MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • seven_of_twenty wrote:

    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.


    I can think of a bunch of highly sophisticated people who you could convince on the science but who still would never invest in LENR. Not because of fears about optics or anything like that, but because it's fiendishly difficult to make long duration investments in rapid technological change. Sure, it's possible, but not the way you think.


    The argument that because there has been no investment there is therefore no belief in the technology, or that it is a mark against Mizuno / suggestive of the technology not being real is dubious.

  • Okay, I finally got a chance to discuss this with Mizuno. I asked him why he thinks the replications have not been going well. Here is a summary (not an exact translation) of his comments and mine.


    His comments:


    His biggest concern is that when he prepares the mesh and rubs Pd on to it, he then immediately puts it into the reactor, evacuates it, and begins the cycles of degassing, then heating and degassing, and D2 gas treatments. Little or no time elapses from the final stages of rubbing to putting it into the reactor. Whereas, when he prepares a mesh and then mails it, a lot of time elapses, which may allow contamination from air, or from the plastic packaging. In other words, the state of the mesh and Pd may change.


    He thinks it might be a good idea to send someone an entire reactor that has produced excess heat, with the mesh installed.


    He would like to remind people that some Pd is hard and does not rub unto the Ni mesh. You may need to anneal it to soften it. You have to confirm that it has coated on the Ni.


    There is a replication now underway in Japan which seems to be going well. We hope we can soon upload a description and some data from it.


    My comments:


    As I mentioned here before, no one has the equipment to do an exact replication.


    Most of the cells are smaller. The methods of calorimetry are different, although I think they should all work, because they probably do not cool the reactor excessively. They allow a large temperature difference between the inside and the outside. I am not sure they are all sensitive enough, or that they will work if heat is not uniform, and is produced in hot spots in the mesh. Some are not envelope calorimeters. They measure the reactor temperature directly. I think the envelope method is better.


    The thing the people replicating most need are high resolution SEM and mass spectrometers. The SEM is used to determine how much Pd has coated on the Ni. The mass spectrometer is used to determine if the gas in the cell is free of contaminants after several repetitions of the pretreatment described in the paper on p. 17.


    Regarding his suggestion about sending an entire reactor, I have some safety concerns about doing this. I fear there is a slight possibility it will self-heat, which would be catastrophic if it were an air shipment. Perhaps it would be okay to drive it in a car to someone else in Hokkaido.

  • Thanks for the news!


    My run was little bit delayed due to enhancement of my setup. I will share SEM/EDX scans too.

    My cell has meshes of exact dimensions and properties as Mizuno used. So it might give off similar results.


    I am looking forward for fueled runs. I am doing as much calibrations as possible. But outer and internal temperarure is EXTREMELY dependent on the inner pressure.

    So if one is not taking pressure and thermal conductivity in the account properly there could be major changes in the result.

    I have to make sure that calibrations are made at a various pressures.

    Is it only my concern?


    Example - with vacuum internal temperature is much higher yet outer temperature is much lower.

    While adding a gas (H2/D2) the heater is cooled so its temperature is lower with the same input power.

    But outer temperature will increase noticeably.


    How to avoid discrepances caused by a different pressure/thermal conductivity between fueled run and calibration?

    Calorimetry is way to go but I have just TCs and IR measurement.

  • In a vacuum you have no conduction or convection - just radiant heating -- which accounts for your first observation. Hydrogen has huge thermal capacity and is a very efficient conductor and convective medium --which accounts for the second observation. Glad to hear you are forging ahead though.

  • He would like to remind people that some Pd is hard and does not rub unto the Ni mesh. You may need to anneal it to soften it. You have to confirm that it has coated on the Ni.

    Another detail about a piece of Palladium that has not been discussed here:

    There are two categories palladium that should be distinguished:

    - Single crystal palladium, a piece consisting of one single crystal. There are three types available (3 different crystal orientations)

    - Multi crystal palladium, where crystal quality is not important and quick cooling is applied (e.g. the types you can buy as investment). These samples contain smaller crystals sintered together that with regards to hydrogen/deuterium absorption seems unfavourable in my view.


