MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • Quote

    And the best way to avoid getting eaten by a cat is to tie a bell on it. You contribute nothing when you suggest we do the impossible.

    You mean you don't believe your own paper with Mizuno? Or are you saying it's not a spectacularly impressive and irrefutable demonstration if it's true? If so, looks like you guys managed to tie the bell on the cat. BTW, the psychologist in me wants to know. How long have you had this phobia about being eaten by a cat? Do you also believe you're a mouse? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • 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.


    It is not flimsy. It is stiff, and well formed. Lots of things in Japan are made of paper. Heck, in old houses the walls are made of paper, which is why your toothpaste is frozen the morning. * Nothing is left to chance. It has been carefully tested in traverse tests, which have been repeated many times, and we know it is right because the calibrations produce a balance of zero, after accounting for losses which are linear and unchanging.




    * Okay, they also have sliding screen doors, and sliding wooden slats, deployed for snow and typhoons. In an old house, there are large gaps between the slats. Basically, living in an old Japanese house is like camping. It is picturesque but you wouldn't want to live that way, and there aren't many old houses left.

  • It is not flimsy. It is stiff, and well formed. Lots of things in Japan are made of paper. Heck, in old houses the walls are made of paper, which is why your toothpaste is frozen the morning. * Nothing is left to chance. It has been carefully tested in traverse tests, which have been repeated many times, and we know it is right because the calibrations produce a balance of zero, after accounting for losses which are linear and unchanging.




    * Okay, they also have sliding screen doors, and sliding wooden slats, deployed for snow and typhoons. In an old house, there are large gaps between the slats. Basically, living in an old Japanese house is like camping. It is picturesque but you wouldn't want to live that way, and there aren't many old houses left.

    Lots of things are already made round, smooth and with regular dimensions.

    PVC, mailing tubes, cans of biscottis, etc.

    So why use rolled up heavy paper? (Granted that paper is a poor conductor of heat.)

    Was there a target of about 4 m/s average velocity for the outlet air for some reason (so the outlet orifice was made to specification?)

  • 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.


    It certainly would be expeditious for the tester to understand the theory, but if an experiment is well designed, the tester only needs the knowledge/experience of equipment and procedure to carry out the instructions. I do not think that the experimenter has to be completely versed in quantum mechanics, etc.


    I suppose it depends somewhat on the experiment design. I did testing in the automotive industry for projecting corrosion life of particular components. Some of which where treated with novel and exotic treatments. I am not an expert in chemistry or even some of the metallurgy that was involved, but I was more than capable of conducting expedited corrosion tests to simulate 10 years of normal automotive environment exposure, condensed to about 30 days.


    So, I agree it would be helpful, but not absolutely necessary. Depending on the experiment design.


    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.


    "Understandable" is a bit subjective. To me, it might be totally confusing but to others, reasonable. Thus the key is to have the originator design the experiment and then discuss the expected results with the testing party. If the originator can then provide the maths and/or schematics to the theory logic, the obtained data should / could confirm it.


    Again, I think it would largely depend on the design and clarity of the experimental test.


    All of this is easier said than done, I am sure!

  • I suppose it depends somewhat on the experiment design. I did testing in the automotive industry for projecting corrosion life of particular components. Some of which where treated with novel and exotic treatments. I am not an expert in chemistry or even some of the metallurgy that was involved, but I was more than capable of conducting expedited corrosion tests to simulate 10 years of normal automotive environment exposure, condensed to about 30 days.


    I too have conducted many such tests on surface coatings, and they require some skill and close attention. However, comparing that with performing experiments in condensed matter nuclear science is a bit like comparing being a griddle chef with being head chef at the Ritz. The breadth of knowledge and range of technical (and often engineering) skills required to design, build, and perform an experiment to test a presumably novel theory about nuclear interactions under 'non-normal' conditions is way greater than that needed for performing standardized tests of any kind.

