MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from StevieH

    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.


    Agreed: If we have caught a fish, let's analyze it as well as possible.


    On the other hand: perhaps there are other fishers, who are in the opportunity to throw out their nets and able to see if they can catch anything.

    Quote from ElderingG

    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.


    Figure six could be mad with 1 MM platinum wire, I do know that VWR sells platinum mesh, using a jewelry welder it can be made in minutes. On another note where there gas samples taken? Or is there no way to take them? Just wondering if there was excess helium?

    Why do you or anyone focus on the nature of the mesh? The LENR reaction involves interaction between individual atoms. From an atom's point of view, a mesh does not exist. The mesh consists of regions were Pd can be deposited and regions were it can not be deposited, with no control over how much of each region exists in the material. Consequently, use of mesh creates a totally random and chaotic environment. What is the value in trying to reproduce something that simply cannot be duplicated? Mizuno used mesh only to allow better thermal contact with the wall, not because it would be expected to be a better material for producing LENR. His use came from his early work involving gas discharge during which Pd was transferred from the anode to the mesh. Absolutely no reason exists to expect a mesh would be beneficial when burnishing is used. In contrast, a sheet of Ni would provide a controlled active area, would provide a reproducible surface, and would allow better control of the burnishing process. Remember, you are trying to discover whether burnishing can cause LENR, not whether the Mizuno approach is required. Please look at the process from an atoms point of view. This is not an engineering problem that is related to the shape and size of the object being used.

    Quote from whocares

    Figure six could be mad with 1 MM platinum wire, I do know that VWR sells platinum mesh, using a jewelry welder it can be made in minutes. On another note where there gas samples taken? Or is there no way to take them? Just wondering if there was excess helium?

    Quote from Storms

    Why do you or anyone focus on the nature of the mesh? The LENR reaction involves interaction between individual atoms. From an atom's point of view, a mesh does not exist. The mesh consists of regions were Pd can be deposited and regions were it can not be deposited, with no control over how much of each region exists in the material. Consequently, use of mesh creates a totally random and chaotic environment. What is the value in trying to reproduce something that simply cannot be duplicated? Mizuno used mesh only to allow better thermal contact with the wall, not because it would be expected to be a better material for producing LENR. His use came from his early work involving gas discharge during which Pd was transferred from the anode to the mesh. Absolutely no reason exists to expect a mesh would be beneficial when burnishing is used. In contrast, a sheet of Ni would provide a controlled active area, would provide a reproducible surface, and would allow better control of the burnishing process. Remember, you are trying to discover whether burnishing can cause LENR, not whether the Mizuno approach is required. Please look at the process from an atoms point of view. This is not an engineering problem that is related to the shape and size of the object being used.

    Who is to say that the atoms can not be set into mesh, You believe that small nano cracks are the answer, loading , unloading the material is supposed to cause these. It's still a vacant area they are filling, mesh can act in the same way.:)

    Quote from Storms

    The mesh consists of regions were Pd can be deposited and regions were it can not be deposited, with no control over how much of each region exists in the material.

    In view of the undeniable success of TM's R20, I am unable to agree with this approach, and would like some clarification.

    This field is not led by predictive theory, it is ruled by the findings of the experimenter. There is some good QM argument, but it seems to provide precious little insight to help with practical matters.

    With this in mind, I am of the opinion that the use of mesh has somewhat more to offer than mere thermal contact with the reactor walls. I have modelled it in CAD, and the TM preparation produces something like 10E7 elliptical sites. These are well defined, and cause the effect of areas where Pd is definitely applied, and also where it is definitely not. Due to the TM prep. method, the Pd is also intercalated with oxides of Ca, and almost unavoidably, Ni. TM's calculations indicate that the bulk of the D2 inventory is absorbed by the Ni rather than the Pd.


    The mesh system therefore offers an excellent opportunity to analyse this interaction. SEM may show the creation of active sites, the NAEs of ES, which are detached from the palladised area, or it may show them to be totally associated only with the palladised area. It may well show a mixture, or idiosycratic 'hot spots' in random areas of the mesh. Either way, it is a wonderful chance to observe and deduce.


    The way forward here, imho, is going to be simple logic. To form a logical bridge that runs from material aquisition all the way to the density and location of active sites. This will be led by analysis of the successful material in any way that can be done. The more information, the better.


    The atom can not see the mesh: true. But the atom ( or whatever part thereof), from my understanding of the labours of ES and others, is contained in large numbers, in a well of tightly defined geometry. So the mesh, because of its heterogeneous nature, surely offers a brilliant opportunity to study the combination of circumstances which can lead to the production of these sites. It may give us nothing, but with the success of TM's reactor, I fail to see how the mesh can not give us useful, if not vital, information.

    Quote from StevieH

    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.


    That is what Mizuno and I think. That's why we are trying to arrange for a detailed high res analysis of the mesh that produced 250 W. I think that project is on track. I made some cynical comments before about people who want to take information without giving any. There are such people, but many others stepped up to help. I thank them.


