MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

There is nothing much to report about the replications. No positive results. Zhang was getting positive results. He found a problem with the pump, fixed it, and got more positive results. But lately the heat has petered out. I know of two or three other attempts. None has panned out yet. All of the replications I am aware of are somewhat different from Mizuno's setup. The cells are smaller, with less mesh. The methods of calorimetry are different. Two of them do not have mass spectrometers. I cannot say whether these differences matter. I think not having a mass spectrometer may be a problem.

Three samples of mesh have been sent to two high resolution mass spectrometers. I have not got any results back yet. The three samples of meshes are:

1. As received

2. Prepared with Pd but not used

3. Sample that produced a great deal of excess heat.

Quote

All of the replications I am aware of are somewhat different from Mizuno's setup.

Why in (fill in favorite deity)'s name would that be. It's plainly idiotic. Here we have a claim that basically says you can make an efficient (high COP) 3 kilowatt reactor reasonably straightforwardly if only you follow directions and recipe exactly... and people don't? Someone get me an aspirin for my headache please.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Why in (fill in favorite deity)'s name would that be. It's plainly idiotic. Here we have a claim that basically says you can make an efficient (high COP) 3 kilowatt reactor reasonably straightforwardly if only you follow directions and recipe exactly...

SOT: It's weekend and may be you missed something last week... Nobody did make these (3kW) claims. Mizuno was one time lucky with all he did and got 10X more excess than with routine.

Now what has been claimed was 30% excess guaranteed what most could repeat.

The fact is: LENR can produce much higher COP's than Mizuno had. But unless we have a prescription that is foolproof we will get foolish comments that 100% guaranteed...

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Here we have a claim that basically says you can make an efficient (high COP) 3 kilowatt reactor reasonably straightforwardly if only you follow directions and recipe exactly... and people don't?

Well, we never said it was straightforward. That was a 3-page recipe. To make it straightforward, you would have to publish a recipe similar to what Bell Labs distributed to people who licensed the transistor in 1952. They built a factory, brought in licensees, and held a conference to explain how to make transistors. This was published as:

CONFERENCE PROCEEDING

Transistor technology

Bell Telephone Laboratories.;

Western Electric Company.

New York : Western Electric;

1952

It was hundreds of pages long, and was later published in two volumes. It took hundreds of experts at Bell Labs three years to learn to make transistors and build the first factory, at a cost that today would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. There is no chance anyone will make a straightforward 3-kW cold fusion reactor until someone makes a similar effort for the Mizuno device, with similar sums of money. Until then, it will be shooting in the dark.

Anyway, people are not doing exact replications because they cannot. They do not have the equipment or the money. Mizuno has ~$150,000 worth of obsolete equipment that he has purchased or salvaged from the 1960s on, mainly the 1980s. Others do not have that kind of equipment. Mass spectrometers do not grow on trees. If you would like to provide a suitcase full of cash we can probably arrange an exact replication. If you don't have that kind of money . . . neither do we, so there is no point to discussing it, is there?

We do the best we can.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Now what has been claimed was 30% excess guaranteed what most could repeat.

No one ever guaranteed anything. We never said "most" could repeat. Only a few experts who are willing to put in years of effort. It took Mizuno many years to make this technique begin to work. Someone replicating might do it faster with his help, but I cannot imagine it would take less than a year, given all the unknowns and variations you have to sort through, and the fact that most people trying to replicate cannot afford the necessary instruments. As Mizuno & I have repeatedly said, it is more art than science. We do not know what makes it work. With enough money, effort and luck we might find out.

The difference between LENR and bipolar transistors is that there was a theory describing the underlying phenomena for the latter. The concepts of bandgap, Fermi level, current flow, holes, and electrons were all well established, even if they underwent further refinement, during transistor technology development.

While it's certain that I'm preaching to the choir, it seems clear that the place to expend our energy is to identify a theory that can be tested. At first the testing will be limited to confirming that nuclei can be brought sufficiently close together to achieve a reasonable probability of interaction. (The assumption here is that LENR may be described as a tunneling phenomenon.) There exist computational QM packages that should be able to do this, although the optimum algorithm is not clear to me. On the upside, the number of particles required to comprehend the LENR environment is likely to be small compared to many MM problems, and this may permit the use of fairly accurate algorithms.

The next step would be to design materials with the necessary nanostructure to permit LENR phenomena to occur. Right now, CMOS technology is able to reliably construct <10 nm features. So it would be useful to understand of these feature sizes are small enough to produce LENR effects. If the feature size is in the 5-10 nm range then it should be possible to fabricate an LENR capable surface using standard CMOS fabrication techniques.

Quote from jeff

The difference between LENR and bipolar transistors is that there was a theory describing the underlying phenomena for the latter.

That's true. Semiconductor research floundered around making little progress from the 1920s until a theory emerged in 1948.

