MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • Leif Holmlid has just published a new astrophysics paper - mainstream scientists seem to be accepting his work now (at least in astrophysics) - be worth replicating his work now more than anything else because this would establish a basic working theory for not only how Mizuno's reactor works but also the underlying mechanism for all LENR. Then he should be awarded the Nobel Prize.


    Holmlid has always written papers well enough to be published. it is not too difficult, you follow the correct forms, detail some results, etc. Where LENR work does not get published these forms are generally not followed.


    As to whether others accept his work, you need to look at who cites his papers and what they say about it.


    Generally, until others outside the parent group cite a novel set of papers you don't really know what view is taken of them.


    The issue with Holmlid for LENR is that his work claims plentiful emission of high energy products, whereas the rest of LENR (almost always) does not.

  • The issue with Holmlid for LENR is that his work claims plentiful emission of high energy products, whereas the rest of LENR (almost always) does not.


    I try to explain it one more time...: Holmlid is adding energy to H*/D* and latest after 53MeV the proton cracks. (Forget the CERN figures for producing Kaons...). In LENR we are removing energy. The better this works the mores stable the NAE is.


    Both processes start at the same point, H*/D* but end up totally different.

  • wouldn't more directly and more often cycle through pressure and temperature regimes that promote PdD formation and removal be advantageous?

    Absolutely. I have been thinking this for a while.


    I am sure I've read that trying to achieve the cycling in too large a step overstresses the forming active sites, and ruptures them, or at least forms them with dimensions which are too big. It therefore seems valid to cycle it more gently. Then, clearly, to avoid protracted time scales, the obvious thing to do is to cycle it more often. I have been thinking about a reactor that does this in a way that morphological changes can be monitored more easily. It's project name is R^3; Rapid Reaction Reactor. I will be using wire rather than mesh, and any ideas regarding morphology can be tried and easily, and cheaply, and quickly assessed.The object is to monitor changes by eg. 4 point resistance measurement. It is quick, cheap and accurate, and any grain boundary cleavage or similar morphology will result in an increase of electrical resistance. Any excess heat will, of course, also show up as a resistance increase, but this would not be permanent unlike the other type. Calorimetry will not be involved, this is an effect analysis with a large field of subjects. Anything that seems to be of interest can be simulated and investigated.


    Where the Mizuno R 20 type core is pressure/temperature cycled once a day, R^3 will be able to go through maybe 6-10 cycles. This will mean that all the cycle parameters can be analysed in high resolution detail, and the most effective forms can be implemented much more quickly.


    I am starting to think that in the light of the impending analysis of the Mizuno mesh, while people attempting replications is fine, it is probably a bit like playing a negative form of Russian Roulette with 117 chambers (to pick a random number). It is negative because here, one wants to pick the chamber with the round in it, as opposed to it meaning instant death. But there are many empty chambers. Maybe 117 is a high number, but it serves to illustrate the point. For me, the focus is on designing targetted experiments that will examine a parameter spectrum across any envisaged potential process or effect.


    Mizuno himself has said that he is unsure of the accurate details of the mechanisms at play. It would be very convenient if he were to manage to produce a mesh that had similar properties to the famous R20 trio, then that would mean things are starting to get repeatable more easily-that the right areas are being closed in on. But the main thing is to target the forming of a system of reliable repeatability: high excess heat is brilliant, but likely to be sporadic until this can be done.

  • The issue with Holmlid for LENR is that his work claims plentiful emission of high energy products, whereas the rest of LENR (almost always) does not.


    It is real enough. Norront have a fantastic team with superb equipment who have established beyond doubt that it is all real. And have verified it off-site too. What they have not reported on is heat- but they are seeing some direct electricity production at very low efficiencies of course- early days.

  • It is real enough. Norront have a fantastic team with superb equipment who have established beyond doubt that it is all real. And have verified it off-site too. What they have not reported on is heat- but they are seeing some direct electricity production at very low efficiencies of course- early days.

    I think what Wyttenbach says describes the situation very well, the phenomena is in the base the same, but Holmlid uses a high energy stimulus. I think he is on the same position that Cardone et al in Italy are, in the sense they both have great confidence in their results, and have gathered support for continuing their research fully funded and with total liberty so they really don’t care much if not many pay attention or believe their results.

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

  • It is real enough. Norront have a fantastic team with superb equipment who have established beyond doubt that it is all real. And have verified it off-site too. What they have not reported on is heat- but they are seeing some direct electricity production at very low efficiencies of course- early days.


    Alan, I've never doubted that most of the LENR observations, and of Holmlid's, are real.