    I am not sure Mizuno is aware of this, probably he is, but it may be worth checking with him.

  • In a vacuum you have no conduction or convection - just radiant heating -- which accounts for your first observation. Hydrogen has huge thermal capacity and is a very efficient conductor and convective medium --which accounts for the second observation. Glad to hear you are forging ahead though.

    Yes, this is very clear. But how to avoid wrong interpretation caused by a variable pressure?

    Or in other words how to do a proper measurement without a calorimetry?

    I dont want to find after a run that my calibration was useless because pressure changed for whatever reason.


    I can't actually know what pressure will be in the cell when/if there will be an excess heat.

  • From our side we saw no XH with several courses under D2 onto Ni mesh.

    First we tested the manual way to put Pd onto Ni, then we tested too 50nm Pd sputtered also 100 nm.

    Nothing but our reactor was smallest than Mizuno.

    We have heated by a central wire surrounded by a ceramic tube to enlarge IR wavelengh.


    I discussed with Mastromatteo at last ICCF, he explained me that he have had XH when he made several loading cycles , first by H2 then powerfull XH by D2 with the same sample. However he didn't use Mizuno way, he used a Ni foam with 1µm Pd put electrochemically.

  • Yes, this is very clear. But how to avoid wrong interpretation caused by a variable pressure?

    Or in other words how to do a proper measurement without a calorimetry?

    I dont want to find after a run that my calibration was useless because pressure changed for whatever reason.


    I can't actually know what pressure will be in the cell when/if there will be an excess heat.

    You must never loose sight that what you are trying to do is an energy balance. If all you have to measure energy output is limited points of temperature measurements you have to make sure you have a proper equation that can put a lower boundary on the energy measurement based on those points. Parkhomov did that in his 7 months run. It might not be the better methodology, but if you are able to do proper calibrations it should be acceptable.

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

  • I am looking forward for fueled runs. I am doing as much calibrations as possible. But outer and internal temperarure is EXTREMELY dependent on the inner pressure.


    You mean the internal and outer temperature of the reactor, right? Yes, for the reasons described by Alan Smith. That's another reason I think envelope calorimetry is better.

  • Yes, this is very clear. But how to avoid wrong interpretation caused by a variable pressure?

    Or in other words how to do a proper measurement without a calorimetry?

    I dont want to find after a run that my calibration was useless because pressure changed for whatever reason.


    Well, it seems to me that without reliable pressure measurements the neither the relative thermometry you are using now, nor envelope calorimetry will give you clear answers. Unless you can get a pressure gauge into the system and cross-calibrate then you are a bit stuck.


    The only thing that might help you is to study the cooling curves of your reactor with the power off. From my experience (and confirmed by others) the critical zone for this system producing XS heat is in the 300-400 Centigrade range. If you go past this point - to say 500C - and then switch off the heater and plot the cooling curves any XSH will show up as kinks or an upward bump in what should be classical Newtonian cooling curves. As long as your reactor is not actively leaking the effect of gradually falling pressure on convection/conduction as it cools will not matter - that won't produce a kink or a bump upwards in the curve.

  • I cannot help noting that there are dissimilar metals added to the thermocouple circuit at the mini plug connection. This will almost certainly affect your temperature measurements.

  • Yes, it's a reactor certainly censurable but we reached 1W and 1mbar sensitivity, so it has been well demonstrated that only few hydrogen (1mbar) well carries calories.

    We had 2 heating systems in order to play with temperature gradients.

    We worked by comparison, with the same temperature and pressure parameters in the same tube. At one side there was NI mesh Pd coated then on the other side only Ni Mesh naked.

    We made so much runs... first of all to avoid leaks, This stage is already a big job.


    I cannot help noting that there are dissimilar metals added to the thermocouple circuit at the mini plug connection. This will almost certainly affect your temperature measurements.

