MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • I'm not going there! A more complicated but less destructive method of squeezing out He along with the D2 might be reverse electrolysis of the active fuel with capture of the evolved gases..

    I don't blame you for that. I wasn't trying to scare monger, but if it does prove to be an issue, it could be awkward.


    I wonder if you would care to elucidate on the concept of reverse electrolysis, I was not aware of an electrolytic aspect to this approach to LANR. If I am to become involved in something, I like to learn as much as possible first.


    Capture of the evolved gases...yes. If a reactor is expected to run for months, this will be an integral part of the schedule. No problem once the He is out of the lattice, it would be extracted semi continuously and separated, externally, from the D2, probably by a heat orientated Pd filter type process, with recycle of the high D2 raffinate.


    I don't think it is likely to be too much of a prob., as TM has run his reactor at highish COP for months. If He were to be a total no-no, either held within the lattice, or as part of the lattice-external gas inventory, then one would have thought it may well have shown up by now. I just like to think ahead re the bigger picture. Probably a bit too much, which is why your first reaction is probably the best- let's not go there. We have enough problems before we get to that stage!

  • Reverse electrolysis means swapping the connections in a wet cell to make the cathode into an anode and vice versa. The effect of this on a Pd/D electrode is to deload adsorbed deuterium - which will mostly (?) re-combine with new oxygen evolved at the anode surface, but helium being inert remains in the gas phase or in solution where it can -after much more delicate work - be measured with a mass-spec. It's tricky electrochemistry for sure. Look for terms such as 'deloading' and 'reverse electrolysis' in https://lenr-canr.org and you can find some breadcrumbs.

  • Is there existing knowledge or anyone's theory on why the reactor has to be so completely degassed? How does minute amounts of nitrogen or some other element stop all LENR reactions in the reactor?

    I was wondering the same thing.


    Maybe the the key is the process and particular temperatures used to degas it, not the impurities themselves. It could be that the temperature cycles condition the mesh to allow the reaction to take place.


    For instance, here is an article about annealing Ni and how high temperature annealing increases grain size.


    http://www.totalmateria.com/Article32.htm


    And this is from a 2015 paper by Ed Storms on the need to have cracks of the right size.

    (CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 108, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2015)


    "The interior of a crack meets this requirement. Such

    cracks form by stress relief generally on the surface of a

    material. In fact, they are observed to form on the surface

    of a PdD cathode. However, not all cracks will be active.

    Cracks having too large a gap allow D2 gas to form,

    which is well known not to fuse. A crack having too

    small a gap will not be sufficiently different from the

    conditions in the lattice to meet the requirement. Consequently,

    if a crack is the site, it must have a critical gap

    width in which a collection of hydrogen atoms can form a

    unique structure able to accomplish what normal D2 or

    deuteron ions in the lattice cannot do."


    So the heat treatment might allow the right size cracks to form.


    In other words, failure to reach over unity might be correlated with contamination but not caused by it.

  • The size of the cold fusion devices is not the issue. I suppose they will be no larger than the 7,104 battery cells in a Tesla. However, especially if Ed Storms is correct, the individual cold fusion devices will have to be manufactured to microscopic specifications and microscopic levels of purity, similar to the way semiconductor devices are manufactured. That does not mean they will be expensive. They will not be as complicated as semiconductors, and if several of the nano-cracks don't work, that will not matter. Whereas if several transistors on a microprocessor fail, you have to toss out the device.


    Even if they are somewhat expensive at first, I expect they will work for many years, so the overall cost per kilowatt-hour will be very low.

    I wonder if when the “right crack size, shape and composition” becomes well known, one could “print” the proper material atom by atom as has been done with the Tunnel effect microscopes since they were invented, or with adapted electron microscopes as in this case:


    https://www.innovationtoronto.…ing-nanofabrication-tool/

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I wonder if when the “right crack size, shape and composition” becomes well known, one could “print” the proper material atom by atom as has been done with the Tunnel effect microscopes since they were invented, or with adapted electron microscopes as in this case:


    I do not know how it might be done, but Ed Storms says it can be done with something like today's semiconductor fab technology. In other words, fab equipment can produce small scale features. Small enough to serve as the cracks he thinks are needed. I find that astounding, because he is talking about cracks that make chains of atoms line up one at a time.