    The big question is: Can we identify the active sites of NAE? Ed Storms thinks NAE is defined by morphology. I don't know how these diagnostic instruments work, or how well they can define the shape of the Ni metal under the Pd. I suppose that is where the active sites are.


    As I reported, Mizuno made a new mesh. Preliminary tests show it is producing only 20 or 30 W, but that may improve with additional cycles of gassing and degassing. He is preparing additional meshes and mailing them out to people. He is not testing them before mailing them, so they might not work.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I reported, Mizuno made a new mesh. Preliminary tests show it is producing only 20 or 30 W, but that may improve with additional cycles of gassing and degassing. He is preparing additional meshes and mailing them out to people. He is not testing them before mailing them, so they might not work.


    I have done some (5) meshes with TM method. They produce XH very low amounts / cop 1.05 (1.1 at best) etc.

    So I am very intrested how cop 10 mesh is produced (how many sanding movements, how many Pd stick scratch, which Pd-stick surface pressure is optimal etc. Is it ok to use sanding machine or do hands better meshes..? Video how cop10 mesh is produced..?)


    And there is some radiation hazard around Pd-Ni-D2 experiments. Fortunate it is low energy moustly and reactor wall stop it. But sometimes I have measured 650c/min with my pancake detector (220c/min norm). Sometimes neutron detector fires quite often.. So be carefull. (End of vacuuming under bake it produce some radiation spontanously)


    Some information:

    * 1pa vacuuming is enough to produce atleast radiation and some XH.

    * do not apply H2 in reactor. Low vacuum can`t outgas it completely. Ni reduction cycle must do with D2.


    People will get 20-30W meshes because TM have lost how COP10 mesh is produced?

    Quote from eros

    I have done some (5) meshes with TM method. They produce XH very low amounts / cop 1.05 (1.1 at best) etc.

    So I am very intrested how cop 10 mesh is produced (how many sanding movements, how many Pd stick scratch, which Pd-stick surface pressure is optimal etc


    If it is working at all, my guess is that you need repeat the final steps in the process, especially gassing and degassing. Mizuno recommends that. Zhang reported that it did not work at first, but cycling through loading and deloading activated it:


    由上表可以看出，没有明显多余热量，数据与空白试验吻合。
    As can be seen from the table above, there is no obvious excess heat, and the data are consistent
    with the blank test.
    下面开始抽真空，充氘气，再来一遍
    Let's start vacuum, fill deuterium, and do it again.

    . . .


    几次短时间的多余热量

    Several short-term excess heat
    将容器加热至 100 度以上
    Heating the container to over 100 degrees
    抽真空
    Vacuum extraction
    冷却至常温
    Cooling to room temperature
    充氘气 1.5 毫升 0.3MPa
    Deuterium-filled gas 1.5 ml 0.3 MPa
    放置 24 小时
    Place for 24 hours
    77 瓦加热
    77 W Heating
    热平衡后抽真空
    Vacuum extraction after heat balance
    充氘气 1.5 毫升 0.3MPa
    Deuterium-filled gas 1.5 ml 0.3 MPa
    这时可以看见 2 小时以上的最高 9 瓦的多余热量
    At this point, you can see more than 9 watts of excess heat in more than 2 hour

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



    In a slide I will present at ICCF22, Ed Storms wrote:


    "The amount of D reacted with the metals will determine the amount of NAE that can be produced. However, the NAE is produced only during a deloading event. Therefore, for success to be achieved, deuterium must first be acquired by the metals, followed by removal of the D, as explained in the paper." (The paper is https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsErelationsha.pdf)

    Quote from eros

    People will get 20-30W meshes because TM have lost how COP10 mesh is produced?


    They may be getting 0 W meshes for all we know. Mizuno did not test them before he mailed them. He does not have time to test them.


    He has not "lost" how the "COP10" meshes were produced. He never knew, and still does not know. That result was fortuitous. The performance of the latest mesh at 20 to 30 W is much better than most meshes last year, and it may improve, but the performance cannot be predicted. We will have to do a lot more research to make mesh performance predictable. The first thing to do is to analyze the 250 W mesh.


    Also the "COP" part is meaningless. It was 10. It might as easily have been 100, or 1. As I have explained (or tried to explain) this is a function of how well insulated the cell is. That can be changed. A ratio of around 2 to 10 is convenient.


    As I also tried to explain to Seven_of_twenty, apparently without success, the ratio and the level of input power have no effect on the calorimetry. You can measure excess heat with 200 W of input as easily and with as much confidence as heat with 50 W of input. The difficulty is a function of the absolute power of the excess heat.



