MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from StevieH

Storms' experiments and his theories derived therefrom may well lead him to criticise the individual details of Mizuno's R20, eg sheet being a better material than mesh, but in the absence of said mechanism, no one is to say that any approach is better or worse.

I have no objection whatever to Ed doing this experiment his way, according to his theory. On the other hand, I am glad that other people are trying to do exact replications. Both approaches should be used. Unfortunately, the "exact replications" are not exact, for various reasons beyond our control, as I explained here. The one at Hokkaido University of Science looks to be the closest replication of all. Mizuno supplied the reactor. I gather they are making their own reactor now.

I am still going over the materials, and translating them. I hope to have it ready today, but I am busy. There isn't much, but I want to be sure I understand it.

Quote from JedRothwell

Unfortunately, the "exact replications" are not exact, for various reasons beyond our control, as I explained here.

Jed, I'm glad we agree about this problem. Each attempt to replicate will cause a random variation in many conditions, some of which are important to causing LENR and some are not. Success in causing LENR would result only when the important condition just happened to be produced. This approach is not science. It is more like playing the lottery. Even the Wright Brothers did not attempt to exactly duplicate their design after each experiment, as you made clear earlier. They learned from their experience and used this knowledge to improve each following effort. We in the LENR field have been working for 30 years and have accumulated a huge collection of success. Yet, this effort and this success is not used to make improvements. Why is this the case? Why do people not learn from experience in this field?

I have mastered the literature and done hundreds of studies in my own lab. Based on this experience, I propose a condition and a mechanism for creating the condition that this experience supports as being necessary for causing LENR. But, I find this idea has no more value in this field than the most casual speculation by the most ignorant student. Apparently, in this field, everyone considers themselves an expert and able to use their imagination to solve the problem. What is worse, the failure to replicate based on this ignorance is used to justify rejection of the effect based on the result of error. Consequently, success is not considered real until each success is replicated. As StevieH very accurately observed, this process is making people insane. This approach has got to stop!!!!

Quote from Storms

Each attempt to replicate will cause a random variation in many conditions, some of which are important to causing LENR and some are not. Success in causing LENR would result only when the important condition just happened to be produced. This approach is not science. It is more like playing the lottery.

I would say it is more like the methods used to develop pre-modern technology. Which is to say, most of the technology you see around you. People discovered iron, steel, Damascus steel and countless other materials without any knowledge of science. The entire city of Rome, the aqueducts, and all medieval cathedrals were built without science. It was not simply trial and error. They understood the rules in great depth. The people who built aqueducts and cathedrals knew a lot about stones, such as how much weight different kinds of stone can bear, whether they will be crushed or erode over time, how to cut and shape them without damaging them, and so on. But they did not understand the underlying rules behind the rules. The best example of this in modern times was genetics before the discovery of DNA in 1953. People knew a TERRIFIC amount about genetics. There is a book published in 1916 with hundreds of pages of accurate information, describing how different genes are on different chromosomes, how they interact, which is dominant or recessive, and so on:

Castle, W.E., Genetics and Eugenics. 1916: Harvard University Press. (Copies available online)

They understood all of that without any knowledge of the mechanism at the chemical or atomic level.

The method is not trial and error, and it is not blindly shooting in the dark, but it is very time consuming. If enough money and effort were put into the project, I think that people might be able to develop effective cold fusion heat sources without knowledge of the atomic physics. This would take far more money, effort and time than it would with a theory, but I think it could be done, because so much else was done without theory. It would be more art than science, but it would still work.

Quote from Storms

Even the Wright Brothers did not attempt to exactly duplicate their design after each experiment, as you made clear earlier. They learned from their experience and used this knowledge to improve each following effort.

The Wright brothers did all of their work with Newtonian physics and engineering, with very complex mathematics and modeling, but without any deep knowledge of things that are now considered essential to aviation science, such as how wings produce lift. See T. Crouch, "The Bishop’s Boys," page 175. Quote:

Engineering was the key. The Wright brothers functioned as engineers, not scientists. Science, the drive to understand the ultimate principles at work in the universe, had little to do with the invention of the airplane. A scientist would have asked the most basic questions. How does the wing of a bird generate lift? What are the physical laws that explain the phenomena of flight?

The answers to those questions were not available to Wilbur and Orville Wright, or to anyone else at the turn of the century. Airplanes would be flying for a full quarter century before physicists and mathematicians could
explain why wings worked.

How was it possible to build a flying machine without first understanding the principles involved? In the late twentieth century, we regard the flow of technological marvels from basic scientific research as the natural order of things. But this relationship between what one scholar, Edwin Layton, has described as the “mirror image twins” of science and technology is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically, technological advance has more often preceded and even inspired scientific understanding.

