MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • 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.


    If there is enough helium to detect, I think there would also be a lot of excess heat. It is easier to detect. Tritium is easier to detect than heat.

  • You mean you don't believe your own paper with Mizuno?


    I mean that you made that suggestion for many years when it was impossible. When no one could have done what you suggest, except Toyota, who decided not to do it for political reasons. Now that it might be possible, you seem to be taking credit for it. You are acting as if we could have done it all along, and it just never occurred to us. Also, you seem to have the notion that Mizuno might have skipped the 12 W reactions and gone right to the 100 W ones. Do you think he has a time machine?



    Or are you saying it's not a spectacularly impressive and irrefutable demonstration if it's true?


    No more than Miles, McKubre, Fleischmann or Storms. But that is something you will never understand. Apparently, you do not grasp the concept of signal to noise ratios, and you do not understand the history of science, or the fact that the 1-W Chicago Pile 1 test was as impressive and convincing as the first atomic bomb explosion. The bomb was more impressive in some ways of course, but as a scientific demonstration it was no more or less convincing or important than the explosion, and the explosion could never have occurred without the small scale test of controlled fission.

  • Quote

    Now that it might be possible, you seem to be taking credit for it. You are acting as if we could have done it all along, and it just never occurred to us. Also, you seem to have the notion that Mizuno might have skipped the 12 W reactions and gone right to the 100 W ones. Do you think he has a time machine

    Absurd. I wish you would not put words and ideas in my mouth. Others complained you did it to them also. Never said it. Nothing like it. Give me the politeness of taking my own credit. What I take credit for is knowing what it takes to convince the world-- something you and the usual suspects don't seem to grasp. I also take credit for calling out the phonies comparatively early (some did it even earlier while I still was uncertain). And that is something the usual suspects do too little and too late.


    Quote

    No more than Miles, McKubre, Fleischmann or Storms. But that is something you will never understand. Apparently, you do not grasp the concept of signal to noise ratios, and you do not understand the history of science, or the fact that the 1-W Chicago Pile 1 test was as impressive and convincing as the first atomic bomb explosion. The bomb was more impressive in some ways of course, but as a scientific demonstration it was no more or less convincing or important than the explosion, and the explosion could never have occurred without the small scale test of controlled fission.

    Don't presume to tell me what I do and don't understand. I tire of these sort of specious arguments.


    Please don't be distracted from helping Mizuno. The sooner the answer on his claims, the better for everyone.

  • Don't presume to tell me what I do and don't understand. I tire of these sort of specious arguments.


    You are telling us what you don't understand. When you call this a "specious" argument you are saying you do not understand science, experimental science, technology, or history.


    It is not a specious argument to say that without controlled fission in the Chicago Pile 1, a fission bomb would not have been possible. The controlled fission experiment proved the theories were right, and they proved that a bomb was possible. It was dramatic proof. From a scientific point of view, it was a certain as an explosion.


    If you do not think the Chicago Pile 1 was definitive, explain why.

  • 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!

    What you say sounds quite logical. But take the example of a replicator whose setup involves no calorimeter. It may seem like a proper replication but the calorimeter changes the heat flow and potentially the outcome of the trial. Without understanding completely how it works, how is a replicator able to properly take the shortcuts which most of us want to take?


    Another example is how most people's instinct as to how fast a vacuum can be established is wrong according to the engineering equations. The effective pumping speed of a pump (Seff) is equal to the given speed (S) divided by the quantity (1 + S/C) where C is the Conductance of the pipes leading from the Turbo Molecular pump to the chamber. Professional setups look nothing like what I see the LENR folks doing. Conductance of a pipe is lower if it has a small diameter and again lower if it is long. The professionals use a Fat Pipe. See pix.

    Keep your pipes fat and your Turbo Molecular pump vertical.


    Formula Ref: Jousten, K., Handbook of Vacuum Technology, pp. 90-93


    Note that there is a reason for the large opening in the inlet of a Turbo Molecular pump. The engineers who invented the device designed it that way on purpose. Yet the first thing most people want to do is to neck it down to a centimeter diameter as if the resistance of the pipe will make no difference. The fact is: you can neck it down all you want if you are willing to wait the number of days or weeks it takes to evacuate your reactor. Mizuno is a very patient man. But will other replicators be as patient? What about someone who lacks a RGA and thinks that waiting 17 hours is long enough to pull a vacuum through a thin straw?


