MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from jeff

As people have stated previously, stainless steel galls easily; it also has a tendency to work harden, making drilling difficult. Some vacuum hardware utilizes silver coated threads to avoid this problem. For example, the threads on VCR fittings are typically plated with silver. I don't know what machining facilities Mizuno has, but if he can get hold of a vertical mill and carbide tooling it should be possible to either drill or mill off the damaged hardware (assuming it is nuts/bolts). I have some experience machining stainless, and the combination of rigid a setup, carbide tooling, and appropriate coolant works well.

Jeff

I would just attempt to loosen the bolts with the best wrenches available and twist until the bolts break. I used to do that all the time. It doesn’t take much torque to break the bolts. Replace the broken bolts, each as they are removed, with new ones tightened just enough to do the job if the seal is desired to be maintained. iMHO.

Jed.

You need to read the posts from yesterday. We sorted this out in high resolution. Opening that reactor is not a $1500 requirement.

Alan Smith's suggestion of nut splitters is the cheapeast. It's £20 off ebay. No machining, just a spanner - maybe even the same one he uses to tighten the bolts.

If you've got a lab lined up, don't allow this to pass by.

Give me a lever and I will lift the world.

A common steel pipe around a closed end wrench will shear the bolts.

Alan's way is neater.

I get the impression, Dr. Mizuno seals his reactors. So I assume he has the wrench. A common steel pipe can be returned to the store after use. Net cost: time.

Is it wrong to have no shame to use that which society offers to investigate solutions society might need?

If it is illegal, I advocate civil disobedience.

That is another way of doing it. Like your style. One potential problem is it could get a bit tricky with stainless, it's a fair bit tougher than normal.

May be best to stick to the splitter.

Quote from StevieH

You need to read the posts from yesterday. We sorted this out in high resolution. Opening that reactor is not a $1500 requirement.

Have you spoken with Mizuno? Do you know what the problem is? I don't, so I cannot address your solution. I do not know why Mizuno says it will cost $1,500.

Here is a better photo of the calorimeter with the insulation removed from the wall. This was taken many years ago with the 50 kg reactors in it. This shows the padding at the bottom more clearly.

Quote from JedRothwell

Have you spoken with Mizuno? Do you know what the problem is? I don't, so I cannot address your solution. I do not know why Mizuno says it will cost $1,500.

You said the crux of it is that it is broken such that the mesh can't be got out to be tested.

It is a cylinder, with flanges and end caps on each end. Unless someone has welded the caps on for a prank, there are only 2 ways this can have happened. One of them is a virtual impossiblilty.

This does narrow the odds somewhat.

No, I haven't spoken to Mizuno, but yesterday, we analysed it. It is too simple not to be able to do that.

If you read the posts, you will see where we are coming from.

If you think we are wrong, would it be too much to email him a get a bit more detail so we can sort that out and save some money?

We are trying to help, not be a bunch of awkward smart arses.

Quote from StevieH

No, I haven't spoken to Mizuno, but yesterday, we analysed it. It is too simple not to be able to do that.

I would say you speculated, rather than analyzed. You may well be right. I wouldn't know. I am not inclined to speculate about matters of fact that someone (Mizuno in this case) knows all about but has not had an opportunity to report.

I don't have time to pursue this. I am too busy preparing for the conference.

Quote from JedRothwell

Here is a better photo of the calorimeter with the insulation removed from the wall. This was taken many years ago with the 50 kg reactors in it. This shows the padding at the bottom more clearly.

Do you have a recent high-def photo of the front of the calorimeter box with the internal insulation installed? I am interested in the details of how the insulation is installed relative to the 5 cm hole and 10 x 20 cm reactor plumbing clearance notch when the calorimeter is operating.

Okay, it turns out it was another lid that is stuck. Not the reactor. A clarification:

分析装置の蓋が壊れたらしく、試料が出し入れできず、測定できません。

"The lid of the analyzer seems to be broken, the sample cannot be placed in or taken out, so we cannot do measurements."

I don't know which analyzer that means. It is reasonable that would cost $1,500. I hope the sample is not stuck in there. That's a little unclear. Anyway, I think we have lined up another analyzer.

Quote from JedRothwell

Okay, it turns out it was another lid that is stuck. Not the reactor. A clarification:

分析装置の蓋が壊れたらしく、試料が出し入れできず、測定できません。

"The lid of the analyzer seems to be broken, the sample cannot be taken in and out, so we cannot do measurements."

I don't know which analyzer that means. It is reasonable that would cost $1,500. I hope the sample is not stuck in there. That's a little unclear. Anyway, I think we have lined up another analyzer.

Display More

So in that case can those wonderful R20 results be independently tested? This is a big deal you know...

