MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Alan Smith

Don't be fooled by the simplicity of the can. The peripheral equipment - 2 high vacuum pumps, 2 (very refined) pressure gauges, mass spec, deuterium source, heater psu and power meters costs around 20x as much as the reactor. And you really need to be a skilled cook to make great baked beans.

Yes, some skill is required, but certainly nothing shown so far that is not within well established precedence.

Machining the reactor is truly simple compared to many such things requiring high precision bearings, balancing, exotic materials, exotic welding (SS is not an issue to weld), high vacuum seals, etc. etc. Not necessarily easy, but certainly done every day in several disciplines. High vacuum is so common that one can purchase used "TM" pumps on eBay!

Burnishing the material? Well, how difficult can that be? Right to left? Left to Right? Forward and back? 3 times each way? Hard pressure or light? The point is, this is not a technically difficult issue.

I worked on a grant involving holograms in college (back in the 70's) that was far more technically challenging than this. Tuneable Lasers (in infancy at the time), massive vibrationless tables, high precision splitters, mirrors, chemical various coatings, etc. etc. This undergraduate work was far more "costly" and in several ways more technical.

I do not state this to say CF is easy, but that it is becoming frustrating to hear "CF is so difficult to replicate because one needs years or experience and knowledge"

Well, what experience? Welding? Mizuno does not weld. High vacuum? Done every day. (Not easy but not PHD stuff) Burnishing? Hardly technical. The R20 reactor test is simple compared to many common projects today.

I agree 100% with Dr. Storms in that the issue is a lack of understanding. The "require expert and years of knowledge" meme does not hold a lot of water in that there is not much consensus on the "knowledge".... Mills, Storms, Widom/Larsen, Hagelstien, Brillion(sp)? Whose "years of knowledge" do you need? The years of experience does not hold water in that the R20 test is relatively simple compared with much of today's process's.

If one is doing calorimetry trying to detect a fraction of a watt or even 3-4 watts of excess power, one would need a lot of experience and good equipment. Not easy for a "garage tinker" but not impossible. As Jed often states, measuring fractions of a watt was done in the late 1800's. However, as SOT says, the R20 shows such a high level of excess heat the calorimetry should be quite straight forward. Detecting a watt is difficult. Detecting 200 watts is not. (Or at least should not be)

I see this meme as becoming more of an excuse at times! And then when close scrutiny brings up general questions, it is often responded with emotionalism.

There is nothing wrong with close scrutiny and if a question is answered factually, it will be answered. ("I said so" is not a factual answer!)

What is needed is what Dr. Storms is preaching (I think). A systematic approach of testing parameters using established scientific methods, to confirm a theory. I suspect this may be underway in Texas. Who knows?

Where will the field be in 12 months? If using the "blind man" approach, probably no further than we are today.

I should point out that KFeO₂ is the metastable, catalytically-active phase that composes the surface of industrial potassium-iron oxide catalysts after activation. It's defined as having a "tunneled" nanostructure

I agree, KFeO2 may well turn out to be the best catalyst for UDD / H synthesis as it is for dehydrogenation reactions (of ethylbenzene to form styrene). Well you could say 'So what, that's an industrial catalyst and its really boring and nothing to do with Mizuno or LENR.' The question arises however how many other metal oxides could be similarly effective (in both styrene synthesis and in UDD formation). Here's a reference by some Chinese workers who have studied dehydrogenation catalysts in detail:

Ethylbenzene to styrene over ZrO2-based mixed metal oxide ...

https://www.sciencedirect.com › science › article › pii

So its as yet unknown whether other metal oxides could also be UDD catalysts - or some of the combinations described (ZrO2-TiO2-Fe2O3-K2O) synthetic catalysts could be more effective than KFeO2 which has stability problems.