    I do not think he means that silicon is a suitable material. We are not talking about unaltered fabrication machines. I suppose he means similar machines designed to work with other metals, using similar techniques. I do not know the details.

  • I think one of the interesting things about mesh is that the many 'crossover points' created by the intersecting wires create gaps of a wide range of sizes as they approach each other asymptopically. And burnishing with a pallladium rod will also make those crossover points rub against each other creating more dislocations, surface damage and possibly microscopic friction welds.

  • For what it's worth, from a few tests with different materials I did today, burnishing will be much easier on a slightly oxidized surface. The surface oxides are very hard and will bite through the piece. Although for different reasons, Storms also seems to suggest that an oxidized surface will work better in the document he's prepared on his thoughts on the process that I've been forwarded by a contact with access to the CMNS group. It looks like Storms hasn't posted it yet on LENR-Forum—he promised preparing one earlier.

  • For what it's worth, from a few tests with different materials I did today, burnishing will be much easier on a slightly oxidized surface. The surface oxides are very hard and will bite through the piece. Although for different reasons, Storms also seems to suggest that an oxidized surface will work better in the document he's prepared on his thoughts on the process that I've been forwarded by a contact with access to the CMNS group. It looks like Storms hasn't posted it yet on LENR-Forum—he promised preparing one earlier.


    It depends on what you want to achieve: For good initial hydrogen loading you need a clean surface. But afterward for a good NAE we cannot exclude that oxygen can be a help. But without a clear, reproducible protocol you will never know when/why it worked.

  • I think one of the interesting things about mesh is that the many 'crossover points' created by the intersecting wires create gaps of a wide range of sizes as they approach each other asymptopically. And burnishing with a pallladium rod will also make those crossover points rub against each other creating more dislocations, surface damage and possibly microscopic friction welds.

    Absolutely.


    Also, I modelled the emery flatting process in CAD a couple of weeks ago. I did it first for single weave, and then for the double twill when I found out that's what TM used. The figures are amazing. I got the software to find the area of the eliptical flats, and when I did the numbers, here's what I found. By using this approach, with the single weave, on 3 off 300 x 200 meshes , there are: 2.3 E+7 flat sites, each of which contains ( and it will, of course, have a random distribution too, to further cover idiosyncratic combinations), around 2-3 ng of Pd, which from memory equates to about 100 atoms thick. We are likely also talking about steps and terraces that are so important in the mechanism of dissociation/ abs/adsorption. The double weave only has 25% of the flat sites, but they are larger, giving 50% of the area in total, so 2 x the thickness.


    Also there is the difference of the other methods of coating Ni with Pd that TM has used or mentioned. Firstly electrolplating. This will not completely cover the surface. The reason is that the acute interstices formed as one wire crosses the other and they touch tangentially will be starved of electrons under the rules of the point charge density theory, which greatly favours sharp convex features over sharp concave ones. This would generate something more covered but also akin to the partial cover of the Mizuno rubbing method. In contrast, electroless deposition is a chemical effect which is not subject to p.c.d.t., so should still cover in the interstices, although, of course, the thin layer will easily be ruptured due to differential flexing movement in those places.


    Personally, either by design, or instinct, or a mixture, I reckon TM has hit on a very effective method with his rubbing process. It covers a whole host of variabilities all in one hit.


    If we can get replicated, there is going to be some fabulous development to be done here.

  • It depends on what you want to achieve: For good initial hydrogen loading you need a clean surface. But afterward for a good NAE we cannot exclude that oxygen can be a help. But without a clear, reproducible protocol you will never know when/why it worked.


    He's actually going to test his hypothesis using a NiO-covered sample and one that is not, so we'll know soon enough.

    In any case, since the paper "May be quoted freely with attribution" I'm quoting it in its entirety and attribute it to Edmund Storms.