  • The only thing that might help you is to study the cooling curves of your reactor with the power off. From my experience (and confirmed by others) the critical zone for this system producing XS heat is in the 300-400 Centigrade range. If you go past this point - to say 500C - and then switch off the heater and plot the cooling curves any XSH will show up as kinks or an upward bump in what should be classical Newtonian cooling curves. As long as your reactor is not actively leaking the effect of gradually falling pressure on convection/conduction as it cools will not matter - that won't produce a kink or a bump upwards in the curve.


    This is correct if the relevant process is one of temperature-sensitive heat production. Although I would have described the expected cooling behaviour as more a lingering plateau or slow non-exponential temperature decrease that then suddenly turns into more rapid exponential cooling. The entire process should be monotonic with no "upwards" part to it.


    This what always confused me about the cooling curve posted by Russ George. It is exponential and it shouldn't have been.

  • Although I would have described the expected cooling behaviour as more a lingering plateau or slow non-exponential temperature decrease that then suddenly turns into more rapid exponential cooling. The entire process should be monotonic with no "upwards" part to it.


    You mean when there is no excess heat. Right? Do you mean that normal cooling may not follow Newton's law because of phase changes or stored heat?

  • You mean when there is no excess heat. Right? Do you mean that normal cooling may not follow Newton's law because of phase changes or stored heat?


    No. I mean when there is excess heat.


    Briefly, if you have a process whereby the mechanism underlying excess heat production is temperature-sensitive, then, when you first turn on extrinsic heating, it should take a reactor from room temperature up to where the excess heat begins to activate. Once excess heat starts to be generated a positive feedback loop forms whereby newly activated excess heat raises the temperature of the reactor which in turn turns on more excess heat, and so on. The self-activation produces a threshold beyond which heating becomes independent of the external heater and the reactor temperature rapidly climbs until the excess heating mechanism is turned on fully. The system should now show hysteresis with respect to input energy. You can now turn off the external heater completely and the temperature will stay high because of self heating. There may be a slow temperature decline as the extrinsically applied heat dissipates, but it shouldn't be exponential. Instead, you should see a temperature plateau or slight downward slope that seems reluctant to give up staying at high temperatures. This excess heating after shutdown of the input energy may last a long time or, having spent some time travelling down a shallow, non-exponential, slope the excess heating mechanism may finally drift below its temperature-activation range and the feedback mechanism goes into reverse. The excess heating mechanism will now shut down and you should see exponential Newtonian cooling the rest of the way back to room temperature.


    All of the above posits a simple sigmoidal activation for the excess heating mechanism.

  • You can now turn off the external heater completely and the temperature will stay high because of self heating. There may be a slow temperature decline as the extrinsically applied heat dissipates, but it shouldn't be exponential.


    Okay, I understand. But why should it be monotonic with no upwards part? The reaction, once triggered, might increase by itself as more fuel becomes available, or when it self-heats locally. The heat after death events shown by F&P sometimes go up instead of remaining at the same level or dropping.

  • Okay, I understand. But why should it be monotonic with no upwards part? The reaction, once triggered, might increase by itself as more fuel becomes available, or when it self-heats locally. The heat after death events shown by F&P sometimes go up instead of remaining at the same level or dropping.


    I seem to recall you pointing out a figure from F&P which Fleischmann called the most significant event he ever saw or something like that. That was a sudden kick upwards in temperature. But as I recall it started before the external heating was taken away. I remember a traditional exponential heating curve and then a sudden upswing in temperature which lasted slightly beyond the external heating shutoff. I interpret this as passive heating up to a threshold followed by sudden turning on of excess heat. The excess heat then stayed on for a short time even after the external energy source was turned off but eventually the excess heat collapsed. It didn't take too long to collapse in that instance but I expect that in other instances it might last much longer. The mathematics of this sort of thing are highly sensitive to the part of state space you are in.


    The monotonic nature of Alan's temperature excursions are exclusively for after the external energy is shut off.


    Everything I have said presupposes homogeneous fuel that acts as a unit in terms of temperature. I make the simplest assumptions to start off and see how much can be explained just on that basis.