Whilst stainless steel 316 used in TM's reactor contains:

So plenty of metal oxides to choose from, especially MnO2 - Fe2O3 - NiO - Cr2O3 - MoO3 if the reactor tube is left in open air prior to degassing and powering up for a test run. Maybe the Deneum test reactor surface was super-cleaned by liquid nitrogen removing any catalytic oxides? i.e. NO OXIDES = NO UDD = NO MUONS = NO COLD FUSION = NO EXCESS HEAT.

Quote from Alan Smith

So it is- I built one from scratch - much easier to work than stainless. But you should not underestimate the technical skill required to operate the vacuum equipment or run a mass spectrometer. Creating a spotlessly clean vacuum-tight system that can operate a vacuum levels close to that in interplanetary space is not easy or cheap.

After all you can probably buy a race-car on Ebay, and driving is pretty simple, but without skill in preparing it and experience of high-speed driving winning a race - or even making it over the finish line- would be hard.

Very well said. Race car driving truly is harder than simply driving in a circle! Yet the issue with CF / LENR does not appear to be the high vacuum, the welding, clean environment, or mass spectrometer usage.

The latter (mass spec) is a prime example. It has been stated that if one does not have this, it would be almost useless (and recommended) to not even attempt the R20 replication. The Deneum (sp) attempt was criticized and dismissed because of a lack of mass spec use. However, there are no set firm parameters on what the mass spec readings should be nor any attached theory as to why. No oxygen allowed? A particular amount? Why? It is almost alchemy. It is not even known if the mass spec readings are needed. As one speculated, could be the the repetitive cycles of heating/vacuuming that create NAE's and contamination has no bearing. (Or it might not be that either!)

The point is, it is becoming excusive to say the test cannot be done successfully unless the parameters are followed and then say it is blind and there is no theory or set parameters to follow. It most likely would be much more productive if the field would stop being so contradictory...

Apparent contradictions:

One must have years of experience and knowledge and yet no theory exists to follow and the fabrication processes needed is mundane? (Relatively)

The distinct parameters are unknown, yet write ups lack the minute details needed to possibly identify clues and when questioned or scrutinized, back lash against "nit picking" is quick to come.

Unsuccessful replications are dismissed because of lack of procedure (such as mass spec usage). Yet Mizuno himself has failed reactions and he followed the mass spec protocol. (Apparently) So is mass spec really needed? Again, to what specifications? Why.

Indeed, I fully agree with Dr. Storms. Leaving success to lady luck is most likely comparable to winning the lottery. Occasionally a reactor hits "3 of the 5 winning numbers" and produces a minor reaction. Yet the big prize (all five numbers ) will never be won because the odds are 1 in a billion. (Figurative)

A methodical project of testing parameters is needed. The big question is who, what, when and how?

In the meantime, I would not criticize Deneum's attempts. I would give feedback and support and examine what they did do. I would not accept Mizuno's findings blindly. I would inquire and attempt to eliminate unknowns by reasonably questioning everything.

I agree with Bob#2 for the most part. Someone else wrote:

Quote

I was under the impression that Mizuno's cop is the biggest that hasn't been shown to be a fraud.

It's important to point out that while there is no indication, thus far, of any deception, the jury is still out, perhaps way out in terms of time. Negative replications won't be determinative- they could simply be mistakes. And as JedRothwell takes pains to point out (misnamed) "COP" is at best a minor issue compared to the absolute value of the output power. I would add, within reasonable limits- to be defined by experiments. Everything, it seems, depends on replication and so far, even Mizuno has not really replicated the 250W or appx 3kW results.

Holmlid writes;

The catalysts which are best suited for RM and ultra-dense hydrogen formation are so called hydrogen transfer catalysts, which dissociate the H2 molecules to separate H atoms on the surface, as also metals like Pt and Ir do.

