MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • I seem to recall you pointing out a figure from F&P which Fleischmann called the most significant event he ever saw or something like that. That was a sudden kick upwards in temperature. But as I recall it started before the external heating was taken away


    There was never any external heating in the heat after death events reported by F&P, McKubre, Tian or Dardik. There was no internal added heat from electrolysis, either. All input power was stopped. (Except perhaps compensation heating with McKubre, which only keeps the cell at a fixed temperature of ~30°C, as I recall.)


    Probably, the data you recall is from Pons et al.: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf



    Miles did report heat after death in a cell with input electrolysis power (not external power): https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMthermalbeh.pdf


    Mizuno's long heat-after-death event may have begun when there was input power, but it is only clear from the pen recorder trace after power was cut. Thermocouples with pen recorders are accurate but imprecise.

  • JedRothwell


    The figure that you mentioned to me appears to be have from a work by Fleischmann. I have found a post of mine that talks about it and where I reconstruct what I think was happening (scroll down to the 4th figure).


    Clearance Items


    I believe that this was originally in the old Atom-Ecology thread. That thread has been closed and sealed by the LENR Forum administrators and the only reason this post survives it that I asked for it, along with some others, to be rescued. It now resides in the Clearance Items thread.

  • Quote

    I cannot help noting that there are dissimilar metals added to the thermocouple circuit at the mini plug connection. This will almost certainly affect your temperature measurements

    Something always important to consider but a careful calibration and blank run should rule it out. There should be no reason why this potential error should be worse for heating from LENR than it is from Joule heating as in a calibration. Is there?

  • Something always important to consider but a careful calibration and blank run should rule it out. There should be no reason why this potential error should be worse for heating from LENR than it is from Joule heating as in a calibration. Is there?


    Do you mean with an envelope calorimeter? With that, a calibration should reveal any problem.


    With direct temperature measurements, any kind of thermocouple may be problematic, and thermocouples with dissimilar metals in the circuit may be worse, because the results are complicated and have to compensated for, or corrected with a lookup table (I suppose -- that's how I would do it). If the LENR uses a large mesh, and if only parts of the mesh are activated, there may be hot spots, which is a problem no matter what, but maybe a worse problem.


    I recommend an envelope calorimeter, as I said before.

  • Something always important to consider but a careful calibration and blank run should rule it out. There should be no reason why this potential error should be worse for heating from LENR than it is from Joule heating as in a calibration. Is there?

    What it adds is potentially another or two thermal junctions per crimp connection, so errors can scale with temperature.


    The colour coded thermocouple mini plugs are designed to be compatible with a particular type/composition of thermocouple wire for each of the two terminals.


    The crimp connectors add zinc (plating) and copper junctions, plus junctions with whatever metal they are connected to on each end of the crimp connector, in series with the primary Seebeck junction. The temperature at the connectors becomes relevant. It may cause little to no effect, or could give strange false signals.

  • An interesting alternative to the nickel mesh used by Mizuno might be this titanium 'expanded' mesh. Not woven like the nickel, so not containing so many 'crooks and nannies' but it is bother reasonably priced, and as everybody knows, titanium loves hydrogen.


    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/0-5…89359b:g:NGgAAOSwDTlc2RGF

    Alan, why use a mesh for this purpose? The mesh plays no role and makes interpretation more complex. A solid sheet, I predict, would produce more heat and be easier to interpret. As for use of Ti, I suggested use of this element months ago on CMNS. However, the Ti itself would not be the site of the LENR reaction. Yes, Ti reacts with D2 but the result would be a powder. The process is observed to cause radiation produced by fractofusion according to Menlove et al. and some heat according to the work of John Dash. A better material, I predict, would be stainless steel.

  • Stainless steel is an interesting choice Ed. Would you expect the Ni/Cr fractions of the alloy to be the ones that cause LENr, or the Fe? When I consider that Mizuno and many others use stainless steel reactors it certainly gives me pause for thought.

  • Stainless steel is an interesting choice Ed. Would you expect the Ni/Cr fractions of the alloy to be the ones that cause LENr, or the Fe? When I consider that Mizuno and many others use stainless steel reactors it certainly gives me pause for thought.

    Alan, I'm applying my theory to make my predictions. According to my explanation, the active sites are gaps or cracks that can be created around inclusions in the Pd as the Pd expands when it reacts with D. The chromium oxide and iron oxides would be scraped off by burnishing and included in the smear of Pd . According to my idea, the substrate on which the Pd is applied plays no role in the LENR process. An active material results only when gaps of a critical small dimension form. Right now these gaps are the result of stress relief when a material reacts with hydrogen. Success requires the required mechanism needed to cause the gaps to be identified and replicated.


    I have proposed how this mechanism operates and can be reproduced using the Mizuno method. In his case, I believe the NiO was deposited in the Pd as inclusions. If this is the case, using Ni with a coating of NiO would be essential. I suggest heating the Ni mesh to 600° C in air before applying the Pd would improve reproducibility. Unfortunately, people keep trying to reproduce exactly what he did, which I suggest is not the best treatment.