Here is the gadget that will not open. The sample is NOT stuck in it. That was my misunderstanding. The sample is on its way to another lab. (Some portion of it, anyway.) Previously, I just heard "the top is stuck and nothing will go in or out" (出し入れできず dashi-iri dekizu . . .)

It is one damn thing after another. (一難去ってまた一難。ichinan satte mata ichinan, "escape one disaster just to meet another.")

Quote from THHuxleynew

So in that case can those wonderful R20 results be independently tested? This is a big deal you know...

I guess that depends on how much of the mesh they analyze, and whether it is destructive testing. I don't know. I hustled and helped arrange the tests, but I do not know what instruments will be used or how much of the material will be sacrificed. Not long ago, the only way to get a complete analysis was to strip away the material one layer at a time until nothing was left. Nowadays I have heard they have magic gadgets that look inside and read out the elements without physically removing the upper layers. Okay, it seems like magic to me.

I told the people who are going to do the analysis that I think they should analyze a large portion of the mesh, because we do not know what part of the mesh was active. We don't know what was NAE (nuclear active environment) as Storms calls it. I do not know if they can identify NAE it even with an analysis. Perhaps by finding elements with unnatural isotopic ratios? I have no idea what they will find. What they find might be the key to making more super-productive mesh. Or it might lead nowhere. We won't know until they look. If we left the mesh locked in the reactor, we would never know. Seven_of_twenty does not seem to understand that. As I said, learning how to make more mesh is much more important than demonstrating the 250 W reaction again. People who do not believe it now, and who will not be convinced by the R19 109 W reaction, would not be persuaded with another 250 W test. Even if they were standing in the room, and their own thermometers showed the 11 deg C temperature difference, they would not know what to make of it.

Following our little tete a tete yesterday, it appears that Jed realised there were anomalies and decided to seek clarification.

I am glad the outcome was positive. We are here to make progress, not rail at eachother.

Re the analysis, I suppose if we start to ask questions, the lab concerned may well say "look, we are doing this pro bono, so we will do what the hell we think is best". Which would, to a large extent, be fair comment.

Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a bit of a discussion about how would be best to go about this. You don't get too many opportunities like this to get top analysis done on something important, without which you would be fishing in the dark- a full on investigation like this is a bit like AlanG's SEM but turbo and supercharged, and running on nitro! (Please forgive the analogy deeply rooted in fossil fool technology).

The following are my own suggestions for discussion, I am not trying to call the shots or anything like that.

I agree that doing several analyses of areas of the mesh would be desirable from the point of view of knowing how consistent it is, but I would have thought that as it is mass produced, and from wire that has been drawn from billet to 0.05mm, the metallic content of the Ni wire would be fairly consistent. Also, for me, finding unnatural isotopic ratios is evidence after the fact, rather than before it. I would be more interested in what is present, intercalation wise, in the palladated areas. There is much evidence of the involvement of oxides, which may well be a crucial catalytic influence. There has been previous occasion where, regarding purity of the Pd, Rh present as a contaminant has meant the difference between excess heat and not. At least that is what was reported, so clearly knowing exactly what is there would be an opportunity not to be missed at this important juncture. Jed has already made intimations to this end, but here is a chance to nail it good and proper.

Also, Mizuno calculated that of the D2 inventory, the Pd absorbed only a small fraction of it, most was taken by the Ni. At least as important as chemical analysis, is physical analysis. Mizuno's D2 calcs may well indicate that he has generated a situation in which Ni is able to absorb D2 at sites separate from Pd. SEM of varying magnification both of, and between adjacent palladated sites would give an insight into where the NAEs have formed/been generated. There seems to be a good body of evidence that where they form they locally melt, or majorly thermally transform the metal they form in. So this type of analysis would also give a good idea of how consistent is the population of sites, stats. of where they have a higher likelihood of forming, how closely are they related to Pd etc. All this is potentially vital information in understanding the processes involved.

I read something by Storms in which he had excess heat in Pd which had been loaded at around 1:1. When he started to shut it down, he showed that the heat continued at reducing loading, finally only stopping at around 0.15. Thus apparently debunking the theory that loading of around 1:1 is necessary. His findings also show that site formation happens for whatever reason, and so the bulk of loading appears to be superfluous. Mizuno agrees with this and shows that it is apparently flux rather than loading which is the important factor. It would seem, therefore, that the way to increase excess heat is to find a way to increase the number of sites. Physical analysis would give an insight into whether TM has found a way to do this. In the light of his broken SEM, this would be wonderful information to have, I think. Also, clearly, this type of investigation would indicate any "hot spots" in areas, showing that there may be further intricate idiosyncrasies in the bringing about of site formation.

Regarding analysis internal to the wire; site clusters, dimensions chemical composition etc., this is to a large extent dependant on what type of equipment the lab has access to. There are some wonderful opportunities with Ion Beam Milling, but I guess that sort of kit doesn't grow on trees.