Hydrogen transfer catalysts includes those capable of hydrogenation (Pt, Ir, Rh etc), and another series capable of dehydrogenation (KFeO2, ZrO2, TiO2, MnO2 etc) and the styrene catalysts are the latter. Is he suggesting both types of catalyst can form RM and thus UDD/H? ie as long as the catalyst can grab onto and split H2 we're in business for UDD/H formation, meson release, and cold fusion? Could this explain why in F&P s early experiments only Pd cathodes containing trace Rh produced excess heat? The plot thickens.

Quote from Alan Smith

So it is- I built one from scratch - much easier to work than stainless. But you should not underestimate the technical skill required to operate the vacuum equipment or run a mass spectrometer. Creating a spotlessly clean vacuum-tight system that can operate a vacuum levels close to that in interplanetary space is not easy or cheap.

There is posible to do atleast radiation and some XH with 1pa vacuuming. I have done it my desk and got some results. So quite big posibilites that garage people can do that experiment with single vacuum pump withouth mass spectrometer.

Biggest secret is where to buy nickel mesh and how sanding it and how apply Pd. Tap water is so full of stuff that extra purity is not needed.

@SOT - the high COP from TM's reactor indicates something very unique and different from previous studies is occurring - I'm proposing he has managed to create ideal/optimal conditions for cold fusion probably involving ultra dense deuterium formation (the pivotal clue was a much higher COP when the IR radiation from the heater was simply transferred from outside to inside the R20) Thus we have a system akin to Holmlid's IR laser setup for generating low-energy muons within the reactor. Since the metal (Fe/Mn) oxides usually required for UDD formation at low deuterium pressures were not specifically added I postulated they were probably present as oxides on the inside of the 316 stainless steel reactor body.

So UDD is formed on contact of D with the reactor walls, IR radiation from the heating element triggers kaon release which degrade to pions then muons and a rash of neutrinos/antineutrinos positrons/electrons plus a large Mev of energy. Muons released from UDD can then interact with D within the Pd/Ni lattice mesh within NAE's or indeed D absorbed into the stainless steel reactor walls resulting in cold fusion LENR and thus large amounts of excess heat from energy transfer from a multiplicity or nuclear reactions including D-muon-D fusion to T/D-muon-T to He/ positron/electron annihilation reactions/slow neutrino-antineutrino interactions with matter/proton/neutron/gamma ray thermalization etc etc.

The beauty of TM's reactor is that all this can all be tested experimentally because muon-catalysed fusion has been well studied. Once the reactor is up and running there are known ways of either enhancing (adding in more UDD catalysts) or inhibiting the nuclear reactions (mopping up muons with Ne or N2 or simply raising the D pressure etc).

Maybe Deneum were unsuccessful because the stainless steel was too clean, they could have removed all the metal oxides so NO UDD. They could now attempt another run with metal oxide catalysts (KFeO2 / TiO2-ZrO2/MnO2-ZrO2 etc) added in. Zhang used too high a D pressure 0.3 M Pa (or did he mean KPa? the jury's still out on that one.)

My suspicion: H Zhang sanded the mesh too much. With less sanding, the chord of Palladium (see figure below) would have a better electromagnetic frequency match to the optical phonons of Letts/Cravens/Hagelstein. These frequencies produced some of the highest COPs ever published in LENR. I would love to see microscope images of Mizuno's productive meshes. We should be able to experiment with different burnishing pressures to confirm chord length with a microscope.

Polar materials can turn heat into coherent radiation in the near field (10-100 nm in one paper). Silicon carbide is an example of a material that can do this. Micro/nano structured alumina and other metal oxides may fit the bill. Micro/nano structured nickel and palladium (via nano-structure formation methods like hydrogen loading/deloading) might also fit the bill?? Is this coherent radiation driving surface plasmon resonance, which couples to optical phonons? Is the quantum nature of plasmons a way to promote resonance by being insensitive to the influence of external fields that are not phase-matched? Deneum recently placed nickel powder on silicon carbide at high heat, and observed anomalous low frequency (~ 1 Hz) pulsations after some time (possible mundane explanation: molten nickel slowly rolling down a slightly inclined surface, bouncing back up the hill on a micro vapor layer after hitting a hotspot on the surface).