Quote from jeff

The concepts of bandgap, Fermi level, current flow, holes, and electrons were all well established, even if they underwent further refinement, during transistor technology development.

I do not think they were well established. As I said, most theory emerged just before the breakthrough of 1949.

Quote from jeff

While it's certain that I'm preaching to the choir, it seems clear that the place to expend our energy is to identify a theory that can be tested.

I cannot judge how close we are to a theory.

Some technology has been developed without much help from theory. It is doing things the hard way, but it can be done.

When we were told "Seek and ye shall find ..." no one mentioned how long you might have to seek.

Some seeking lasts generations. Enjoy the journey for it may be all you get to experience. Your children's children will reap what you have sown.

I see a discrepancy of major proportions between Mizuno and Rothwell enthusiastic reports of a 3kW reactor, working in M's living room to heat the place and all the monstrous difficulties JedRothwell now wants us to believe are the reason the device is not being duplicated. Unfortunately, this resembles Rossi's claim to have heated a factory by replacing a boiler heat source with an ecat ...except nobody other than Rossi saw it happen and documented the heat.

Yes, the process M&R have described for making a reactor requires an ability with high vacuum technology, an ability to run a mass spec, and various more common abilities to machine metals and measure electrical parameters. But no step seems insurmountable or even especially complex or difficult. The one exception could be the nickel grid but it's described as simply rubbing one metal with another. I would think making useful and reliable transistors was much more picky and tricky.

Apropos of the season (in the US), you don't need a lot of theory to cook a turkey... if you have an accurate and well written recipe.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

I see a discrepancy of major proportions between Mizuno and Rothwell enthusiastic reports of a 3kW reactor, working in M's living room to heat the place and all the monstrous difficulties JedRothwellnow wants us to believe are the reason the device is not being duplicated.

I have no idea what the difficulties are. No one has been able to do experiment the way we recommended. No one has the equipment to do that. No one has the same size reactor or the same type of calorimeter. So it is very difficult to know why the replications are not working.

There is no discrepancy. I warned the readers here and elsewhere that it was unlikely the next sample would produce 3 kW. The enthusiasm is a figment of SoT's imagination. SoT also imagined that investors were lined up to see the reactor, but now that it is producing only 108 W they are no longer interested. He has strange ideas! There was never a line of investors wanting to see it.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Unfortunately, this resembles Rossi's claim to have heated a factory by replacing a boiler heat source with an ecat ...except nobody other than Rossi saw it happen and documented the heat.

No, it doesn't even begin to resemble Rossi's claim.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Yes, the process M&R have described for making a reactor requires an ability with high vacuum technology, an ability to run a mass spec, and various more common abilities to machine metals and measure electrical parameters. But no step seems insurmountable or even especially complex or difficult.

People who do not have mass spectrometers cannot run them. I don't know anyone trying to replicate who has one.

If you do not think these steps are complex or difficult, you know nothing about this experiment -- or any experiment. I suppose it can be done in a reasonable amount of time. It took Mizuno about five years. Others should be able to do it faster than that, with any luck. We are doing all that we can to facilitate this.

Quote from Desireless

But I am quite worried about Mizuno's attitude. Why it takes months to reveal anything new?

There is nothing new to be revealed. He has not been able to work for several months, for personal reasons.

Quote from Desireless

At least someone can share a SEM/EDX report.

We gave samples to two labs but they have not given us back any reports yet.

Quote from Desireless

Can Mizuno actually replicate his work obtaining a stable results?

I uploaded the results from his last two meshes, both in the same type of reactor. One produced 250 W excess, the next one produced 108 W excess. Results vary a great deal and are not under control, as anyone can see.

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

Quote from Shane D.

FTR, from what we were told there were "several" investor groups lined up (2 of which I know the name of) to meet Mizuno, plus a major university he was working with to do an independent replication

One or two came, that I know of. I was doing some long-distance translating. There may have been others. He doesn't keep me posted about everything that happens, or every replication attempt.

I included data from one of the visitors in the slides posted above. (Repeat: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasedea.pdf)

As soon as I get back any mass spectrometer data, I will upload it and post a message here. I have no idea when that will be.

Quote from Desireless

I will not give up until it will work.

That's good. But if it doesn't work, I suggest you contact Mizuno directly. Give him as much detail as you can. Discuss it with other people who are trying to replicate. I do not think it is a good idea to keep trying in isolation, without input and suggestions from other people. You might search for someone who knows more about some aspect of it than you do, such as an expert in mass spectroscopy.

Also, do many calibrations.

Quote

SoT also imagined that investors were lined up to see the reactor, but now that it is producing only 108 W they are no longer interested. He has strange ideas! There was never a line of investors wanting to see it.

As usual, JedRothwell attributing to me stuff I didn't write/say.

Quote

There is no discrepancy. I warned the readers here and elsewhere that it was unlikely the next sample would produce 3 kW.