    However the question is whether Holmlid's interpretation of his results is correct. That is much less clear.


    I've noted there is often a profound lack of imagination when it comes to explaining unusual results, so that any such is seen as evidence of new physics...

  • Alan, I've never doubted that most of the LENR observations, and of Holmlid's, are real.


    However the question is whether Holmlid's interpretation of his results is correct. That is much less clear.


    I've noted there is often a profound lack of imagination when it comes to explaining unusual results, so that any such is seen as evidence of new physics...

    Did you see last Holmlid publication? It will make you livid.


    To quote the last part of the conclusions:


    It is now suggested that processes in the Universe that are believed to have taken place only once and which are neither possible to repeat nor to study independently should be removed from science and be considered like creation as belonging to the sector of personal belief only.



    https://link.springer.com/arti….1007%2Fs10509-019-3632-y

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

  • It is now suggested that processes in the Universe that are believed to have taken place only once and which are neither possible to repeat nor to study independently should be removed from science and be considered like creation as belonging to the sector of personal belief only.


    That is hilarious. There is some truth to it. But if we do that, what are the cosmologists supposed to do for a living? Work at a fast food joint?

  • Have any LENR researchers besides Holmlid looked for muons?


    There is the CosmicWatch $100 detector, which I see has been posted on lenr-forum before. http://www.cosmicwatch.lns.mit.edu/about . I think it is sensitive to multiple kinds of radiation. Scintillator blocks that have already been machined and heat polished to spec are available on ebay.


    There is also https://www.hackster.io/jdpetrey/muon-detector-23bb72 which uses coincidence and a shield to better separate muons from non-muons. Each of the geiger muller tubes is much smaller than the scintillator blocks of the CosmicWatch project, so I'd wager that the detection efficiency is lower for this coincidence detector.


    CosmicWatch lists "two paddle update for coincidence measurement" as a possible future improvement.

  • However the question is whether Holmlid's interpretation of his results is correct. That is much less clear.


    This work has been exposed to some serious Muon spectroscopy studies at a certain high energy laboratory in the UK. And passed the test - that is one of the things I meant by verified off-site. Norront are without doubt doing great work.

  • However the question is whether Holmlid's interpretation of his results is correct. That is much less clear.


    I've noted there is often a profound lack of imagination when

    What is much less clear is what THHnew's interpretation of Holmlid's results is


    Perhaps THHnew can enlighten the world with his profound imagination about the Muon spectroscopy..

    .on another thread

  • The issue with Holmlid for LENR is that his work claims plentiful emission of high energy products, whereas the rest of LENR (almost always) does not.

    Definitely THHnew's contrary/confused interpretations of LENR /Holmlid need another thread.

    Perhaps a thread entitled Holmlid speculation? confusion is more appropriate than Mizuno Replication

    THHuxleynew wrote: Oct 9th 2018

    The particles reported by Holmlid come from products of high power lasers. So some high energy particles and even fusion are not unexpected. Hardly LENR. No evidence the particles are "strange" or "exotic" either. But, what is good, is that there is definite evidence of particles and what they are can be argued.

    What is bad for LENR is that this is not LENR. It still might be interesting.

    Quote
     THHuxleynew wrote: Mar 27th 2019 Why is Holmlid's LENR giving him such obvious high energy products, whereas almost all other LENR does not do that - except a few experiments that possibly show alphas (PAB) or gammas (AS)? No coherence


    THHuxleynew posits Holmlid as LENR (QUOTE2) and not LENR (QUOTE1)..???


    Holmlid doesn't refer to his results as LENR, btw.

  • That is hilarious. There is some truth to it. But if we do that, what are the cosmologists supposed to do for a living? Work at a fast food joint?

    Yes, or get a job any where else, like anyone else has to do. And from the crap I've seen in published papers over the years, they need to be joined by a lot of other 'professional scientists' too.

  • The issue with Holmlid for LENR is that his work claims plentiful emission of high energy products, whereas the rest of LENR (almost always) does not.


    LENR is about creating the conditions in which it can happen - the NAE as Storms calls it. There is no reason in this field to to abide by the reductionist view that all such environments should be the same, require the same inputs and produce the same outcomes. A biologist who claimed this to be the case would be laughed at. The abundant life forms around an abyssal 'hot smoker' and in an arctic salmon river are very dissimilar in physical terms, but given continuity of inputs they are both self-organising, self maintaining systems for converting, storing, and releasing geological/solar energy in ways that are useful to them and incidentally to us. This is a huge chemical and physical miracle, supported by countless tiny ones.