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Light_by_Thermal_Sources

The loading in Mizuno's experiment is low, and he suggested the flux is more important. From the Holmlid 2019 review paper: "The catalysts which are best suited for RM and ultra-dense hydrogen formation are so called hydrogen transfer catalysts, which dissociate the H2 molecules to separate the H atoms on the surface, as also metals like Pt and Ir do. This means that the H atoms behave as alkali metal atoms on the surface and in the desorption process. This H_N RM clusters form in desorption in the same way as the alkali metal clusters do. This supports the common notion that H is the lightest alkali metal."

Conduction band electrons are very weakly bound to the atoms in the metal. As the protons/deuterons leave the metal, they may take the high n, weakly bound electrons with them. If these electrons have high angular momentum l, then the electron has a high circular "orbit" and the otherwise delicate excited state is minimally perturbed by excursions to the nucleus (the latter is just well known Rydberg atom physics about Rydberg stability). Then, ultra-dense hydrogen can form by interconversion of regular rydberg hydrogen to ultra-dense hydrogen (I'm not sure exactly how this is supposed to happen, but Holmlid's results strongly suggest that it DOES happen).

Quote from Bob#2

It is a good question, but needs advise on what constructions will actually test for your hypothesis.

For example, the mesh may have worked not be cause it is acting as a "sand paper" with a rough surface peeling off Pd. It may be that there are numerous surface areas that are at a 90 degree position to the stroke and it provides a higher opportunity to "embed" Pd.

So, can a reactor be made that does not use one material section, but perhaps 3 or 4? Place one burnished method A, one method B, perhaps one where the Pd is pressed into flat stock with a hydraulic press, etc. etc. Then using IR measurements, one can see which area of the reactor is "hotter" given the same environmental conditions. This would assist in evaluating different processes of apply the Pd to the substrate.

A second reactor could then be used to possibly check multiple substrates. Apply the Pd via the same method to 4 substrates and place all 4 in the one reactor.

Measure the IR coming from each area.

If this method of testing showed that substrate A with pressed Pd under high pressure always showed more excess heat than other substrates / application methods, then close examination of it would likely be much more informative.

This is not to determine COP, etc. but to quickly identify which application method or which substrate shows a higher active reaction.

Or do you have more specific thoughts on how to go about determining which process is best to use.

One can examine substrates ad hoc, but unless you know it produced excess heat, it would do little good. One could test a lot of null reactors before finding the "lucky" one and then examination may not tell what the actual working mechanism is. A methodical approach of testing substrates versus application methods would seemingly be the way to go. However, you knowledge of your theory would best be suited on designing the parameters of such experiments.

Thoughts?

Display More

In my world, burnishing involves sliding one surface over another. The process can have a variety of consequences to the conditions on the surfaces. A rough surface can be made smooth, a smooth surface can form groves, and the material in the one surface can transfer to the other surface. The latter process is important in the Mizuno method. Pd is transferred to the Ni surface as an amorphous film of Pd metal. In addition, the thin NiO layer on the Ni surface would be disrupted and mixed with the Pd as it is applied. Because this is a chaotic process, the properties and thickness of the Pd layer and the NiO content of the layer will be highly variable. Apparently, an accidental combination of properties will produce local regions of NAE when the layer is repeatedly reacted with D2. If the NAE is as I propose, it would form as small gaps as result of local stress relief. This process is also chaotic and impossible to reproduce with reliability. Consequently, every attempt to replicate the LENR effect can be expected to produce different amounts of power at the same temperature because different numbers of NAE sites will be caused to form. We can only hope to make excess power more frequently than is possible using other methods but we will never be able to produce the same amount of power with any predictability. In other words, this will never be a reliable method for commercial energy production.

