MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • I just got a used turbomolecular pump and now I'm looking at step down fittings. Are there any strong opinions about this type of extreme reducer? A conical reducer would have more natural flow characteristics, by unambiguously sending molecules into the entire diameter of the blades, but they are more expensive. But, maybe it doesn't really matter much in practice? Ultimately it looks like a lot of us are stepping down to 1/4" and 1/2" piping anyway...


    I'll be monitoring/controlling the turbopump with a raspberry pi, which is a fun project.

  • Post by can ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • just got a used turbomolecular pump and now I'm looking at step down fittings. Are there any strong opinions about this type of extreme reducer? A conical reducer would have more natural flow characteristics, by unambiguously sending molecules into the entire diameter of the blades, but they are more expensive. But, maybe it doesn't really matter much in practice? Ultimately it looks like a lot of us are stepping down to 1/4" and 1/2" piping anyway...


    When you are working at the kind of vacuums Turbos can produce then the concept of flow is almost meaningless IMO, since the pressure differentials involved are almost non-existent. it's the 'drunkards walk' of random gas molecules into the turbo that matters. If it's any comfort there is around 40cms of 18mm (3/4 in) corrugated stainless tube between the roughing pump and the turbo in our system and last night when I left the lab it was holding around 5x10-8mB. Though that is after a weeks constant pumping and 4 days low temperature bakeout of the QMS. Heat helps in several ways, helping to volatilise crap inside the system, increasing the kinetic energy of gas molecules and thus the effective pressure.

  • Perhaps a candidate for 3D printing.


    Most paper is flimsy, and sealing/smoothing the inside seems awkward, so wondering how it was done. I mean, I am actually trying to replicate as best as possible.

    I don’t intend to 3D print a rolled up sheet of paper.

    However maybe I should get a long thin balloon and some paper mache...

    I may have to borrow someone else’s hands to tape up the inside seam of a 65 mm cylinder of paper.

  • I think everyone agrees, an effective theory of how to create the NAE would be very important. But, as many have noted, everyone including their parrot have a theory. How is anyone to choose the one that is correct and useful? I have set about to solve this problem by examining ALL the examples of LENR with the assumption that a single universal condition is required and this operates in every case when LENR is detected. Of course, some speculation is required, but I try to keep this to a minimum. I also try to apply all known laws of chemistry, physics, and the observed behavior of the relevant materials. I know of no one else who has taken this approach. The other explanations are all based on a small subset of behaviors and ideas, generally favoring the training and interests of the advocate. My problem is getting anyone to take a serious look at what I have concluded. Shooting down the other theories does not work because of the whak-a-mole problem; every theory shot down causes a new one to take its place, generally of lesser value. I suspect the professional skeptics enjoy the ability of being able to say that because the process is not understood, it might not be real.


    After describing my ideas in a book, in several papers, and in discussions, I'm at a loss to know how to get the understanding I have acquired accepted and applied. Can anyone suggest an approach that might succeed in having the huge knowledge based now available be used to create an effective explanation of LENR? My approach might not be perfect, but it is the only approach that can achieve consistency between a model and most observed behavior, which after all is the goal of science, is it not?.


    But we have another problem. The approach being applied in this field involves an effort to reproduce claimed success rather than trying to test the various explanations about how LENR works. What is worse, the reproduction attempts are made without any effort to understand the effect of the various chemical and physical variables known to operate. Instead, we are entertained by endless speculation. A person might conclude that the approach being applied is designed to fail, thus justifying the skeptic's claim. This is not science. I'm reluctant to say what I think this is, but I do not expect it to result in success anytime soon. On the other hand, I expect the organized effort used by Gates will succeed, leaving everyone else in the dust, including the approach being taken by Google. Thankfully, at least this one effort might succeed.


    I suggest these issues need discussion and resolution.

  • Quote

    After describing my ideas in a book, in several papers, and in discussions, I'm at a loss to know how to get the understanding I have acquired accepted and applied.

    Before you can get anything about LENR understood and applied, you have to have qualified people pay attention. The best way to do that, as I have been writing since 2011, is to produce a single most impressive and irrefutable demonstration of the effect. In the past, JedRothwell would cite a large number of experimental reports, each resulting in entirely differently claims, none of which were sensational or if they were, they were not consistently reproducible. Now, Jed is focused on a truly amazing single and clear claim by Mizuno. Thank you, Jed. Finally! One can only hope what is now only a claim is borne out- either by replication from reliable parties or by independent retesting of Mizuno's devices in his own lab, again by credible and reliable parties. Then, there will be no problem focusing on mechanisms and theories and getting funding for it. If Mizuno's claims fizzle, it's just another instance of failure to reproduce which fuels skepticism.


    Quote

    I suspect the professional skeptics enjoy the ability of being able to say that because the process is not understood, it might not be real

    There are very few professional skeptics. It's a hellish way to try to make a living! Only paranoid zealots imagine it otherwise. In fact, the only professional skeptics I can think of offhand are those associated with the James Randi Foundation (JRF). Know any other scientists of any repute who get paid specifically to be skeptics? There are a few skeptics societies. But for everyone who espouses skepticism of high tech claims, there are dozens of fraudulent claimants, so I, for one, am very happy the skeptical community remains healthy. Ask Tom Darden how he feels about skeptics now that he is some $20 million in arrears due to fraud and the resulting legal battles. Professional skeptics, if there are any, do not control funding and especially do not have anything to do with entrepreneurial funding which is why entrepreneurs get fleeced with disgusting regularity.


    Quote

    I expect the organized effort used by Gates will succeed, leaving everyone else in the dust, including the approach being taken by Google. Thankfully, at least this one effort might succeed.