JedRothwell wrote:

Unfortunately, the "exact replications" are not exact, for various reasons beyond our control, as I explained here.

Those of us attempting a replication are somewhat burdened by the lack of details with regard to the physical apparatus and protocol. In my own work, I'm finding the vacuum integrity of the cell and related plumbing to be the biggest challenge. After replacing all the valves and much of the plumbing, the required level of vacuum (E-5 Torr) can be initially reached. However, as I commented previously, holding this level of vacuum with the pump off and valves closed is much more difficult. My system shows a leak-down at room temperature of ~0.5 Pa per hour, not great but close to acceptable. However, when the cell is heated to 160°C this degrades by several orders of magnitude, as shown by the attached chart.

Note that the extended bake-out did not appreciably change the leak-down behavior as would be expected if it was from adsorbed water vapor. My conclusion is that there are flaws in the welding of my locally fabricated cell and thermal expansion opens them to allow entry of air. I've ordered a new cell from a vacuum fabricator who tests for leaks with He prior to shipping. I suppose this kind of requirement would be assumed from the start by someone skilled in the art of high vacuum.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Did not Mizuno have failures as well as successes?

Yes. It did not work for about a year. See p. 8, 9:

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

After that it was sporadic and at a very low level. See p. 18.

To get a sense of how much pre-modern people knew about technology, see the famous mining textbook, De Re Metallica, by Georgius Agricola.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38015/38015-h/38015-h.htm

Translated from the First Latin Edition of 1556

Translator: Herbert Clark Hoover, Lou Henry Hoover. (Hoover was a prominent expert in mining and later President of the U.S.) This is highly organized, logical and pragmatic knowledge, with cause and effect clearly stated:

Quote

But by skill we can also investigate hidden and concealed veins, by observing in the first place the bubbling waters of springs, which cannot be very far distant from the veins because the source of the water is from them; secondly, by examining the fragments of the veins which the torrents break off from the earth, for after a long time some of these fragments are again buried in the ground. Fragments of this kind lying about on the ground, if they are rubbed smooth, are a long distance from the veins, because the torrent, which broke them from the vein, polished them while it rolled them a long distance; but if they are fixed in the ground, or if they are rough, they are nearer to the veins. The soil also should be considered, for this is often the cause of veins being buried more or less deeply under the earth; in this case the fragments protrude more or less widely apart, and miners are wont to call the veins discovered in this manner "fragmenta."

Further, we search for the veins by observing the hoar-frosts, which whiten all herbage except that growing over the veins, because the veins emit a warm and dry exhalation which hinders the freezing of the moisture, for which reason such plants appear rather wet than whitened by the frost. This may be observed in all cold places before the grass has grown to its full size, as in the months of April and May; or when the late crop of [Pg 38]hay, which is called the cordum, is cut with scythes in the month of September. Therefore in places where the grass has a dampness that is not congealed into frost, there is a vein beneath; also if the exhalation be excessively hot, the soil will produce only small and pale-coloured plants. Lastly, there are trees whose foliage in spring-time has a bluish or leaden tint, the upper branches more especially being tinged with black or with any other unnatural colour, the trunks cleft in two, and the branches black or discoloured. These phenomena are caused by the intensely hot and dry exhalations which do not spare even the roots, but scorching them, render the trees sickly . . .

This sort of thing was known for thousands of years, even in the stone age, when people had no writing. In the Pacific, illiterate Polynesians were able to navigate accurately over vast distances, successfully reaching small islands in the middle of the ocean. In the 20th century many pilots were lost trying to accomplish this. The Polynesians were not shooting in the dark or "playing the lottery." They had reliable knowledge of ocean conditions, such as waves, wind and other observable effects that occur hundreds of miles from small islands. They memorized extensive star maps in the form of long epic poems.

It is a mistake to think that organized knowledge of nature can only come about as the product of the scientific method, with reference to basic laws of physics and chemistry.

Jed, all of your examples miss the mark. In every case you cite, progress was no made by repeating the same treatment or action. People learned from their efforts and made improvements. We do not need to call this effort science although that is exactly what science attempts to do, but with increased sophistication.

The efforts made by people in the LENR field apparently do not teach because I can see no progress being made toward achieving reproducible behavior. Instead, we have been subjected to a series of "theories" and explanations that not only ignore most experience but are too complex to allow application to real systems. One by one they have died while taking money, time, and confidence with them

In the case of Mizuno, we have a very simple and easily understood process, consisting of transferring one metal to the surface of another. The only odd feature is its ability to cause the LENR process. To understand what might cause LENR, which is a process that takes place on the atomic level, we must look at the material from the viewpoint of an atom. An atom does not know that it is present on a mesh. Therefore, the physical form of a mesh is not important. In fact, the mesh was apparently chosen by Mizuno for reasons having no relationship to the LENR reaction mechanism.