  • Quote

    Unfortunately, people keep trying to reproduce exactly what he did, which I suggest is not the best treatment.

    Let me follow the reasoning. Mizuno (as reported by him and JedRothwell ) constructed a reactor which outputs 500W well measured and another similar reactor which outputs 3kW roughly estimated. These have not yet been replicated outside of Mizuno's lab, the 3kW machine was taken down for study and even Mizuno can't get the same results again, if I understood Rothwell. And we believe Mizuno accomplished what he and Rothwell reported. And the best way to proceed is to take off on a completely different path? Based on a theory? Respectfully, that makes no sense whatever.


    It's as if the Wright Brothers had said in 1903, "The current airplane design we have flies but not very well. The engine is reliable but not very strong. We won't replicate it carefully and maybe later try some cautious improvements. Instead, we think we should switch the propulsion to rubber bands. And we need some large holes in the wings to make the craft lighter."

  • Let me follow the reasoning. Mizuno (as reported by him and JedRothwell ) constructed a reactor which outputs 500W well measured and another similar reactor which outputs 3kW roughly estimated. These have not yet been replicated outside of Mizuno's lab, the 3kW machine was taken down for study and even Mizuno can't get the same results again, if I understood Rothwell. And we believe Mizuno accomplished what he and Rothwell reported. And the best way to proceed is to take off on a completely different path? Based on a theory? Respectfully, that makes no sense whatever.


    It's as if the Wright Brothers had said in 1903, "The current airplane design we have flies but not very well. The engine is reliable but not very strong. We won't replicate it carefully and maybe later try some cautious improvements. Instead, we think we should switch the propulsion to rubber bands. And we need some large holes in the wings to make the craft lighter."

    7 of 20 - Every action of nature is controlled by a mechanism that science tries to understand. When a new is behavior was first observed, the action seems to make no sense until the controlling mechanism is understood. Using your analogy, the Wright Brothers learned that successful flight required creation of lift and use of control to cause the airplane to go where intended. Until these mechanisms were understood, flight was not reproducible. Simply replicating what other people were doing was not effective. In the case of LENR, we are simply reproducing what other people did without knowing what unique condition must be present in the material. Consequently, the effect is not reproducible no matter how exactly the experiment is duplicated. In contrast, once the basic mechanism is known, the method can be modified to make the effect reproducible using many different treatments. Only the critical treatment becomes important, which is what I'm trying to identify. My idea might be wrong but it has been very successful in guiding my research. Perhaps, if you make an effort to apply the idea, perhaps you also will have better success.


    In any case, failure to replicate any action of Nature simply means the important variable is being ignored and not caused to function as required. As scientists, our job is to identify the important variable, in this case to cause the Mizuno effect to be reproducible. As Einstein said, simply repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. We need to find out why the method can not be reproduced, not keep doing the same thing.

  • These have not yet been replicated outside of Mizuno's lab, the 3kW machine was taken down for study and even Mizuno can't get the same results again, if I understood Rothwell.

    Well, it wasn't totally "taken down." He has another reactor and mesh running, which is producing 108 W, as I showed in Slide 9 here:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasedea.pdf


    108 W is not exactly the same results, but it ain't bad. It should convince anyone as readily as the previous result. I pointed this out to you several times. You seem to ignore it. Also, you seem to have no suggestion as to how Mizuno might understand the reaction or replicate the material except by examining it with SEM and mass spectrometers.


    As it happens, the situation is similar to what the Wright brothers did in the summer of 1904. In December 1903 at Kitty Hawk they flew successfully 4 times. Later that afternoon, the airplane was caught in a gust of wind, turned over, and smashed. The engine was destroyed. They debated whether to burn it up in a bonfire, or box it up and ship it to Dayton. They decided to ship it, but they never used any part of it again. They built a new airplane which was different from the Kitty Hawk Flyer in many ways. It was improved, with better control. And here's the part you should pay close attention to:


    The new Flyer did not work. It wouldn't take off. They called in reporters to watch a flight, and it did not even begin to work. So, they did exactly what you are warning us they should not have done.


    It turned out, the main reason it did not work was air density. The air in freezing weather at sea level in Kitty Hawk was much denser than the air in Dayton in summer. Also, there was a strong headwind at Kitty Hawk on Dec. 17. The problem wasn't the machine so much as the environment. They couldn't control the weather or make it freezing, so they built a weight and derrick to augment the engine and give the airplane a push on take off, and they were soon flying again. But it took a while before they could fly as well as they did at Kitty Hawk.


    The point is, they could not do the same experiment again. It was physically impossible. They couldn't recreate winter weather, sea level, and a strong headwind. Even if they had brought back the Kitty Hawk Flyer intact, it would not have flown in Dayton. They had to change the experiment and incorporate the weight and derrick. They had to improve control by reducing the surface area of the elevator, reducing responsiveness and overcontrol. (That was rather similar to your imaginary suggestion of adding large holes to the wings.) If they had not done this, they would have crashed, the way Wilbur crashed a few days before the first successful flight at Kitty Hawk.