    Relationship between the burnishing process used by Mizuno and the Storms theory of NAE formation

    Edmund Storms

    Kiva Labs, Santa Fe, NM (8/1/19)

  • This is what I had thought as no mention of bake out gases was done in either video, and I hoped that was only an omission. For me it was clear that without the capacity of doing gas analysis, as Jed has insisted since the paper was published, there was no much hope of quick success.eff

    I do not think you can do this experiment without a mass spectrometer. You have no way of knowing whether you have cleaned the material and removed all water, nitrides and carbon dioxide. You are working blind.

    If one were to build a "reasonably priced" system that included <1e-7 mb vacuum system, a mass spectrometer, and a flow calorimeter, would it look like what is shown in the attachment? I am in the process of determining what such a system would cost, but before proceeding further I would like some consensus that the proposed system meets the requirements for a MIzuno replication.

  • In other words, failure to reach over unity might be correlated with contamination but not caused by it.


    Very interesting thoughts!

    Sometimes "one cannot see the forest for the trees".


    If a complete procedure log was built for all tested reactors, one might be able to start developing theories to better direct future testing and thus success.

    In your case above, if tests were logged showing the number of cleaning cycles needed, the mass spec results and then whether the reactor worked, one might see a pattern where only reactors needing multiple cleaning worked. Ones that cleaned the first cycle did not. This would indicate that it may not be the lack of certain gases, but the number of heating / cleaning cycles.


    I realize that there could be "X" number of issues. But the only way to determine these is to log every single step, every time and then analyse the results. I have used Taguchi Statistical methods in the past for evaluating multiple parameter effects to results, which gives a percentage impact of the final result of each parameter along with the level of confidence.


    This does require a very significant level of detailed logging, not just of reactor data, but of procedural steps. Length of heat cycles, ramp up / cool down speed, number of cycles, mechanical burnishing details (number of strokes, pressure applied, etc) and probably many, many more.


    If one has a anomalous event that is extremely hard to reproduce and there is no existing theory, it will likely take exceptional scrutiny to find the parameters that will allow replication with a high level of success. Since this field has been "struggling" for decades without finding common replication success, it is likely that brute force number of tests will not succeed. It may take a concentrated effort to analyse every step in close detail to develop a theory that can be tested. It may be boring data collection, but possibly necessary.


    While there have been a few technologies developed before a working theory was developed, I suspect there have been many more that a theory came first that guided refinement of the process. The more complex the technology, probably the more needed is the theory.

  • If one were to build a "reasonably priced" system that included <1e-7 mb vacuum system, a mass spectrometer, and a flow calorimeter, would it look like what is shown in the attachment? I am in the process of determining what such a system would cost, but before proceeding further I would like some consensus that the proposed system meets the requirements for a MIzuno replication.

    Depending on your mass spec or RGA, you may need a "pinhole" between the device and the RGA and a by pass valve around the RGA. Many RGA and mass spec will not operate at the elevated pressures where the device will be working. You may also want to have a way to purge and vent the system.


    Not sure of you High vac system. You may want a foreline filter.

  • From Parkhomov's latest paper, we can see the importance of "cleaning" the reactor.


    https://drive.google.com/file/…YQeOoePUftdByo7BVnvg/view

    https://e-catworld.com/2019/08…working-for-seven-months/

  • Now this is what you call a vacuum - just over 1 ten-millionth of an atnmosphere. Not as good as deep space, but certainly as good as interplanetary space. 7 days pumping including a 4-day low temperature bake out. Still not connected the big reactor- this is just the mass-spec -but it shows our kit will get us there.


  • Just for the educated audience, What is the requirement and price for the Mass spectrometer that Mizuno advise through Jed's parole ?

    Price can be from 2k$ to 250k$ for used equipments

    https://www.quora.com/How-much…spectrometry-machine-cost


    Maybe if you ask it is just that you won't be able to use it?

    Or is there good advice for experimenters ready to learn and buy ?

    https://conquerscientific.com/…ectrometers-lcms-systems/

    https://www.labx.com/mass-spectrometer


    Is there a way to subcontract mass spectrometry to experienced labs, to buy instrument time ? For Mizuno reactor It seems not applicable for vaccuum verification, but for used meshes I imagine it is common?