Display MoreNo details.
Mizuno is trying to find answers to many questions.
This R20 is neonatal,,months old really..
em effect,,, isotope effect... all will take step by step systematic analysis
a team would be good after replication
Industrial Heat machinations are unnecessary
Instead of my attempting to replicate now, perhaps I should wait until after ICCF in Italy is over and discussed.
Display MoreThe 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
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."
Agree with Alberto.
Comments:
(1) D vs H in this system is not a great control because H2, D2 have very different thermal conductivity. Also H2 will leak through materials faster than D2
(2) adding / removing the active mesh is good control because this has little affect on anything related to heat balance inside/outside reactor. You could arguably compare Ni mesh with Ni + Pd mesh for an even closer control.
(3) Replication is more informative if it is closer to original. Suppose your replication does not work. Is there anything where people can pick holes being "replication pathoskeptics" claiming that you have not got some details correct and therefore it does not work when M's does? I'd suggest check with Jed what are the details of the heater geometry and winding, current (it is recorded) drive type (ac or dc, if ac what type of ac). Replicate as exactly as possible.
(4)* (not needed if no calorimeter) for added safety check with TCs the temperature of any metal leaving the calorimeter enclosure - heater wires, vacuum pipe, etc. Idealy these should be v close to the air temp. If not they represent variation in the calorimetric performance that must be bounded or controlled.
(5) make sure the total deuterium input is bounded small when detecting anomalous heat otherwise high temp air leakage + D2 catalytic conversion on mesh would explain positive results. Even though the pressure is low if the vacuum system maintains constant pressure from a D2 source power out would be limited only by the catalysis (and air leak) rate. Capping the system so it is closed is much more robust because then air leaks will be detected and D2 is clearly bounded.
Display MoreAgree with Alberto.
Comments:
(1) D vs H in this system is not a great control because H2, D2 have very different thermal conductivity. Also H2 will leak through materials faster than D2
(2) adding / removing the active mesh is good control because this has little affect on anything related to heat balance inside/outside reactor. You could arguably compare Ni mesh with Ni + Pd mesh for an even closer control.
(3) Replication is more informative if it is closer to original. Suppose your replication does not work. Is there anything where people can pick holes being "replication pathoskeptics" claiming that you have not got some details correct and therefore it does not work when M's does? I'd suggest check with Jed what are the details of the heater geometry and winding, current (it is recorded) drive type (ac or dc, if ac what type of ac). Replicate as exactly as possible.
(4)* (not needed if no calorimeter) for added safety check with TCs the temperature of any metal leaving the calorimeter enclosure - heater wires, vacuum pipe, etc. Idealy these should be v close to the air temp. If not they represent variation in the calorimetric performance that must be bounded or controlled.
(5) make sure the total deuterium input is bounded small when detecting anomalous heat otherwise high temp air leakage + D2 catalytic conversion on mesh would explain positive results. Even though the pressure is low if the vacuum system maintains constant pressure from a D2 source power out would be limited only by the catalysis (and air leak) rate. Capping the system so it is closed is much more robust because then air leaks will be detected and D2 is clearly bounded.
If it is THz radiation that is the trigger mechanism ( ref earlier work by Hagelstein) then adjusting the heater power should work as control mechanism. Since the heater will partly radiate also THz spectrum.
We should have 2 heaters with specific spectra to enlarge it.
If it is THz radiation that is the trigger mechanism ( ref earlier work by Hagelstein) then adjusting the heater power should work as control mechanism. Since the heater will partly radiate also THz spectrum.
OH yes, when you get a mass spec or RGA (my choice for such things) be sure that your pump will get low enough. You usually will need to get to 10E-4 torr or better to run most of them (to high and you burn out your bulb if not automatically controlled). The turbovac can be fitted with sensors for RGA/s.
If $$ is not critical, you may want to check out bake out systems - if you go with Ideal vacuum co, they can set you up on such things (no, I have no $$ interest with them). a reasonable US supplier of Leybold pumps, other distrib. for EU.
If you don't bake out, try an electric blanket over the system and pump down for a few days on the assembly put in some H2 and pump again to react any O2 on the walls.
Bake out with the heater inside the unit keeping the cylinder insulated in a high temperature blanket (i.e. reflective fiberglass). You just need to get the walls somewhat above 150C while under vacuum and the water should evaporate off the stainless steel and nickel fairly quickly. Monitor the RGA or vacuum gauge and when the vacuum stops going down after a few days, you got all the water and volatiles out. You eventually want to go to the maximum calibration temperature that you expect to run with while producing excess heat so you know there is nothing else to bake off.
Capping the system so it is closed is much more robust because then air leaks will be detected and D2 is clearly bounded.
I do not know whether capping is more likely to prevent leaks. However, if there are leaks, I am sure you will detect them with the recommended configuration.