    In the same manner, there is IMHO no logical reason to insist that LENR as a natural phenomenon should manifest itself only in one form and only in very unique pure systems, Nature doesn't do black and white, nature works in Technicolor.This tendency for nature to produce an abundance of possibilities is reflected in LENR. Going back over a number of years I have seen different and often complex mixtures of materials produce (carefully measured)betas. gammas, extraordinary burst of heat and so on. LENR is not one phenomenon, it is a convenient family name for many.

  • This does echo thoughts I was having the other day when I was reading a Storms article about finding a general mechanism for LENR.


    In the past, I have often used the tactic that when researching one area, if you look to another, dealing with the same mechanisms but from a different objective, you can glean very good insight. I had just been reading in the field of corrosion- H2 embrittlement. An very similar but historically much more lavishly funded area of research, in which they accepted years ago that the field is too varied for a one fits all approach, and several mechanisms are at work. Which one is applicable depends on the particlar context in hand.

  • This work has been exposed to some serious Muon spectroscopy studies at a certain high energy laboratory in the UK. And passed the test - that is one of the things I meant by verified off-site. Norront are without doubt doing great work.

    Alan Smith , thanks for bringing up the Norront group involvement, I checked and they formed together with Holmlid, the Gothenburg University venture fund, and two other companies, a venture called Norront Fusion, and they say they are progressing and have several energy prototypes distributed and being tested. This is absolutely new to me and seems to be a company that is going full steam ahead, but quietly and away from the spotlight.


    http://www.norrontfusion.com/technology

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

  • In order to avoid confusion and long winded discussions that mean nothing, I would like to suggest several facts needing acknowledgement.


    1. LENR has been found to produce energetic radiation but not with sufficient energy for most of it to be detected outside the apparatus. Because this energy has a spectrum of values, radiation at the upper end of that energy spectrum is occasionally detected. Also, secondary radiation produced by the primary radiation interacting with materials in the apparatus can be produced. This kind of behavior needs to be acknowledged to avoid making useless comments.


    2. The NAE describers a chemical or physical condition existing in a solid structure in which a nuclear reaction can take place. Creation of the NAE is a normal chemical-physical process having no relationship to the subsequent nuclear reaction. While different kinds of NAE might exist, the rarity and difficulty to cause the subsequent nuclear process argues for there being only one kind of NAE. Nevertheless, different nuclear products can form as result of the nuclear process occurring in the same kind of NAE, but when different reactants are present. The challenge is to figure out how such an unusual nuclear process works. What kind of nuclear process can cause hydrogen isotopes to fuse, cause helium and hydrogen nuclei to be inserted into a heavy nuclei, cause the resulting transmuted nucleus to fission, and cause transmutation in biological systems? I suggest a Nobel Prize is waiting for the people who can figure this out.


    3. I believe the Coulomb barrier is real and must be overcome for any nuclear process to occur. This barrier can be obviously overcome when high energy is applied. Apparently, it also can be overcome with high efficiency without using high applied energy. The challenge is to figure out how this is possible. While Nature might have several mechanisms for doing this, all of the mechanisms seem to require a similar NAE. The challenge is to figure out how to make this condition with predictability. Right now it is apparently made by luck and an accidental combination of uncontrolled variables. These important variables need to be identified. Can we focus on this problem?

  • Right now it is apparently made by luck and an accidental combination of uncontrolled variables. These important variables need to be identified. Can we focus on this problem?


    I am of the understanding that one of the best shots at 3. we will ever get, is to take the "lucky" Mizuno meshes, analyse the crap out of them, and work hard on the logic. So we are waiting for the analysis.

  • I am of the understanding that one of the best shots at 3. we will ever get, is to take the "lucky" Mizuno meshes, analyse the crap out of them, and work hard on the logic. So we are waiting for the analysis.

    Yes, the Mizuno method is one of several methods I can suggest that can or have worked. However, each is influenced by unknown variables that can make them difficult to reproduce without suitable efforts being made to understand and apply this understanding. In the case of Mizuno, the burnishing process is the important variable not the mesh. I predict progress will be slow until this conclusion is acknowledged and applied. In fact, a mesh would be the worst of all possible materials to use. The best material would be a sheet of metal, perhaps Ni, thick enough to resist the pressure applied by the burnishing process. This is a well known mechanical process. What is preventing people from applying what is known rather than guessing. The nuclear reaction is a lucky consequence of this conventional process and does not need to be considered in order to understand what the burnishing process is doing to the surface. Can we focus on what is known about the normal and completely conventional aspects of the burnishing process?