  • What the experimenter needs to know depends on the purpose of the experiment. If the purpose is simply to verify the existence of a claim, for example a claim that some assembly of parts and chemicals generates energy, then the experimenter needs to be able to follow the directions regarding how to assemble that collection of parts and chemicals. They also need to have a thorough understanding of how to conduct credible and well documented properly blanked and calibrated experiments -- double blind in applicable cases. These days, it helps to be able to manipulate automated data acquisition systems. Knowledge of statistics is needed for some studies but it's easy to "farm" that out, There is a rarely a need to understand a theory about the underlying mechanisms unless such an understanding is the express purpose of the experiment. To verify Mizuno's tests for example, you need to know high vacuum equipment and calorimetry. Knowledge of the claimed principles underlying LENR will not help you one tiny bit in demonstrating whether Mizuno is right or wrong. I am not sure why the above seems to be a difficult concept for some. It seems so obvious that it hardly needs saying!

  • I suppose it depends somewhat on the experiment design. I did testing in the automotive industry for projecting corrosion life of particular components. Some of which where treated with novel and exotic treatments. I am not an expert in chemistry or even some of the metallurgy that was involved, but I was more than capable of conducting expedited corrosion tests to simulate 10 years of normal automotive environment exposure, condensed to about 30 days.


    That is interesting. Mizuno did similar tests before the discovery of cold fusion. He was in the nuclear power laboratory at Hokkaido U. He loaded palladium with deuterium. This was part of research into hydrogen and deuterium embrittlement of the walls of nuclear reactors. Like your experiments, this was a method of speeding up reactions that would normally take years. During these tests he saw some strange reactions and apparent excess heat. (More apparent in retrospect.) He puzzled over these events, and then dismissed them. Whereas Fleischmann and Pons pursued them. So, they discovered cold fusion, and he did not. This is described in his book.

  • What the experimenter needs to know depends on the purpose of the experiment. If the purpose is simply to verify the existence of a claim, for example a claim that some assembly of parts and chemicals generates energy, then the experimenter needs to be able to follow the directions regarding how to assemble that collection of parts and chemicals


    The problem in this case is that no one actually knows whether the directions are complete, or whether they work. This is more art than science. This has never been done before, except by one person in one lab. No one has ever analyzed the materials or before-and-after samples of the meshes. Not with modern instruments. Not even with an SEM. Because, unfortunately, the earthquake broke Mizuno's SEM. He recently sent a prepared mesh to a researcher who has an SEM and other instruments, so we may soon learn more. I will update the Supplement, or publish a paper if this happens. However, we do not know if that particular sample works or not. Mizuno prepared it, but did not test it. It might different from the samples that produced excess heat. In the months ahead, we may have send a mesh that worked in his lab. Unfortunately, the act of sending it might contaminate it. We are discussing how this might be done.


    If this were a textbook experiment that has been done hundreds of times, and if we had a full description of the materials made with modern instruments, we would have far more solid knowledge of what to do and how to do it. Give us funding, and months or years and we will have these things. You cannot expect people will replicate this in the first test at hundreds of watts. Let's hope they get 10 watts sometime in the next year or so. That is realistic. As I said, 100 W would not be a replication, it would be a miracle. If that is what you are hoping for, you are in the wrong line of work. Stop trying to do fundamental research into unknown physics. Go do high school textbook experiments instead.


    In short, this is a lot harder than it looks. It is easy to say "the experimenter needs to be able to follow the directions." It is a lot harder to know what the directions are. It is hard to write them. Writing directions is what I do, and I assure you, even getting a scientist, engineer, or a master chef to tell you what he or she does -- or thinks she does -- is difficult.


    Asking a good cook or an artist what he does is a fool's errand. No one knows. Watching tells you little or nothing. You can only learn by doing. A woman was once asked by her daughter how she baked an apple pie. She said: "There's nothing to it. You go to the kitchen, you put on your apron, and . . . and, uh, you bake an apple pie!" She knew, but she could not say. She had never thought about it. I hope that Mizuno's experiment is less art than that, and more science. I hope that by using modern detection instruments we can learn more facts about the materials, and reduce our dependence on guesses and speculation. That's what instruments are for.

  • My new anemometer just showed up. I guess I will test it out until the crappy batteries supplied with it go dead.


    Is that a hot wire type, or a propeller type?


    If it is a propeller, is it large enough to cover the entire orifice? I suppose you could reduce the size of the orifice if it isn't. The propeller might then affect the measurement. It might impede the flow of air a little. I don't suppose that will matter as long as you leave it in place the whole time. Leave it exactly in place; don't move it even a few millimeters, and try not to let air escape around it.

  • Is that a hot wire type, or a propeller type?