You have to use a high performance turbo molecular pump and the pressure gauge that comes with it. I don't think you should do this experiment without them. Other kinds of pumps will contaminate the reactor, I think. The pressure gauge will show if there is any air leaking. There is no chance a significant amount of air, enough to affect the result, will leak in and you will not notice it.
Plus, you need a mass spectrometer. You need to sample the gas periodically. You will see if air and water have leaked in.
You cannot do this experiment blind.
Replication is more informative if it is closer to original. Suppose your replication does not work. Is there anything where people can pick holes being "replication pathoskeptics" claiming that you have not got some details correct and therefore it does not work when M's does?
I think it is more likely Mizuno would say: "I have no idea why your replication failed. I do not know enough about why my method works to judge. I can only advise you that the differences might be the problem."
He does know that some differences are more likely to be critical than others. I think we made that clear in the paper.
He would not say "therefore it does not work" but rather, "we don't know why, but there must be a cause, so let us keep it as close to the original as possible." In short, this is more art than science.
Notice that this would be true even if Mizuno's result is an instrument artifact. If it is an artifact, and you stick closely to the original design, you should be able to replicate the apparent heat and demonstrate why it is not real. If you see neither real heat nor artifact heat, you have not replicated.
Note that we do not say, "we are the experts here, so do this our way." On the contrary, we say: "No one is the expert here. There can be no experts yet. Since you are working blind, your best hope of success is to make it as close to the original as you can." This is the same method people used in premodern technology when they made things like metal alloys as close to the original as they could, following a strict recipe. They had no choice. They did not know that atoms exist. They had no precision analysis machines such as mass spectrometers to tell them what the materials were made of. They did not even have thermometers. So, to describe the color of iron when it was ready to be worked, they said things like, "heat the metal until it is the orange color of the setting sun." That is how Japanese swordsmiths described one stage of fabrication. You wouldn't think that would work, but it did.
Jed,
Can you confirm that once deuterium gas (step (1) after "To produce excess heat:" ICCF22) to 100-300 Pa, you then close off the deuterium supply, and then never let in more gas... is that correct?
And that step is the first time the Ni/Pd mesh is exposed to the deuterium gas, correct?
Display MoreI do not know whether capping is more likely to prevent leaks. However, if there are leaks, I am sure you will detect them with the recommended configuration.
You have to use a high performance turbo molecular pump and the pressure gauge that comes with it. I don't think you should do this experiment without them. Other kinds of pumps will contaminate the reactor, I think. The pressure gauge will show if there is any air leaking. There is no chance a significant amount of air, enough to affect the result, will leak in and you will not notice it.
Plus, you need a mass spectrometer. You need to sample the gas periodically. You will see if air and water have leaked in.
You cannot do this experiment blind.
I agree with the turbopump, otherwise can't get to <10^-4 torr and also run risk of oil backflow contamination.
The mass spec will not make the experiment work, but it will definitely help the experimenter debug why it fails. If the experiment fails and there is not a mass spec, it is not the same configuration and the experimenter will not know what was different. I think the whole rig can be built for $10K with reasonably reconditioned used equipment. It could be built for less (i.e. with equipment of used but unknown condition), but the experimenter will spend more time trying to fix stuff.
US20010040935A Patent from 2001: Commercial power production by catalytic fusion of deuterium gas With compare to other cold fusion patents, this one is quite detailed regarding experimental section. Inventor Leslie Case announced at Vancouver, ICCF VII 1993 meeting that deuterium gas could be fused into helium, when contacted with a palladium-on-carbon catalyst, at moderately elevated pressure and temperature. The mass of catalyst (such as in a bed) is first loaded with deuterium gas at a pressure of greater than one atmosphere, and then degassed by lowering the pressure to much less than one atmosphere absolute. This pressure lowering of the catalyst then results in a substantial rise of temperature, caused by fusion of deuterium nuclei which has been allegedly proven by formation of minute amounts He4 (twice as natural background).
Can you confirm that once deuterium gas (step (1) after "To produce excess heat:" ICCF22) to 100-300 Pa, you then close off the deuterium supply, and then never let in more gas... is that correct?
You can let in gas if you want. There is no harm in it. You have to leave the cell connected to the pressure gauge. The pressure is recorded with other parameters every 5 seconds. You also have to leave the cell connected to the mass spec, behind a Swagelok valve. You have to test samples of gas from time to time. The mass spec takes only a tiny amount of gas.
Table 1 shows the results of 111 days running one cell. As you see, the pressure was higher than 300 Pa. The recommendation to keep it at 300 Pa is based on later data. As you also see in Table 1, the pressure varied. The cell was pumped out and then refilled. As the reactant absorbs gas, the pressure falls. When it de-gases, pressure rises. You have to keep track of the amount to measure loading. When you add more gas, you record the event and the resulting pressure to keep track of gas inventory.
If air leaks in, you will know it.