  • It seems to me that the least controlled/controllable aspect of attempts to replicate Mizuno's results is indeed the Ni/Pd nexus. Different meshes, different physical and elemental compositions; different compositions of Pd; compounded by the inherent and inevitable variations of manual rubbing and scraping.


    We can hope that SEM and other analytical techniques can shed some light, but that may not happen until more "working" meshes can be looked at. Will there be any chance of eventually comparing existing ones with that being used at the University of Science in Sapporo?

  • It seems to me that the least controlled/controllable aspect of attempts to replicate Mizuno's results is indeed the Ni/Pd nexus. Different meshes, different physical and elemental compositions; different compositions of Pd; compounded by the inherent and inevitable variations of manual rubbing and scraping.


    Yes, I think the materials are the biggest source of variation, and failure. That has been the case with cold fusion from the start. Materials are the key.


    Will there be any chance of eventually comparing existing ones with that being used at the University of Science in Sapporo?


    I expect they will get around to doing that. I don't know when, but I gather they are preparing a new set of experiments so it may not be long. I expect they have better, up-to-date in-house instruments than Mizuno has. Plus their instruments were not smashed in the earthquake. They are working with an engineering company that produces advanced analytic equipment (https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/). They manufacture photo electric emission microscopes (PEEM).

  • It turned out, the main reason it did not work was air density. The air in freezing weather at sea level in Kitty Hawk was much denser than the air in Dayton in summer.


    Here is a page from Caidin's book "Kill Devil Hill" describing the air density problem. I believe they got off the ground before September 1904, but not often. "In their first dozen takeoffs in 1904 they managed only once -- out of all their attempts -- to achieve a distance of 300 feet." A failed launch almost killed Orville later that summer. This was not a replicatable, controlled experiment. Granted, they did know far more about the engineering and control mechanism than Mizuno understands.


  • And the best way to proceed is to take off on a completely different path? Based on a theory? Respectfully, that makes no sense whatever.

    Interesting to see this discussion between you two. It is an almost carbon copy of an exchage of views Dr Storms and I had a few months ago.

    Storms' experiments and his theories derived therefrom may well lead him to criticise the individual details of Mizuno's R20, eg sheet being a better material than mesh, but in the absence of said mechanism, no one is to say that any approach is better or worse. Before the conference, AlanG was looking at his own prepared mesh of the Mizuno type, and made various relevant discoveries. One of which was that the prep. method may well cause a scraper type of edge on the flatted areas which tends to cause a particular physical form of the Pd. This may be highly relevant to the D2 absorption process, or it may not, but it is the sort of thing that may well be involved in TM's success. Sheet would not allow this mechanism to take place, for example.


    Storms made the point that what we need to do is replicate what Mizuno brought about, not necessarily what he did. For me, that comment is right on the money, but right now, the only thing we know for sure, is that Mizuno did achieve a result doing what he did with the materials he did it with. So the clue stands a better chance of being discovered there, than looking elsewhere.

    According to my idea, the substrate on which the Pd is applied plays no role in the LENR process.

    If I rember correctly, reading the relevant Mizuno paper, he calculated, and stressed the point, that the amount of Pd present could only have absorbed a fraction of the D2 that his inventory showed was absorbed. He reckons that the Ni must, therefore, have played a major role in its absorption. It may be possible that there is more than one mechanism which can be successful. This has been accepted for years in the parallel (and much better funded field) of corrosion mechanisms. That, for me, would be another reason for looking for a successful one in the wake of a successful experiment rather than elsewhere.


    Regarding the mechanism, it has been so successful in illuding us that it may well not be possible to find it by stringing an evidence based theory together. I have been designing a series of experiments to examine, in high resolution, as big a spread as possible of the parameters likely to have been involved in TM's success. I eagerly await the analysis results and hope to see some SEM images of the meshes soon. In the light of AlanG's work, I think this may well allow us to learn a great deal about what went on in R20. I think this sort of approach may well fit in between R20 and future replications of its success. In the light of his own inability, to date, to replicate his results, it seems even more apparent that TM hit something highly sensitive in just the right way. I also think that there could have been some kind of coupling of parameters. This would help to explain the difficulty in finding a mechanism from a string of single factors.


    As Einstein said, simply repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. We need to find out why the method can not be reproduced, not keep doing the same thing.

    Is it not rather ironic that there are many people repeating the same action, and going quietly insane because it won't achieve the same result! :)

  • Did not Mizuno have failures as well as successes? If he used the same mesh and Pd, that might point rather firmly to the method of loading the mesh with Pd.

    Perhaps secondarily to any precleaning/ oxidation-during-storage issues.


    (I'm assuming the same or identical reactor(s) used. If not, a certain degree more mootness must apply to the my comments above! It is VERY difficult with so many factors to keep strict replication, let alone to get round to varying just one at a time)