MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

I am interested in the Mizuno experiment but concerned that similar experiments are being called replications.

I don't know if I will be working with others to do a replication, but I can't afford to do it on my own. Perhaps I can do something similar as more info comes out...

https://bit.ly/30ob3qa

skip

Quote from skip

I am interested in the Mizuno experiment but concerned that similar experiments are being called replications.

I am very concerned about this. I have no objection to people doing other experiments. If they want to try a flat plate instead of a mesh, or a ceramic reactor instead of a steel one, that's fine with me. I have heard from people who want to try those things. These other experiments are quite different from Mizuno's work. I would call them "inspired by" Mizuno's experiment, rather than "replications." I doubt these tests will work. There is a gigantic parameter space to be searched through, and most of the time, most experiments fail, so these will probably fail as well. No one will have any idea why.

All that is fine! Failed experiments are always okay. Exploring a gigantic parameter space and taking shots in the dark are fine.

HOWEVER, here is what I fear. I fear these people will then tell the world, "I did a Mizuno experiment replication and it failed, which calls into question the original experiment." No, it doesn't. It does not tell you a damn thing about the original experiment, any more than the peculiar airplanes shown here tell you something about the Wright brothers:

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

Some of those airplanes were invented by smart people such as Alexander Graham Bell. They look comical to the modern eye, but I am not inclined to make fun of people for getting it wrong. However, the Wrights published a patent in 1906 telling everyone how to replicate their airplane, and Mizuno published a complete recipe last month. So if you make something quite different, that's your choice, and it is on you. Don't call it a replication. Don't ask Mizuno or me why it failed. Believe me, we will not have the slightest idea. (Okay, he will have more of an idea than I do, but a "large parameter space" means there millions of ways to do it wrong.)

With enough funding and research, the parameter space will shrink dramatically. By "enough funding" I mean a few billion dollars. An amount that will pay back every day or so for the next several hundred years if this works.

Quote from Curbina

Also, much thanks for sharing the LENR-Aviation paralell!!! I took a quick read of it and found It was really informative and completely appropiate in many more ways than I thought before!!!

As Mark Twain probably did not say: "History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."

As George Santayana definitely did say, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I'd suggest the following protocol for would-be replicators:

(1) work out initial equipment/design

(2) check with other including Mizuno what are the possible differences from original, how they might be controlled

(3) obtain results

(1) and (2) should be done together in an attempt to get the most faithful replication.

This will have the advantage that:

(a) If Mizuno's method does work as the published results indicate, the replication is more likely also to work

(b) If the replication does not work, this will be clearer evidence that the original did not work (and possibly even an indication of the error mechanism)

I'd suggest the key things still not clearly published (maybe they have been and I've not seen) are:

(1) How is the heater driven/shaped (duplicate to knock on head ideas of e-m stimulus which I view as highly unlikely but others here don't).

(2) What is the exact methodology of the tests. Is the reactor capped from the vacuum pump (with pipes disconnected). Or are pipes still connected. How is the pressure stabilised during the test (or maybe it is just left to change as determined by the reactions?

(3) Obviously replicators would prefer to replicate the better results R20. The methodology here is assumed (in the paper) similar to R19, but it would be worth checking any differences, and also any differences in reactor design. Overlooked things here can make all the difference, whether what is seen is artifact or extraordinary reaction.

I'd also like to point out that there is over this no difference between skeptics like me who expect that some artifact will be found, or that Mizuno's results will just be a one-off completely unreplicatable curiosity, and those with a more positive frame of mind who are pretty sure Mizuno's device does work and therefore have some confidence that an accurate replication will also work. The same care in replication is needed to show either possibility.

THH

Well done Alan, always interested ..

Quote from Alan Smith

Only 7 left now...

Ok i bring these all seven..

yes i will confirm at home this evening thanks..for all..

Quote from THHuxleynew

What is the exact methodology of the tests. Is the reactor capped from the vacuum pump (with pipes disconnected).

It is connected as I said. That is clear from the paper and Table 1, which shows the pressure, and shows changes in the pressure. If it were disconnected you could not read the pressure, or pump out the gas, or add new gas.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'd also like to point out that there is over this no difference between skeptics like me who expect that some artifact will be found,

If you "expect" some artifact then you are not a skeptic. You are a true believer. You have not found any reason to think there is artifact, and neither has anyone else. The results have a high signal to noise ratio. As shown in Fig. 5, the outlet air is 10 deg C hotter with excess heat than during a 50 W calibration. That is confirmed with other thermometers and thermocouples. It cannot be a mistake. It is not possible the fan is running that much slower; it would stop running completely, and burn. The flow calorimetry result is backed up by the fact that the reactor temperature during a 50 W calibration is 27 deg C, whereas with excess heat it is 380 deg C. So your "belief" is entirely based on faith, without a scrap of evidence to support it, and it is contrary to many physical laws. This is the opposite of skepticism.

If you were to say "I suppose there an artifact" I guess that would be skeptical. I would call it cynical or unreasonably pessimistic. But to "expect" an artifact where there no evidence for one, in a conventional instrument, using techniques that are employed by hundreds of thousands of HVAC engineers every day, is to "expect" a miracle.

Quote from JedRothwell

It is connected as I said. That is clear from the paper and Table 1, which shows the pressure, and shows changes in the pressure. If it were disconnected you could not read the pressure, or pump out the gas, or add new gas.

If you "expect" some artifact then you are not a skeptic. You are a true believer. You have not found any reason to think there is artifact, and neither has anyone else. The results have a high signal to noise ratio. As shown in Fig. 5, the outlet air is 10 deg C hotter with excess heat than during a 50 W calibration. That is confirmed with other thermometers and thermocouples. It cannot be a mistake. It is not possible the fan is running that much slower; it would stop running completely, and burn. The flow calorimetry result is backed up by the fact that the reactor temperature during a 50 W calibration is 27 deg C, whereas with excess heat it is 380 deg C. So your "belief" is entirely based on faith, without a scrap of evidence to support it, and it is contrary to many physical laws. This is the opposite of skepticism.

If you were to say "I suppose there an artifact" I guess that would be skeptical. I would call it cynical or unreasonably pessimistic. But to "expect" an artifact where there no evidence for one, in a conventional instrument, using techniques that are employed by hundreds of thousands of HVAC engineers every day, is to "expect" a miracle.

Display More

In the latest paper on R20, showing: "figure 1. An R20 reactor used as a room heater in Sapporo, winter 2018..."

I don't see any connection to a pressure meter, source of gas or electricity for the heater.

Quote from Shane D.

He says the power supply "is not connected in this photo":

Yup. I don't know why not, but that's what the man said.