    Is this about Bill Gates? If so, there is no public information about such an organized effort so if there is something Storms can say about it, that would be very much appreciated by most of us reading this forum.


    The role of "pathological" or "professional" skeptics in limiting funds for LENR research is way overrated. The issue is a lack of projects interesting and believable enough to fund. I mean, seriously, do you think the likes of Musk, Bezos and yes, Bill Gates, do not want to make more billions and/or uplift society and decrease global warming? Do they seem like the sort to allow musty academics and cynics to stand in their way?


    If Mizuno's current claims are true and can be proven, there will be absolutely nothing any sort of skeptic can do about it. The research, development and production of Mizuno type devices will be a reality within months. If not, nothing will have changed and good luck getting money for LENR theories.

  • Prototype half-scale cell 40 x 300 mm. The heater is a 150 watt cartridge inserted in the thermowell. I'll initially assemble it without Ni mesh, for vacuum testing and bake out. The ports are both 3/8" Swagelok, welded to the end caps.



    From where did you order the thermowell? Most of the ones I saw are designed for high pressure usage, entailing a wall thickness much greater than is necessary for our use.

  • Maybe an uninformed question, but I don't see a valve in the picture of R20 in front of the fireplace. How was it sealed? Or is this a picture of it at 1 atm inside? Obviously no power connected either.


    The valve is on the left. The caption says: "The reactor is powered by a 500 W, 100 V laboratory power supply, which is not connected in this photo."

  • Just use a heavy sheet of paper. Or plastic. It does not matter what you use, as long as you get a circular orifice and a well-mixed stream of air.

    I have rolled up a sheet of heavy paper. Getting it round and to stay round is a challenge. Since a 1 mm measurement difference in diameter results in about a 1 W difference at 50 W (2%) at a nominal 65 mm diameter, I would say that getting the paper tube round is pretty critical for velocity and volume calculations.


    Edit: If the fan doesn’t mix the air enough, then nothing will.

  • The role of "pathological" or "professional" skeptics in limiting funds for LENR research is way overrated.


    If you include the management of the DoE and the editors of Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, the New York Times and the Washington Post as pathological skeptics, then their role could hardly be overstated. They clobbered cold fusion the day it was announced. It never had a chance.


    I would include these people among the pathological skeptics, except that many of them know nothing about science, so they are just pathological, not particularly skeptics. Regarding their own beliefs they are not at all skeptical.


    Pathological skeptics on the internet have done some harm, especially the nitwits at Wikipedia.

  • , I'm at a loss to know how to get the understanding I have acquired accepted and applied. Can anyone suggest an approach that might succeed in having the huge knowledge based now available be used to create an effective explanation of LENR?


    First, thank you for our participation here.

    Secondly, I am not a physicist nor particularly equipped to make comments about deeply technical matters.


    However, as an experienced engineer and having gone through the basic training that almost all scientist have, I would offer the following thought, however simplistic it might be.


    If you have developed a theory, that theory should have predictive qualities. Predictions should be able to have definitive tests constructed to confirm or disprove them. (Albeit, perhaps with significant difficulty)


    If that test can be performed and results confirmed, that should validate the theory.


    I realize this is very basic and simplistic sounding, but it probably is what is going to be needed. Just as Einstein developed a test using a Solar eclipse for his theory, can you design a test that others can conduct to validate yours?


    While this might not contain the total knowledge-base you describe, by proving a novel physics theory, it will almost certainly raise the interest and credibility by others to all your published works and papers.


    Sincerely,

    Bob

  • Edit: If the fan doesn’t mix the air enough, then nothing will.


    The tube supposedly contributes to mixing.


    If it is not mixed, add a Venturi or an in-line mixer, or increase the air speed. You need to verify it is well-mixed and the air speed is uniform, with a traverse test. Or, alternatively, you can use an anemometer with a propellor large enough to cover the entire outlet. With that, it will not matter whether the air is mixed or not, since all of the air will pass through the propellor.

  • The tube supposedly contributes to mixing.


    If it is not mixed, add a Venturi or an in-line mixer, or increase the air speed. You need to verify it is well-mixed and the air speed is uniform, with a traverse test. Or, alternatively, you can use an anemometer with a propellor large enough to cover the entire outlet. With that, it will not matter whether the air is mixed or not, since all of the air will pass through the propellor.

    I highly doubt the tube does much for the mixing. It makes for a simpler measurement of velocity by making a circle, which is easier to traverse than a rectangle. Certainly the air is quite turbulent at 2 diameters distance from the fan, which will make for a fairly flat velocity profile but also introduces a lot of uncertainty in the velocity measurements. Log-T traverse spacing does not seem to have been used, so that adds some more uncertainty. Maybe a roughly 4 m/s flow rate won’t have much effect on the temperatures measured in the tube compared to a stagnant air temperature, but I haven’t evaluated that yet. Traverses at the point where the tube effectively opens up to infinity is also suspect in my opinion (due to vena contracta).


    It just seems weird that so much attention to details was paid to reactor construction, etc., then the output result left to chance to a large degree by using a flimsy paper tube as the “calibrated” orifice from which all output measurements were taken.

  • Just as Einstein developed a test using a Solar eclipse for his theory

    I don't think that Einstein developed the test although he suggested to turn to astronomy for a test. It took an Eddington to design and conduct the experiment from Eddington's understanding of the published theory. It also took some political maneuvers by Dyson to keep Eddington out of the draft so he could do the experiment.

    Ludwig Silberstei said Eddington was one of only three men that understood the theory at the time.


    It takes a theory, someone who understands it enough to conduct a proper experiment, and someone to finance and support the work. The problem is that is no theory out that is "understandable". Most avoid the conservation of spin, or momentum, or why there is no detectable radiation, or other important physical points. They are not self consistent.