    When I say "a lot more research" I think people fail to understand the scale of what I have in mind. Do you suppose "a lot more" means Mizuno and people in a few other labs plugging along for another year, without enough money to fix the SEM? Nope. That won't cut it. We need enough research to compile something like a 3-volume textbook of information describing exactly how to make cold fusion devices. Something like the book that Bell Labs first published in 1952 telling engineers how to make transistors. F. J. Biondi, H. E. Bridgers, J. H. Scaff, and J. N. Shive, eds., Transistor Technology, Vols. I, II, and III (New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1958). See:


    https://www.computerhistory.or…es-transistor-technology/


    "In April 1952, over 100 representatives from 40 companies that had paid a $25,000 patent-licensing fee came for a nine-day Transistor Technology Symposium, including a visit to Western Electric's ultramodern transistor manufacturing plant in Allentown, PA. There were participants from such electronics titans as GE and RCA, as well as from then-small firms like Texas Instruments and Sony. Published by Bell Labs and subsequently by D. Van Nostrand in a revised edition, the proceedings of the first symposium - The Transistor fondly recognized as 'Ma Bell's Cookbook' - became the bible of the dynamic semiconductor industry that emerged in the 1950s."

    If it's the loading and subsequent removal of hydrogen from Pd (which normally changes volume significantly in the process) that creates the NAE at the interface with Ni (or at least promotes their formation), wouldn't more directly and more often cycle through pressure and temperature regimes that promote PdD formation and removal be advantageous? Perhaps the extended period of time in a high vacuum might not be that necessary if this is done. At the pressure range at which Mizuno recommends admitting deuterium (100-300 Pa, but no more than 6000 Pa) very little PdD might form above ambient temperature and so very little stresses would be applied and then relieved.


    However, Mizuno also recommends to confirm that the material shows that it can absorb deuterium, so this seemingly optional step, if done so that the burnished Pd forms PdD, could be crucial for activating the material according to Storms' model (if I understand it correctly).


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


    Quote

    The amount of gas absorbed by the nickel must be monitored to measure loading, to confirm the material is more permeable than ordinary nickel. It will not produce excess heat otherwise. However, once it is determined that it can be highly loaded, it should be de-loaded and run at low gas pressure, as described in the Method section below [...]


    Once the NAE are created, PdD formation would then become a counterproductive process, and so the lower pressures where PdD does not form appreciably would be more useful for the purposes of LENR heat generation as deuterium/hydrogen atoms will be able to more freely diffuse though the NAE.

    Quote

    This talk about a "world changing event" leaves me cold.

    A claim of high power, sustained for a long time, and reproducible would change everything. That seemed to be what was being claimed for Mizuno earlier on but not any more. My early optimism is decreasing as it seems we are settling into the same old decreasing of claims and the usual suspects and unconfirmed results.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    A claim of high power, sustained for a long time, and reproducible would change everything. That seemed to be what was being claimed for Mizuno earlier on but not any more.


    That is definitely what Mizuno said earlier, and he still says it. "Not any more" is your imagination. 20 to 30 W is high power. It is far higher than most cold fusion experiments. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/word…tormsPeakheat124tests.jpg


    Most researchers would be thrilled to get 20 to 30 W.



    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    My early optimism is decreasing as it seems we are settling into the same old decreasing of claims and the usual suspects and unconfirmed results.


    Peak power reported at ICCF21: Most meshes produce 0 W. Some 5 W. A few produced 10 to 20 W, and one produces 30 W:



    ICCF22: nearly every mesh works, and they all produce 50 to 250 W. The latest one started off producing more power than any mesh tested last year.


    You have made a gigantic quantitative error. You need to look more carefully at the numbers before commenting on this research.


    You also seem to have great difficulty understanding some rather simple concepts about insulation, or the fact that input electricity is not noise, and electricity can be measured with roughly 10 to 100 times greater precision than output heat. I do not see other people struggling with these concepts. Given your difficulty understanding them, I think you should be careful about drawing conclusions or making statement about the research.

    So the NAE's are formed during the de-loading phase presumably by the formation of cracks of the appropriate dimensions. I was trying to think of other ways of inducing cracks apart from the mechanical stresses involved on D absorption into the Pd lattice due to microscopic swelling then shrinkage of the lattice on de-loading in vacuum. How about thermal stress? Maybe plunge the mesh into liquid hydrogen/deuterium and repeat several times -- might work to produce NAE's more effectively. Maybe this has been tried before?

    @Jed Rothwell, quoting Zhang wrote:

    "Deuterium-filled gas 1.5 ml 0.3 MPa"


    This seems seems a big difference from the advice given in the Mizuno paper of 300 Pa (0.0003 MPa) operating pressure. It is within the 0.6 MPa maximum pressure recommended by Mizuno

    Perhaps Zhang meant to write 0.3 KPa. If he reads this, perhaps he could confirm the pressure units in his recipe.

    Quote from magicsound

    @Jed Rothwell, quoting Zhang wrote:

    "Deuterium-filled gas 1.5 ml 0.3 MPa"


    This seems seems a big difference from the advice given in the Mizuno paper of 300 Pa (0.0003 MPa) operating pressure. It is within the 0.6 MPa maximum pressure recommended by Mizuno

    Perhaps Zhang meant to write 0.3 KPa. If he reads this, perhaps he could confirm the pressure units in his recipe.

    I think it is low amount because PdNi sucks D2 very big amounts. In my case pressure may drop day-two.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.