    If it is a propeller, is it large enough to cover the entire orifice? I suppose you could reduce the size of the orifice if it isn't. The propeller might then affect the measurement. It might impede the flow of air a little. I don't suppose that will matter as long as you leave it in place the whole time. Leave it exactly in place; don't move it even a few millimeters, and try not to let air escape around it.

    It is a hot wire anemometer, with a Bluetooth data channel.

  • Then you will have to do a traverse test, but at least you will not have to write down the data manually.

    Unfortunately I broke my test fan a couple of days ago while testing the voltage input stability. (Blew itself over and clipped a fan blade on something, which broke the blade right off...)

    At least it wasn't one of my fans matching the Mizuno ones, which haven't arrived yet.

  • The problem in this case is that no one actually knows whether the directions are complete, or whether they work.


    But remember, the original post was in response to Dr. Storm's question of how to get people to consider his theory(s). The reply was to "design an experiment to validate the theory". It somehow turned into "performing experiments in condensed matter nuclear science". Yes, it may be experiments in CMNS, but that does not mean that the tester has to be a CMNS theorist or expert in quantum mechanics or necessarily understand every minute detail of the theory to be tested. They simply need to be qualified to carry out the test presented to them.


    Molecular vacuum testing is not the sole domain of CMNS. It actually is not uncommon. Certainly not high school material, but the fact that one can purchase turbomolecular pumps on ebay is indicative they are in wide spread use! And in other areas of testing, as Jed has stated many times, calorimetry has been done since the 1800's.


    Also note.... that the experiment that Dr. Storms might design may have nothing to do with excess heat or such. It might be Helium detection. It might be elemental transformation. It may be something unrelated to normal "LENR" demos at all! He might be simply looking at NAE environments via electron microscope.

    I do not known what test he would design to give credence to his theory.


    THAT is the big question and only the person who fully understands the theory can develop the test for the theory.... or at least the shell of the test and let someone fill in the blanks.... which does not have to be the technician conducting the test.


    To put it bluntly, if a theory cannot be tested, the theory will not be accepted by many. Some theories can only be tested mathematically. That gives the theory credibility, but perhaps not total acceptance until it is proved empirically. The often maligned (here anyway) Higgs boson was only a mathematical theory until it was confirmed by CERN. Even then, much of that proof is mathematical and some here still do not agree with it. Yet it was a theory that had predictions, those predictions where mathematical and were confirmed empirically.


    I think that is the path Dr. Storms will need to take if possible.

  • Dr. Storms made some hypothesis on how to improve Mizuno's results, based on his theory [1]


    Dr.Storms also said [2]: "I have the equipment to test the Mizuno claim immediately but I'm occupied by other projects right now. " and "My approach is to use his method to test my model rather than replicating exactly what Mizuno did. In other words, I intend to search for what he did to the material to make it nuclear active rather than try duplicate his method and materials."


    My suggestion to Dr.Storms, would be to, when he has the time, work on replicating Mizuno (or collaborate with a replicator). Having a successful result would create a baseline to test the predictions published at the end of his latest document [1].



    [1] https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…burnishing-final-1-1-pdf/

    [2] Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

  • You cannot expect people will replicate this in the first test at hundreds of watts. Let's hope they get 10 watts sometime in the next year or so. That is realistic. As I said, 100 W would not be a replication, it would be a miracle.



    IIRC, Jed, you said that you know of successful replicator(s). Do you know anything else? Do you know how long it took them to be successful? Did they ever get more than a few watts?


    I'd say it's a good thing that you are working on managing expectations.

  • Was there a target of about 4 m/s average velocity for the outlet air

    I think it works out at 5m/s average for the 0.067 m traverse in the 2019 paper

    4m/s was for the 2017.. paper which from memory used a larger orifice.


    ""so the wind speed is 4 m/s. Since the air outlet sectional area is 4.4×10−3 m2,""


    this increased the accuracy of the anemometer reading to something like 5-6%

    which may be the rationale for the 0.067..

    Check my calculations.. just doing mental arithmetic

  • If I recall my own calculations correctly, the 4.4 x10-3 m2 area works out to 77 mm diameter, which combined with 4 m/s average velocity equals about 36 CFM, which is significantly more than the fan is rated to deliver.


    Anyways, aiming for a particular flow range is not a bad idea, and may be even motivated by a good reason. If there is a good reason, I am wondering what it is.