Finally, regarding the conflict between analysis and repeating with the mesh, I agree that analysis is the way forward. You only need more repeats if you don't believe, and no matter how many repeats you do, you won't convert a lot of folks. The important thing is to try to form a system of repeatability, and what is needed for that is as much relevant fact as possible. Of course, knowing what is relevant and what isn't, is a tricky call, but at least if you have the information, you can analyse it to your heart's content.

So now that Tolstoy has a sweat on, owing to the competition, I think I should button it and see what others think.

Finally, regarding the conflict between analysis and repeating with the mesh, I agree that analysis is the way forward. You only need more repeats if you don't believe, and no matter how many repeats you do, you won't convert a lot of folks. The important thing is to try to form a system of repeatability, and what is needed for that is as much relevant fact as possible. Of course, knowing what is relevant and what isn't, is a tricky call, but at least if you have the information, you can analyse it to your heart's content.

Thus far we have one "sample" reported in the paper, without full description of conditions or equipment.

We have Jed saying lots of people have come to measure it (I think) but with no specifics. this is surprising, because had i come to see such a world-changing device I would make careful independent observations, fully recorded, if that were possible.

Anyone who thinks that independent, competent, well recorded testing of R20 would not convince skeptics is very very wrong. The results are so large that quibbles over calorimetry don't exist. Careful measurement (especially on input side) remains important.

THH

Quote from AlainCo

About repetition, reproduction, I remember a discussion on Ergodicity hypothesis.

• Reproduction can be on one (few) mesh/electrode many times, (over time)
• or on many mesh/electrodes one (few) times... (over space)

Trying to reproduce M20

• in another labs with different reactors is one choice. (over space). Zhang did that.
• The alternative choice would be to test the M20, or any working reactor (H Zhang?) in another lab, with different calorimetry, or at least many times. (over time).

Another question is who is making the experiment. Some even ask for the initiator, not to help the replicator, and especially never to touch the replication experiment. What is Zhang H is testing M20 in his seebeck calorimeter? Or Edmund Storms testing H Zhang reactor in his own seebeck reactor ?

I don't remember clearly if the skeptics have a preference for the non-ergodicity alternative... over space or over time?

For experts, is there any choice that is really less convincing ? a choice that is much harder ?

One of my proposal is to test a working reactor, in another lab, with another calorimeter ? or at least using the same metal (like did Lonchampt with Fleischmann palladium) ... is it rational? acceptable?

Display More

I can maybe answer this. For industrial utility you need replicability over multiple devices. A one-off magic device that cannot be replicated is no good.

For scientific proof of something extraordinary you need the result (nuclear-level excess heat) to be proven beyond any doubt. It does not matter that only one reactor exhibits this, as long as it can be retested independently and continue to do so. The key things that lead to untrustworthy results are:

(1) Inventor defines calorimetry setup. Even if this is tested in another lab, by others, there may be some issue with the setup (e.g. Brillouin and Q pulses that maybe, because never explicitly checked, generate false TC outputs).

(2) Inventor does tests. Inventors can make mistakes and repeat them: humans shave almost infinite capacity to do this.

Maybe to resolve the scientific problem of what is LENR (practically) you'd need the phenomena to be well enough understood that you had a replicable device exhibiting it. But that is a different question from does LENR exist.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The results are so large that quibbles over calorimetry don't exist.

Nicely put.

Regarding your mention of sceptics, I don't give a flying toss about them.

They can sceptic off to the bottom of a sceptic pit in sceptic land.

The data in Mizuno's paper are loud and clear.

The calorimetry is far more exacting than it needs to be.

Following the analysis, I can't wait to get started working on the logic of how to develop a system of repeatability.

Mizuno has put this on a whole new plateau which is a stone's throw away from real world useful kit.

If the R20 had been repeated, then it would have been said that it will only be worthwhile when it is proven to be re repeatable, and quite rightly so. Mizuno would then have had to make more meshes to prove he could repeat his own results. Something that Mizuno himself may well admit is no certainty. (Not presuming to speak for him, of course). He probably will make more meshes that perform. So we may as well make the forward step now anyway because it makes no odds. Even if R20 had been repeated 10 times in front of the World President, it would still be no guarantee that it could be repeated again. So until we can learn how these results can be systematically repeated they will remain a wonderful one off anyway.

The figures are good. Let's proceed.

Time to repeat my earlier suggestion: create a mesh with well defined different application of palladium and place it under "Mizuno conditions" on an evenly heated flatbed heater and observe what happens.

Sure, there's all kinds of parameter-spread experiments that can be done, and it will be productive and rewarding to do them.

First though. for me, we need to find in as high resolution detail as possible just exactly what occurred around the R20 mesh, so we can logic out what may have happened, and thus be able to target them more reliably.

Lets hope that the lab will liaise with TM and get some really relevant and copious data.