From an atom's point of view, burnishing causes a thin layer of amorphous Pd to be applied over the Ni. Because the Ni is covered by a very thin layer of NiO, the process will remove some of the NiO layer, which is then mixed with the Pd, while some of the Pd will cover the NiO in other regions. The question is, "Why would such a complex structure support a nuclear reaction"? Nothing about such a material is similar to materials observed to support LENR in the past. What unidentified common feature can be present in both this material and in a piece of common Pd wire or sheet, such as used to achieve most examples of LENR? This is the kind of question we must answer. This is the question I have attempted to answer. Does any one have a better answer? Without such an answer, we are only playing the lottery.

I uploaded some details and graphs from the replication at the Hokkaido University of Science. See p. 6:

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

Note: In the message above, I described this as an "independent replication." After reading through the materials and notes, I would say it is "semi-independent." But it is getting more independent by the day! I gather they are learning how to do it themselves, and so are the people at Hokkai PEEM Co., Ltd. I guess this means you need hands-on assistance at first. Perhaps people trying to replicate this should visit Mizuno, or visit Saito as the Hokkaido U. of Science.

Quote from magicsound

My conclusion is that there are flaws in the welding of my locally fabricated cell and thermal expansion opens them to allow entry of air. I've ordered a new cell from a vacuum fabricator who tests for leaks with He prior to shipping. I suppose this kind of requirement would be assumed from the start by someone skilled in the art of high vacuum.

magicsound - I've found that regular Swagelok valves are the source of most leaks. I've had to go to Nupro Swagelok bellows valves for my gas piping. Regular Swagelok fittings appear to be fine to 10-6 or so.

Since you have an RGA its relatively easy to do a Helium leak check. Go to Walmart or the party store and get a cheap disposable Helium tank. Spray the Helium around each of your valves, fittings, and the cell. The Helium will show up almost immediately on the RGA when you spray on the leak. It's better than guessing.

Quote from Storms

Jed, all of your examples miss the mark. In every case you cite, progress was no made by repeating the same treatment or action. People learned from their efforts and made improvements. We do not need to call this effort science although that is exactly what science attempts to do, but with increased sophistication.

The efforts made by people in the LENR field apparently do not teach because I can see no progress being made toward achieving reproducible behavior. Instead, we have been subjected to a series of "theories" and explanations that not only ignore most experience but are too complex to allow application to real systems. One by one they have died while taking money, time, and confidence with them

In the case of Mizuno, we have a very simple and easily understood process, consisting of transferring one metal to the surface of another. The only odd feature is its ability to cause the LENR process. To understand what might cause LENR, which is a process that takes place on the atomic level, we must look at the material from the viewpoint of an atom. An atom does not know that it is present on a mesh. Therefore, the physical form of a mesh is not important. In fact, the mesh was apparently chosen by Mizuno for reasons having no relationship to the LENR reaction mechanism.

From an atom's point of view, burnishing causes a thin layer of amorphous Pd to be applied over the Ni. Because the Ni is covered by a very thin layer of NiO, the process will remove some of the NiO layer, which is then mixed with the Pd, while some of the Pd will cover the NiO in other regions. The question is, "Why would such a complex structure support a nuclear reaction"? Nothing about such a material is similar to materials observed to support LENR in the past. What unidentified common feature can be present in both this material and in a piece of common Pd wire or sheet, such as used to achieve most examples of LENR? This is the kind of question we must answer. This is the question I have attempted to answer. Does any one have a better answer? Without such an answer, we are only playing the lottery.

Display More

It is also useful to recall that Mizuno also reported success with sputtering the Pd onto the Ni mesh, but it took too long and cost too much to do each time, so the burnishing method was substituted. This probably means that the burnishing method is not the critical circumstance.

Quote from Storms

The efforts made by people in the LENR field apparently do not teach because I can see no progress being made toward achieving reproducible behavior.

I think Mizuno has made progress toward achieving reproducible behavior. His results have now been confirmed by Saito. Okay, maybe not 100% confirmed, but they are stronger than they were before. The number of meshes that work -- at least in his lab, and Saito's -- is much higher than other materials have been. ~100 W reactions are much stronger, more stable, and better than most previous cold fusion results. Unless it turns out that both Mizuno and Saito are making mistakes, I think this is progress. Frankly, I don't see how you can deny that. It is not the kind of theory-based progress you desire, and the lack of theory will slow things down, but it is progress.

People who want to make progress in theory should replicate this experiment closely, make it work, and find out what is happening on the microscopic level in the material. We may not know what is happening, but that is the one way we will find out. That company Hokkai PEEM has some excellent equipment for this task. They seem enthusiastic.

In other words, trial and error have given us a somewhat reproducible experiment. Perhaps we can use that as the key to developing a theory, which will then obviate the need for more trial and error.

