MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Alan Smith

Paradigmnoia i: I would be very tempted to use a bunch of thermocouples in intimate contact with the reactor wall, held down with soft copper straps or similar. But that is a purely personal preference.

dartin : I like Alcatel pumps - robust and reliable. Here's one well within your budget, https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Alc…-Controller-/223564557803

Thermocouples are great. I was only commenting on IR cameras, ect. Thermocouples should be used to verify the IR anyway.

Application Note Number 21: What is the Difference Between a Helium Leak Detector and an RGA?

https://www.extorr.com/

products are not cheap -- you can try also eBay of course

Quote from Shane D.

natural inclination to remain in the shadows

But is cool and comfortable in the shadows.

Most of the people who post here are not replicators, they are just arm chair talkers.

This tube looks very good. Sealed on one end.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/316L-…ure-wet-cell/153120244143

dartin, I have made this suggestion a couple of times about how to check if the Mizuno Cell is producing excess heat. It is similar to what you intend to do, and I hope you find it useful. This is my suggestion:

"I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside it and the dummy does not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter."

Quote from dartin

JedRothwell wrote:

The trick is to find out what parts of the surface are activated. Perhaps an IR camera could do this.

Should I include a window in my unit so that we can see where it is glowing?

As mentioned in Mizuno's earlier device "Kovar glass window on the left-hand side of the reactor, and a

pressure gauge; and a mass spectrometer valve and the gas inlet valve is on the right-hand side"

Should I also include the mass spec valve?

Which pressure gauge should I use? https://cascadesciences.com/sh…acuum-gauge-kf-16-flange/

I am not as cost sensitive as others and I want the best quality that will accomplish the task.

My budget is $50,000 for the replication. I intend to make two units and use D2 in one and H2 in the other as a control. I have no plans to do calorimetry until I see a difference in the heat output of the two units.

Any comments on this approach?

Which vacuum pump is recommended?

How about a mass spectrometer? Any recommendations? https://www.coleparmer.com/i/e…filament-tcd-115v/3400911

Display More

Quote from Alberto

dartin, I have made this suggestion a couple of times about how to check if the Mizuno Cell is producing excess heat. It is similar to what you intend to do, and I hope you find it useful. This is my suggestion:

"I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside it and the dummy does not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter."

MFMP has done these kinds of tests before. The problem is that cross-talk can affect the results. You would need to try to thermally insulate the reactors from one another so that heat from one isn't being transferred to the other, and vice versa. This is harder to do when you have shared plumbing, shared wire leads, etc.

This may be the final configuration. Smaller. Drill one cap twice. Gaskets needed.

Comments and critiques welcomed.

Quote from nickec

This may be the final configuration. Smaller. Drill one cap twice. Gaskets needed.

Comments and critiques welcomed.

Display More

I will warn you that most KF fitting use rubber gaskets. I don't think they will take the 350+C

Conflat fittings use Cu gaskets.

I may weld one end. Copper is a must. That is to say, Melting and leakage must be avoided while maintaining cleanliness.

For a quick overview of vacuum flanges, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flange

This is also instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high_vacuum

Quote from RobertBryant

Marakhtanov,2018 observes sub MP melting of nickel hook

in incandescent lightbulb.

Explained by quantum electronic ricochet.??

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

LENR?

It does not seem that the growths have been confirmed to be nickel rather than tungsten evaporated from the filament being deposited on the hook.

We will have to move these posts to continue further, since there is supposed to be no discussion here.

Tungsten filaments evaporate during the entire life of the bulb. The tungsten is supposed to re-deposit back on the filament, but does end up on the glass also.

Edit: So if the evaporated W goes back on the filament, and some on the glass, I don’t see why it wouldn’t end up on the filament supports also, especially near the filament where it is supposed to go. Ending up on the filament support is preferable to the glass, from a long term brightness standpoint.

Quote from Shane D.

Agree. Tell me where?

I dunno. I don’t care enough about this bulb subject to get into a fresh thread about it.

Maybe someone can open up a bunch of burnt out bulbs and electron microprobe the filament hooks, and report back to us one day.

I think that LF has all interests to hearing you more often.

To go back to IRs and their influence, I think, you have to pay attention to mesh size that should be important.

these intertwining should be in relation with Celani's knots, I think. EM effect ?

To finish mesh orientation with respect to reactor axis also should be considered because phonons behaviors.

I don't know if there are any such main details in Mizuno's report ?

Quote from oldguy

But is cool and comfortable in the shadows.

Most of the people who post here are not replicators, they are just arm chair talkers.