    I own Edmund Storms The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation on my Kindle and I fall asleep at night listening to it being read to me. I also have re-read his earlier book as well as Mizuno's book. I also have acquired books on calorimetry and heat flow and am reading them. We need to obtain an adequate understanding of what is going on. I agree that we don't need to nail down an accurate theory of LENR, but we need to read Storms and understand the common denominator of the successful LENR experiment in the past.


    I am not "skilled in the art" of LENR experiments. As a result, I have heard Jed tell me repeatedly that I should not attempt a replication of Mizuno's reactor. Since I believe Jed, Storms and Mizuno, I am reading much more than doing. If I do attempt a replication, it will take advantage of all of the literature that I can find including the discussions on this forum. It appears to me that we might be on the edge of a breakthrough in LENR.

  • I am not "skilled in the art" of LENR experiments. As a result, I have heard Jed tell me repeatedly that I should not attempt a replication of Mizuno's reactor.


    I am not the least bit skilled in the art! You sound like you know way more about vacuum pumps than I do. Maybe more than Mizuno. I expect you would be a big help in that.


    The only technical help I have contributed to Mizuno and others is in the computers and software. That, I know about. It is the one thing in this world I knew more about than Martin Fleischmann knew. (Okay, that plus the Japanese language, but that's not fair.) As I said, you don't want me operating anything more complicated than a pencil sharpener in a lab.


    Mizuno himself does not know about some aspects of this experiment, and that may be biting us on the butt. He does not know how his vendor prepares the reactors and cleans them. He knows how to confirm they are clean. Another thing that came up recently is tap water. When we were writing the recipe, me dragging out one detail after another that is, he said, "maybe we should include this table of information on Sapporo tap water." I am usually a glutton for details, but I thought about it and said, "naa . . . too much detail." Then last month I mailed out some as-received meshes. One of the people preparing them took SEM photos at each step. He sent me one saying, "look at all this stuff deposited on the mesh by the tap water bath!" Yikes. Oops. Maybe it makes a difference after all? I added the Sapporo info to the Supplement.


    Someone else here also found that document and Google-translated it. Apparently, other people are more aware of these issues than I was.


    I think one of the many things SOT fails to understand is how blindly we are working. We might be overlooking some vitally important detail. Maybe the Sapporo tap water has elements and chemicals in it that play an important role. Who knows? Something prevented the first two preliminary replications from working. I have no idea what it might be. An experienced chemist such as Ed Storms probably has lots of ideas what it might be, but we can't be sure what it is until someone finds out. By analysis of the original screens, or by replicating after several attempts. It may happen, or it may not. That's experimental science for you. It is never a sure thing. If it were a sure thing, it would be called "engineering" instead. We hope that someday cold fusion reaches the engineering stage. It is far from that stage now.

  • Post by Curbina ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • Post by magicsound ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • Post by can ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • magicsound

    Now the photos work. They show interesting results. It looks like some of the carbonates are being embedded together with Pd.


    How lengthy is to run a SEM analysis like this? I'm curious to see what would happen if the burnishing was performed with the substrate wetted with or immersed in a concentrated carbonate solution. This could be done as a preliminary inexpensive test with Al or Cu on a steel surface using any carbonate you have at disposal.


    If it works better towards embedding more of the stuff into the burnished layer it could also have the advantage of being less hazardous due to the significantly reduced amount of airborne dust particles.


    A suggestion along these lines has been added in the supplementary document, but not with a carbonate solution:

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


    Quote

    Preparing Meshes Underwater

    Several people have recommended sanding and preparing meshes underwater, in a tray full of water. This prevents nickel nanoparticles from escaping into the air. It is probably safer. However, it is not clear whether this will affect the outcome of the experiment.

  • Now they work. The photos are interesting. Looks like some of the carbonates are being embedded together with Pd


    Not only embedded - the crystals are being shattered and smeared against the Ni surface. You can see that in the first image, to the left of the blob of Pd. From the second image, the Calcite remnants are reduced to <500 nm particles, mixed in with the Pd.


    Quote

    How lengthy is to run a SEM analysis like this? I'm curious to see what would happen if the burnishing was performed with the substrate wetted with or immersed in a concentrated carbonate solution. This could be done as a preliminary inexpensive test with Al or Cu on a steel surface using any carbonate you have at disposal.


    I think burnishing wet would carry away much of the Calcite particles in suspension, but that test wouldn't take long. I'll add it to the queue.

    But using Al or Cu might not work. I suspect the Ni catalyzes the formation of the crystals, and other metals might not. That also could be tried but a similar mesh form would be needed, whatever metal is used.