When there is no reactant in the cell, and the Swagelok valves are closed, it can sit for weeks without the pressure changing by even 10 Pa. No measurable amount of air leaks in. If it does leak in, you need a new cell. Or, I suppose it might be contaminant gas coming out of cell walls. In which case you also need a new cell. I suppose you could tell the difference between leaking air and contamination with the mass spec. I couldn't, but I am not skilled in the art, so I could not do this experiment. My role, as I said, is mainly kibitzing.
If you generate the D2 by electrolysis, be sure to use a cold trap.
You might use an oil pump for rough, and some can get to 10E-4 t but if you use them you need a foreline trap, inline molecular sieve filter or something similar.
I personally would suggest you avoid oil based pumps (even high end ones like DUOSEAL) and use a dry scroll for your roughing pump.
If you generate the D2 by electrolysis, be sure to use a cold trap.
Good idea. But I recommend you buy the highest purity ready-made D2 you can get. Mizuno used to buy gas, plus he had a purification system that was a bunch of instruments, pumps and filters attached to a large piece of plywood hanging from the wall. One gadget after another. It looked like a miniature refinery. Which, I suppose, it was.
Maybe that was only needed in the 1980s? He did not bring it from the university lab. He threw out a bunch of stuff. It was a crying shame.
I use a hydrofill station and a hydrostik for such things. (with a cold trap - dry ice acetone)
The hydrostik last through a lot of experiments, cleans up the gas (since it is a metal hydrogen storage item), and limits the pressure into the system. The fill station is a bit expensive but so are a couple of lecture bottles and regulators.
If you don't use a cold trap and don't do a system bake out (or vary long vacuum clean outs) you will see water (and some N2) in the RPG. Also you might notice that the vacuum down of the system kind of stops at around 20 or so C due to water vapor (H reacting with O2 on the SS surfaces). Not to worry, heat the system and pump for a day or two.
Again, be sure to use metal gaskets, conflat or VCR fittings, or you may have trouble getting to 10E-8 torr. High purity bellow valves are preferred.
Good luck and do your homework.
oh yes, "purge" your gas lines with H2 or D2 before you connect to your system to get the air out of the lines before you connect it to the system. But I am likely "preaching to the choir". I hope you already know such things before you start.
I hope you already know such things before you start.
Or, as I put it in the paper, "we hope that people skilled in the art can replicate."
I would consider it miraculous if a person who does not know how to use vacuum pumps, mass spectrometers, and the other gadgets managed to replicate.
I would like to discuss using a mercury drop to evacuate the reactor. A Sprengel Pump.
Two forms of vacuum humans can produce by sucking on a tube are discussed and demonstrated in the video below. I will avoid this method.
Thanks Zephir_AWT very interesting,
As for oldguy or Longview or robert bryant for example you have to fill LF by sharing your knowledges 
thanks again .
US20010040935A Patent from 2001: Commercial power production by catalytic fusion of deuterium gas With compare to other cold fusion patents, this one is quite detailed regarding experimental section. Inventor Leslie Case announced at Vancouver, ICCF VII 1993 meeting that deuterium gas could be fused into helium, when contacted with a palladium-on-carbon catalyst, at moderately elevated pressure and temperature. The mass of catalyst (such as in a bed) is first loaded with deuterium gas at a pressure of greater than one atmosphere, and then degassed by lowering the pressure to much less than one atmosphere absolute. This pressure lowering of the catalyst then results in a substantial rise of temperature, caused by fusion of deuterium nuclei which has been allegedly proven by formation of minute amounts He4 (twice as natural background).
Another way, to save vacations in Hawaii without the need of a super suction pump would be to add LIH in the box.
However could someone have already had this idea ?
Display MoreYou can let in gas if you want. There is no harm in it. You have to leave the cell connected to the pressure gauge. The pressure is recorded with other parameters every 5 seconds. You also have to leave the cell connected to the mass spec, behind a Swagelok valve. You have to test samples of gas from time to time. The mass spec takes only a tiny amount of gas.
Table 1 shows the results of 111 days running one cell. As you see, the pressure was higher than 300 Pa. The recommendation to keep it at 300 Pa is based on later data. As you also see in Table 1, the pressure varied. The cell was pumped out and then refilled. As the reactant absorbs gas, the pressure falls. When it de-gases, pressure rises. You have to keep track of the amount to measure loading. When you add more gas, you record the event and the resulting pressure to keep track of gas inventory.
If air leaks in, you will know it.
When there is no reactant in the cell, and the Swagelok valves are closed, it can sit for weeks without the pressure changing by even 10 Pa. No measurable amount of air leaks in. If it does leak in, you need a new cell. Or, I suppose it might be contaminant gas coming out of cell walls. In which case you also need a new cell. I suppose you could tell the difference between leaking air and contamination with the mass spec. I couldn't, but I am not skilled in the art, so I could not do this experiment. My role, as I said, is mainly kibitzing.
....to add LIH
You really need LiOD of course, easily made by adding metallic lithium to D2O, as Fleischmann and others did.
