MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • You seem to have a good grasp about current subjects, however how do you explain that an eminent replicator as magicsound can't reproduce Mizuno's announced breakthrough ?


    I have no earthly idea. You would have to one of them visit and spend a month in the lab working hands-on to find out. Maybe it would take six months. Or a year. Or never. That is the nature of scientific research. You are dealing with the unknown. You are doing things that no one in human history has done. It is like being the first person to cross the Bering straits to enter North America. You cannot possibly know what is ahead. I am no expert, but even if I were John Bockris reincarnated I could not possibly say why this replication is not working (so far) without going there and looking at the physical evidence. You cannot understand an experiment by speculation.


    Sometimes, if you are very skilled, experienced and lucky, you can replicate from a description. Sometimes you can replicate with help. It seems Dr. Saito in Japan has replicated, mainly with equipment and advice from Mizuno. I do not know how independent it is. I only know that Saito's calorimetry is better than Mizuno's. Roughly a hundred professional electrochemists were able to replicate Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 and 1990. It took them between 3 months and year, depending mainly on the palladium. Either they got lucky, or Uncle Martin gave them a sample of the Johnson Matthey palladium he recommended. Those people had been doing electrochemistry for decades. If they hadn't, they would not have succeeded. Richard Oriani told me that in his 50 year career, this was the most difficult experiment he ever did.

  • You want to rub both sides. It seems not enough Pd is being deposited even when you do that. It may be rubbing off more Ni than Pd going on.


    Has Mizuno considered Edmund Storms' suggestion of using a metal sheet instead of a mesh (see source 1 and source 2) ? It could increase the amount of Pd deposited due to the larger usable surface area compared to a mesh and likely higher tolerance to a stronger burnishing force (or at least, in my own explorations on the process using sheets I could put all my weight on them—but different materials were used and no excess heat testing was performed in a gaseous cell).

  • The transfer of Pd onto the Ni mesh has been a problem for all the replication attempts disclosed here. I spent several hours at it preparing for the MR1 test, and only removed 10 mg from the Pd chip in the process. The resulting sample I took for analysis looked quite different from the test pieces I analyzed in September of last year. For that earlier test, the same mesh and Pd chip were used, yet the deposits I saw then showed shavings of Pd collecting at the sharp edges of the sanded flats.


    What could have changed in 6 months? Could the Pd chip have self-hardened from ambient temp cycling? Or maybe the foil-covered plywood backing material used for the MR1 prep prevented the sharp edges from forming. The earlier sanding test in September was done on a sheet of plate glass, and I just received a similar 1/2 inch thick piece to fit in the jig for the next run. Further testing will be informative.


    Jed, I have asked before as have others. What is the provenance of the Pd rod used by Mizuno? If it's a remnant of the magic J-M material, why are we bothering with attempting replication. This is vital information and should be disclosed to save wasted effort and resources.

  • Could the Pd chip have self-hardened from ambient temp cycling?


    Hi Alan. This is known behaviour for some metals -post annealing they recover their crystal structure, some slowly over a few years and some much more quickly. I have no idea if this is the case with Pd, but re-annealing might be in order.

  • Hi Alan. This is known behaviour for some metals -post annealing they recover their crystal structure, some slowly over a few years and some much more quickly. I have no idea if this is the case with Pd, but re-annealing might be in order.


    Yeah, that's what I was wondering. I've seen in some welded steel parts that filing the weld immediately works pretty well but is more difficult after a few days.

    I should be able to remove the Pd chip from the holder - it's only attached with superglue.

  • I have been interested in other methods of adding palladium nanoparticles to metal substrates for some time . There's a lot of literature on the topic. Burnishing to me always seems a bit too muck like a craft-related process and too variable. Here's a chemical method of producing nano particles in a carrier material, the mesh would be coated with this and then various methods are employed to remove the carrier leaving (hopefully) the nano-particles stuck to the mesh,


    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nn1032664


    But the method I like best, and have been experimenting with for some time with other metals is this - and I have has success in making some very interesting materials indeed.


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…Electrochemical_Synthesis

  • Would an electroplating work?


    Mizuno used to apply Pd with an electroless plating solution, but eventually settled with the burnishing process as it was cheaper (and possibly more effective).


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


    Quote

    With electroless deposition a palladium film is plated on the nickel mesh surface with an electroless deposition solution of palladium of Pd-10 (High Purity Chemical Co., Ltd.), Pd concentration 10 g/L. The plating conditions are: 40 to 60°C, pH 1.5. [...]


    In the tests reported in this paper, the nickel meshes were prepared by rubbing rather than electroless deposition, to save money. The plating solution is expensive.

  • I am wondering about something else, if using a dielectric layer between mesh and reactor wall would help- ceramic paper for example. Electrical isolation of the active material -this is just a hunch- might change things.


    In his previous two reactor iterations, Mizuno reported explicitly connecting the reactor walls to ground, with the mesh electrically in contact with them. That was when he initially glow-plasma sputtered Pd on the mesh (as the cathode), and the process apparently produced more excess heat (up to 100% more than the input power) than electroless or manual Pd deposition techniques (up to 15% more than input power), but took much longer to complete. From this information, electrical isolation does not seem to be a critical factor for high excess heat.


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


    Quote

    All have palladium rods in the center. The rods are 250 mm long, wound with palladium wire (Fig. 2). This is the positive electrode. The negative electrode is a nickel mesh which is fitted against the inside wall of the reactor, and connected to ground (Fig. 3).


    Quote

    The newer method is to directly apply palladium to the nickel mesh, either by rubbing a palladium rod onto the mesh, or by electroless plating , rather than waiting for glow discharge to gradually sputter the palladium onto the mesh. This is simpler and quicker, taking only about a day, but so far it has only produced 10–30 W, or 5–15% of input power, and up to 40 W in one instance.


