innesco» delle reazioni (perche solo alcuni punti e non l'intera superficie?);

    • Alcuni stimoli (LASER) sul materiale aumentano la probability di reazione sul Pd. apparentemente no su Ni o Costantana (test attraverso la finestra ottica non hanno dato esito);

    • La potenza specifica stimabile nell'ordine delle decine di KW/Kg


    The explanation of the observations described here still seems far away:

    • The random activation of the surface of the active material indicates a low probability of the "trigger" conditions of the reactions (why only some points and not the entire surface?);

    • Some stimuli (LASER) on the material increase the probability of reaction on the Pd. apparently not on Ni or Constantan

    (tests through the optical window failed);

    • The specific power can be estimated in the order of tens of KW / Kg

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    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 can tell you I am working on publishing some work in a major high impact journal and the referees would not bother to return my emails if I followed this level of writing. Real science is hard. Really hard. Rewards come to those willing to put in the hard work and doing things right.

    Sounds like a good initiative!


    I have lots of questions to ask about your work. Since late August I have been holding off asking them because I know that putting together something like this takes a lot of bandwidth.


    Please signal when you feel that you have enough free time and energy can answer specific questions. Maybe put something up on one of the Mizuno replication threads indicating you are ready.

  • Daniel_G


    I'd like to ask about the properties of the incubator-style reactor system you have been using over the past year or so. Can you share data characterizing the relationship between input power and steady-state temperature that you see in the absence of any source of LENR heating? I would hope for something across the entire range of temperatures you have been working at.


    Also you have previously described the temperature-dependence of excess heat activation as exponential ... is this still your opinion and, if so, how have you investigated this issue?

  • Yes the data I presented at ICCF24 was from an external replicator. Our own data clearly shows the exponential relationship. I have loads of data for the calibration. When I get a few minutes breathing room I intend to upload all the raw data to google sheets and then share the link here. I am absolutely swamped for the next 30 days so if I forget to do this, please bother me to do what I said. That data should answer many questions but the external data is not clean enough to show the exponential excess heat vs. temperature relationship. I hope to repeat that within this year with a much higher powered reactor and better S/N ratio with the aim to publish in a major journal. None of this type of data is proprietary so I am happy to share and receive criticism (hopefully mostly constructive!)

  • First from all thanks to mizunotadahiko and Daniel_G for all the details.

    We were able to replicate the effect with 100% reproducibility and for nearly 3 years produced reactors that are giving very good results.

    Because of simplicity and current energy crisis we developed methods that - I believe - will yield good results for acceptable amount of money.


    In the attachment I want to share key findings that are responsible for the most failures of replication. I hope this will once for all help with successful replications.


    We can also offer shipping fully prepared meshes worldwide for your own evaluation in quantity 1 - 1000 (per package) for your own reactor. If you will proceed according attached instructions it should just work.

    The mesh production is semi-automatic with a homogenous surface to obtain as identical results as possible. Of course no more hand work is used there, instead various machines are used to modify the surface. Unfortunately description of the process can't be revealed now, but you can examine our meshes freely.

  • I have to ask Daniel_G if he and mizunotadahiko agree with shipping the meshes or there is something why we can't do that.

    The meshes were tested at 3 different places, unfortunately I can't share any particulars about our labs, companies that we are working with.

    To make it clear, we are manufacturing a very different reactors for profit, basically from 2017, yet my experiments started somewhere near 2015. And work continue until now.

    However I can share all particulars what you need to buy to make Mizuno style reactor work, at least when time will allow.

    No expensive equipment is needed. Those that already tried to replicate will likely need nothing else.

    The most errors are from my point of view caused during preparation steps and even more during first active run. Likely some already achieved excess heat, but were unable to measure it.

    For those that dont believe in LENR in general I can share steps which will render significantly elevated radiation readings with the same mesh - in range of several MeV. But these steps are destructive for the mesh itself.


    Fully prepared mesh cost is 210 USD/pc + shipping cost worldwide. For a bigger quantities such as 100pcs or more the price can be lowered.

    Price is mainly dependent on Palladium cost which increased significantly.

    Manufacturing time is around 10 days at the moment.


    Please note shipping already used mesh is not good idea if you need it for obtaining excess heat. As soon as you introduce hydrogen once it is better to not change anything in the reactor.


    I also have to confirm there is nothing wrong in the preparation steps of shared Mizuno recipe, however results can vary significantly and many factors will play a role.

  • Thanks Thomas

    Sounds great

    Best of luck with "to be determined"

    For ICCF25...?


    "What was achieved?
    COP 2 at 40W input power – internal temperature around 400°C
    COP 2+ at higher temperatures – to be determined
    Deuterium 99,8% from LindeGas was used
    Results were repeatedly replicated"

  • I can't speak for Mizuno, but this data was published to encourage replication and publication of results. There are no IP issues with other researchers sharing materials for research purposes. It would be appreciated if replicators published and shared their results, this is how normal academic research works.

  • For those that dont believe in LENR in general I can share steps which will render significantly elevated radiation readings with the same mesh - in range of several MeV. But these steps are destructive for the mesh itself.

    I am always interested in data around the observed radiation readings in more detail combined with any chemical composition data (and perhaps even on isotopic level) very much, to see if I can explain those with the help of the SAM model. We need that kind of detailed data in order to learn about what transmutations are taking place in relation to the structure of the nucleus so in the end we can be more predictive. Obviously I do believe LENR to be real.

  • We can offer free samples to MFMP or other known groups if they are interested. With provided meshes it is possible to achieve significant COP. There is nothing else needed than vacuum the cell, introduce Deuterium and start the heater.

    We are not a scientific group that have time to present any rigorous results, so I hope that other can do so.

  • I appreciate that you are short of time, as we all are. Can I ask how you measured radiation inside the steel reactor -presumably at 400C - also how you use an IR camera to detect hot spots on the mesh? These are valuable techniques that all experimenters would find useful.

  • We never measured radiation inside the cell. It was always monitored through thick SS walls for all reactors. For some we implemented thin mica window which will not absorb low energies. The hole for mica window was milled in the SS lid and sealed with a rubber o-ring.

    However the radiation spikes that you can obtain even through the thick SS can be measured with anything low cost such as GMC-600.

    The most equipment here is Ludlum brand. We measure Alpha, Beta & Gamma, Gamma, Neutrons, each has its own counter and/or scintilator.


    For IR Camera we developed own software to sense all regions of interest. We can see the lowest temperature, average, highest and at any point of the reactor. From left, right and front.

    We are using Optris IR cameras.


    For experiments where reactor is fully closed we have also thermocouple hub for 12 sensors that can send data in 50Hz rate.


    Very important finding when not using a calorimetry - you need other heat source around the reactor, as well as inside. Reactor walls will cool down the meshes significantly. Or you need at least good insulation. Lower temperature = lower COP.