  • I've just finished my first pass at burnishing the Ni mesh supplied by Jed. As I reported earlier the preparation process described in the paper results in deposits of CaCO3 crystals on the mesh.

    Here's a teaser of what happens when Pd burnishing is applied over the treated surface. My full report will be posted tomorrow (Friday).


     

    Impressive effect of mixing of the Pd with Ca!!! do you suspect the same feature would be found in Mizuno’s prepared meshes?

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

  • magicsound

    If burnishing wet won't produce the same results, it could also be tried after heat-drying the concentrated carbonate solution, which should form a uniform white layer on the surface of the substrate used. I suggested Al or Cu because they're easily burnished soft metals, from a few tests I attempted in the past few days.


    The prolonged preliminary cycles of vacuum-heating might then serve to decompose the carbonates into their oxides. With the Mizuno procedure eventually CaO-Pd layers might be formed. The Iwamura group used such materials in their LENR transmutation experiments.


    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf



    If this was the case, using higher temperatures during that part of the process would speed up the decomposition.

  • Impressive effect of mixing of the Pd with Ca!!! do you suspect the same feature would be found in Mizuno’s prepared meshes?


    Yes, that is why I included the Sapporo water analysis in my first report. There's slightly less Ca content than my own water supply but still plenty to support catalyzed precipitation.

    The images I posted were taken after only a brief burnishing, about 30 strokes in each direction with my 5 x 8 mm piece of Pd. Here's a zoomed-out image.


  • If it works better towards embedding more of the stuff into the burnished layer it could also have the advantage of being less hazardous due to the significantly reduced amount of airborne dust particles.


    To clarify this, the sanding is where the Ni dust particles are created. I did that step under flowing water. The Calcite crystals are formed in the final step of soaking at 90°C in still tap water.

    I annealed the Pd prior to use, and saw no apparent erosion of the Ni from the burnishing. Thus there was no Ni dust and no water needed. Mask and gloves just to be sure though.

  • Post by can ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • For what it's worth I tried doing what I wrote earlier and applied and dried a saturated potassium carbonate solution on a flat steel piece. I noticed a few things:

    • Applying heat too quickly will cause water to evaporate vigorously and the formation of low-density bubbly carbonate deposits that in general make a mess. So, heat must be applied gently so that water slowly evaporates.
    • After a short period of exposure to the atmosphere (humidity 65-70% at the moment) the piece becomes moist and burnishing other materials becomes rather difficult. This is likely due to the hygroscopicity of the carbonate solution, but possibly also to the large amount applied.
      • Similar results whether the carbonate was dried at high temperature or low temperature.
    • From a quick search, all alkali carbonates and alkaline earth carbonates are hygroscopic, it seems, but I don't know if some tend to be more hygroscopic than others.
      • EDIT: Alkali carbonates in particular are deliquescent, which is a slightly different phenomenon than hygroscopicity. I guess I never exposed large enough amounts of it in the atmosphere before in order to observe it.
    • I can't rule out catalytic effects of the metal surface onto which the carbonate has been applied as suggested by magicsound above.

    All of this may or may not apply to the Ni-Pd mesh with CaCO3 residues.


    EDIT: in the end I still managed to burnish some material even with this moist layer. It took some effort as it was slippery. No idea if the same embedding and shattering (probably more like "spreading" in this case) would occur under these conditions.

  • Also, re the CaCO3 crystals, I wonder if these are more likely to be swept away by the physical application galling technique, rather than included in the bonding. I say this because I reckoned that one reason for the better performance of the rub method is that it physically wipes away any oxide that will have formed over the Ni mesh after cleaning. Ni gains its anti-oxidation properties from its formation of an instant cover of oxide, even if it looks clean and has just been "cleaned". This gives it a passivation layer which soon gets thick enough to prevent further oxidation. It could be removed by the low pH of an electroless plating solution, but these are all difficult mechanisms to quantify. Any oxide on the uncovered surface of the mesh would likely be reduced and evolved as water in the bake out with D2 present.

    :) It all goes to show: you can come out with all the carefully considered opinions you like, but at the end of the day, there simply is no substitute for haveing the right kit.


    I have been doing a lot of background reading, and have found that there is QM argument that D2 undergoes dissociative adsorption at oxygen vacancies in the NiO layer. However there is experimental evidence for and against this. Storms also reckons the involvement of oxygen could be relevant. I wonder if the SEM would pick up the NiO as effectively as the CaCCO3 and show whether this also gets involved with the Pd?