    The electrode configuration was the same as with the old method, with a central rod electrode, and a mesh electrode placed against the reactor wall and connected to ground. The reaction gas was usually deuterium.


    The latest version that people are attempting to replicate produced more excess heat despite the lower-efficiency method due to different reactor–calorimeter design allowing the mesh to reach higher temperatures, apparently an important variable for excess heat production. Storms also thinks so, FWIW.


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


    Quote

    The only major change to the experiment since our last report has been the design of the reactor. The reactants and methods have not changed, so we believe the reactor design is the cause of the improved performance.


    [...]


    We recommend air-flow calorimetry for this experiment. The reactor walls must be hot for this reaction to occur. In previous experiments we used water-flow calorimeters with cooling coils up against the reactor walls, or cooling coils with insulation between the coil and the wall. Both types removed heat too quickly, reducing or eliminating the reaction. The calorimeter is an integral part of the experiment. It can interfere with the results, or enhance them

  • Dr Richard

    According to Mizuno, that's because it was more complex, took a very long time to complete and it kept more equipment busy for a longer time, thus decreasing the amount of experimentation that could be accomplished for a given time interval.


    I would like to point out that the rubbing (burnishing) method gave results comparable to electroless deposition, in absolute terms. However, given that the mesh surface area that burnishing can cover is more limited compared to electroless deposition (which instead tends to be fairly homogeneous), I would say that it might be a somewhat more effective method.


    Apparently, burnishing is a novel deposition technique that has not been attempted before Mizuno, so it's interesting on this regard (and also suited for quick and cheap improvisation/experimentation), but it does not seem on its own to be the key reason for him reporting large results.

  • Well [email protected] why change to rubbing it on when the sputtering worked so well?


    It did not work well. It took weeks or months, and sometimes it seemed to remove more material than it added. Mizuno did not realize the heat was originating from the sputtered nickel. When he realized this, he began plating the nickel directly, which is accomplished in a few hours, not months.


    I would like to point out that the rubbing (burnishing) method gave results comparable to electroless deposition, in absolute terms.


    There is some indication of this in the data. Not much. He did not try electroless deposition many times. If many people replicate it would be worth trying this again.


    I think there is some indication that burnishing works better because it roughens the surface of the nickel. Maybe it makes the cracks that Ed Storms thinks are necessary?

  • JedRothwell


    we can see by reading you aren't an engineer, just a reporter, a good reporter.

    In the same way, I should be unable to write sheets and sheets as you know.

    Regarding your answer, I can no longer follow, we were not talking about nickel coated with Pd ? Now you are talking about nickel deposited ?


    Also, Mizuno talks about economic considerations to justify his manual depositing Pd method on Ni Mesh.

    It's a mistake, in my opinion, that you and he didn't fully explain advantages and disadvantages of each method.

    I know at least one French team that had the financial means to do what they wanted. Also, if it were better to do a cathodic coating, that would not have stopped them . Myself, a tiny replicator, I had no difficulty anymore making Pd samples sputtered onto Ni mesh for free.


    3rd point, you talk about the imprecise concept of rough nickel, you should know that both plating and sputtering are capable of creating very fine dendrites up to 10nm in diameter. XHs seem to come this way ... in this case.


  • There is some indication of this in the data. Not much. He did not try electroless deposition many times. If many people replicate it would be worth trying this again.


    The previous paper provided in tables 1 and 2 a similar number of tests for either method; I was basing my opinion on this data.



    JedRothwell wrote:

    I think there is some indication that burnishing works better because it roughens the surface of the nickel. Maybe it makes the cracks that Ed Storms thinks are necessary?


    With burnishing there's more opportunity for inert impurities/oxides to get incorporated into the deposited layer (which would favor crack formation according to Storms' theory), and to apply Pd or other hydrogen-reactive metals with greater force (potentially creating more stresses) and more randomly (= higher chances one will get lucky, not knowing the exact conditions that favor excess heat generation). Electroless deposition will tend to produce a uniform (more than with standard electrodeposition), clean deposition layer.

  • can

    you wrote an interesting reply but you erased it, it doesn't matter, i going to answer you :)

    I agree that we must respect formers because they necessarily know more things than the younger ones .. however, they know more things true as false too.

    1989 to 2020.....

    Now, if we try to do an overview who kwows where are KWs on the market currently ??

    Rossi remains an easy target to justify the general fiasco, right or not ?

    If you go to ICCF you will see a lot of preachers, people who write books, who do theory, people like your favorite Holmlid for example, but I haven't seen the KW nowhere ?
    Storms has written interesting books which inspired me to introduce myself in the field but Rossi was inspired by another post 90 years old, Arata to do his Ecat Ht and not by Storms, you have to know.
    From Mizuno side, a lot of teams tried to follow this god of junk and apparently fell into the trap of his business.
    In fact, it seems he has the same strategy as Rossi, strange because anti Rossi a.......s don't notice this.
    he announced, through his sales representative JedRothwell that he reached KW.

    He gave part of technical informations in order to catch small replicators "ground" both with rich big structures while his official businessman (who is not JedRothwell ) signed NDAs with lastest in order to know all tricks to reach the same level of results.

    What else ?

  • In fact, it seems he has the same strategy as Rossi, strange because anti Rossi a.......s don't notice this.
    he announced, through his sales representative JedRothwellthat he reached KW.


    Well, the same strategy has been going on going on for 30 years, ever since the first F&P experiments.

    No kWs since then. Only announcements based on misinterpreted artifacts, accompanied by the pressing invitation to replicate these alleged results.

    Nobody in the field noticed it. Did anyone?