We first need to determine the nature of the NAE. The burnishing method might provide a way to do this if the process were examined in the proper way. After we know what the NAE actually consists of, we can make it on purpose. The work needs to focus on this goal.

Micro/nano structured alumina and other metal oxides may fit the bill. Micro/nano structured nickel and palladium (via nano-structure formation methods like hydrogen loading/deloading) might also fit the bill?? Is this coherent radiation driving surface plasmon resonance?

Or isn't the coherent radiation driving muon release from UDD/H? This would explain the temperature dependence of excess heat from TM's R20 - ie raising input power would increase IR intensity which would increase meson release from UDD. Holmlid reported a spontaneous release from UDD which was even sensitive to the room lights being switched on!

I have a silicon carbide tube which I will wrap my cartridge heater in. It will produce the THz frequencies with several hundred percent more efficiency than stainless steel.

edit: I also have an alumina tube on order to enclose the meshes. This material is almost as good at certain frequencies, but much more economical. You can't even buy large size silicon carbide tubes, they are just not readily available to consumers.

My examination of the Mizuno mesh preparation process revealed that sharp burrs occur at the edges of the lands, created by the sanding. Further, those burrs are where most of the Pd is deposited by subsequent rubbing on the sanded mesh. I saw little evidence of a thin layer being deposited on the surface of lands, though there are occasional spots where that occured.

As Ed Storms suggested, a similar mechanical process can be obtained on a flat plate or foil of Ni. I tried this and initially saw very little deposition of the Pd on a piece of polished Ni foil. Then I sanded the foil with 1000, 400 and 100 grit applied to different test areas, followed by the usual 1 hr soak at 90°C in tap water.

The images show that the size and thus mass of deposited Pd is greater with the coarsest (100) grit sanded surface. The burnishing also crushed the CaCO3 crystals and mixed the resulting <1 um particles into the deposits of Pd. The final image shows this effect.

Approximation of where H Zhang is hitting based on the microscope image.

Quote from magicsound

The images show that the size and thus mass of deposited Pd is greater with the coarsest (100) grit sanded surface. The burnishing also crushed the CaCO3 crystals and mixed the resulting <1 um particles into the deposits of Pd. The final image shows this effect.

A couple of points here.

Mizuno recommends starting rough and working with successive finer grits, as is the norm with a flatting/smoothing process. Also, as I recall, Mizuno a) never uses anything a rough as 100 grit , and b) starts at around 400 and works to around 1500 grit. This would give a much smoother finish. I also suspect this will get rid of a lot of the rough edges which will alter the nature of the Pd deposition. I have a deal of experience of this process over the years, and when you start rough, it produces the rough edges you have. But as you go smoother, it produces an increasingly well defined, burrless, clean edge.

This leads to the second point which is that you point out that the most Pd is deposited on the rough 100 grit mesh. Have you measured the actual weight gain of Pd on the mesh, and is it sufficiently well defined, area and consistency of treatment wise, to be able to calculate the equivalent weight that would be deposited on mesh of area Mizuno used. If so, does this match the ~ 50mg that TM recommends?

As a PS, I don't half wish we could get a few small random pieces of the Mizuno success mesh under AlanG's SEM. That would tell a story I would like to see (to mix the metaphors)

Quote from Arun Luthra

You can't even buy large size silicon carbide tubes, they are just not readily available to consumers.

A question you could help me with here, I have looked at this due to SiC's thermal and optical properties, but haven't found a definitive statement as to whether the SiC in question is ordinary refractory SiC, or SiC ceramic. Are you able to answer this question ploease?

Quote from Arun Luthra

Approximation of where H Zhang is hitting based on the microscope image.

Also, plugging the parametric spread testing, it wouldn't be too difficult to do a range of widths of elliptical site on the mesh, caused by a range of pressure/stroke number/grit size, to pass through the frequency peaks and observe the effect on heat production. Just a bit of localised learning of the art.