And IIRC, Mizuno took that reactor apart for some cockamamie reason? Also a classic sign of unreliability of a claim. Why not keep that all time best reactor and show it to investors? Show it live on a streamed web program? With proper measurements? Absurd.

Quote

I suppose it can be done in a reasonable amount of time. It took Mizuno about five years.

So f'n what! Mizuno didn't have the recipe, he developed it. Now it exists. To use your own inappropriate analogy, it may have taken decades to make a good transistor but now it takes seconds (if that) to produce a new one. And before you misquote or misconscrew me again, I did not say Mizuno could be replicated instantly. But a year? Not if someone is determined and has a modicum of resources. Yes, the equipment is not cheap. But what, exactly, do you think a working LENR reactor with high output is worth these days?

Quote

There was never a line of investors wanting to see it.

That can only mean that either investors have not been properly exposed to the claim and evidence or that they do not believe it. Nobody with investment money for high tech enterprises would turn down a working LENR reactor that they thought could be real. Makes no sense at all.

@Desireless

Quote

I am sure sooner or later it will be replicated with really good results. I will not give up until it will work.

I admire your resolve. I really wanted to believe Mizuno and Rothwell this time around. But every day that goes by and every weird action they take (or fail to take), I get less confident. So I wish you good luck and Godspeed (whatever that is).

Quote from seven_of_twenty

[SoT also imagined that investors were lined up to see the reactor, ]

As usual, JedRothwellattributing to me stuff I didn't write/say.

You said it again, right here! You said it time after time. These messages are very difficult to search through, or I would find earlier examples.

You often say things repeatedly and then deny saying them. Then, when I dig up an example, you go silent. That's obnoxious. Recent example; your claim that input power is equivalent to noise:

Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

And IIRC, Mizuno took that reactor apart for some cockamamie reason?

To subject the mesh to mass spectroscopy. That is the only way we will ever know what makes it work. That is not a cockamamie reason.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Also a classic sign of unreliability of a claim. Why not keep that all time best reactor and show it to investors? Show it live on a streamed web program? With proper measurements? Absurd.

It would make no difference. People who do not believe the graphs we published would not believe a streamed video program. You can fake a streamed video as easily as you can fake a graph. I doubt Mizuno is capable of it, in any case.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

So f'n what! Mizuno didn't have the recipe, he developed it. Now it exists.

It does not. If it did, he would not have gotten 250 W from one mesh and 108 W from the next. To be more exact, he has a better recipe than most cold fusion experiments, and it is better than his previous experiment, which ran for a year without producing heat, but it is far from foolproof.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

But a year? Not if someone is determined and has a modicum of resources.

As I have said many times, if you have these resources, please fork over. Buy us three mass spectrometers. It would be much appreciated! If you don't have this modicum of resources, neither do we, so what's the point of saying this?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

That can only mean that either investors have not been properly exposed to the claim and evidence or that they do not believe it.

Where are these investors? What should we say to them that we have not said? How can we expose them to the claim in a way they will believe it? Why would they be willing to believe a streamed video when they are not convinced by the papers and data we uploaded?

If you know who these people are, and you know their opinions and desires, I suggest you put them in touch with me. I suspect you do not know anyone, and you are making this stuff up. You do not know any investors. You are imagining what you yourself would think if you were an investor. I have heard from investors. None of them asked for a streamed video. Mostly they asked the kinds of questions I addressed in the papers. In some cases, I addressed very specific questions investors asked, such as how the calorimeter chamber is insulated.

Quote from JedRothwell

Where are these investors? What should we say to them that we have not said? How can we expose them to the claim in a way they will believe it? Why would they be willing to believe a streamed video when they are not convinced by the papers and data we uploaded?

Let me be more specific, and concrete, with reference to the above graphs (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasedea.pdf).

Why is it that these phantom investors SoT knows so well by would be convinced by the 11°C temperature difference shown on p. 7, yet they would not believe the 5°C temperature difference shown on p. 10? Is 6°C less such a difference that it makes the results unbelievable? I don't see why. I think SoT just makes this stuff up. He doesn't actually know any investors who said: "Here I was, all ready jump on a plane to go look at the 11°C temperature difference, but now that it is only 5°C, I have lost all interest! Forget it!"

Anyone who visits can see the 5°C difference. That reactor and mesh are still in operation, as far as I know. (Actually, I am not sure if the lab is still in operation, or if Mizuno can do any more work.)

Is there something magical about an 11°C temperature difference broadcast in a streamed video? Would a 5°C temperature difference in a streamed video have no effect? Let me explain that watching a cold fusion experiment is like watching paint dry, as Ed Storms put it. You can't tell the difference between a still photo on line and a video. Nothing Happens . . . for hours or days at a time. Perhaps we should put up a still photo with an animated fly buzzing around, and claim it is a video of an experiment. It is worth a try!