I also think that back in the day, F&P made progress in France, until they were shut down by politics and stupidity.

I agree there has been less progress than some other people hoped for. Less than some people claimed. Several experiments started off looking hopeful, but then they faded out. For example, Energetics Technology started off with a bang, but they were not able to repeat that. In another example, I do not think Swartz has made his devices as reliable as he claims. (It is hard to judge in his case.)

Quote from Brian Albiston

Since you have an RGA its relatively easy to do a Helium leak check. Go to Walmart or the party store and get a cheap disposable Helium tank. Spray the Helium around each of your valves, fittings, and the cell. The Helium will show up almost immediately on the RGA when you spray on the leak. It's better than guessing.

The instrument I have is a mass spec. not an RGA. It's designed for atmospheric sampling and because the sample is drawn through 1 meter of .010 ID capillary tube, it's not suitable for testing with He. It can take up to 10 minutes to read a change in the gas composition. And a typical He balloon canister is now $60 from Amazon, so waiting 10 minutes for each test to run could get expensive. I'll still probably have to try it if the problem persists with the new properly built cell.

I've done several tests with H2 at 3 bar in the cell, checking with a sensitive combustible gas detector. In the end, 100 psi of shop air and soapy water proved the most sensitive way to find leaky fittings, but that required removing the expensive ion gauge from the system and blocking its port.

What I'm dealing with is much too small for such techniques to help. The cell and vacuum plumbing volume is around 500 cc, so a pressure increase of 10 mT / hour represents ~1.8E-6 cc or 2.2E-9 g per second of air leakage. Please check my numbers...been a long day.

Storms  StevieH

I have no problem with different investigators having different goals - for example doing basic research on the nature of relevant reactions. But I think it is important to verify Mizuno's work and the most straightforward way to do this is to start by making reactors identical to his. In fact, I am extremely disappointed and totally flabbergasted that the unit which allegedly produced 3kW was not preserved with reverence and extreme care at least until its output could be verified independently.

Due to technical issues which JedRothwell explained, Mizuno could not measure the output in his lab or anyway, that was the claim. Perhaps someone else independent could have and in so doing, might have placed LENR permanently on the map. Instead, the most powerful reactor ever made (if the claim is true) was dismantled. Jed is now touting a 108W excess output over a 215W input and if I got it right, even that works only some of the time. To me, taking apart the 3kW reactor before its output was independently confirmed seems outrageously bizarre and even suspicious. A few months ago, I suggested an excellent method to do a quick but reasonably accurate thermal output measurement on the 3kW reactor using several comparatively inexpensive heat flow transducers applied to the outer surface of the reactor. But that was ridiculed for whatever reason. I am sure Dr. Storms know that this method would have worked. It's in essence, the use of a few elements of a Seebeck calorimeter when making an entire envelope is prohibited by size, temperature and/or cost.

When things stop making sense, I get suspicious. You should too. But I wish all the replicators well.

ETA: to clarify before someone jumps on me, I am not suggesting fraud on the part of Mizuno and/or Rothwell. I am suggesting that some inconsistent error may be accounting for the results- an error they are unaware of. And no, before you ask, I have no idea what it could be though others have ventured some possibilities further up in this string.

Quote from Storms

From an atom's point of view, burnishing causes a thin layer of amorphous Pd to be applied over the Ni. Because the Ni is covered by a very thin layer of NiO, the process will remove some of the NiO layer, which is then mixed with the Pd, while some of the Pd will cover the NiO in other regions. The question is, "Why would such a complex structure support a nuclear reaction"? Nothing about such a material is similar to materials observed to support LENR in the past. What unidentified common feature can be present in both this material and in a piece of common Pd wire or sheet, such as used to achieve most examples of LENR? This is the kind of question we must answer.

Exactly. That is why I find the formation of Rydberg matter in LENR so appealing. It is a common feature of most, if not all, serious LENR work. All these materials support the formation of Ryberg matter of hydrogen either at their surface or in cracks. A common feature compatible with your model of LENR.

Quote from JedRothwell

I uploaded some details and graphs from the replication at the Hokkaido University of Science. See p. 6:

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

Note: In the message above, I described this as an "independent replication." After reading through the materials and notes, I would say it is "semi-independent." But it is getting more independent by the day! I gather they are learning how to do it themselves, and so are the people at Hokkai PEEM Co., Ltd. I guess this means you need hands-on assistance at first. Perhaps people trying to replicate this should visit Mizuno, or visit Saito as the Hokkaido U. of Science.

Jed, is the rate of heat loss through the enclosure walls linear with respect to changes of temperature within the enclosure? Constant? Is it correct to assume 150W loss over a wide range of internal temperatures?

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Jed, is the rate of heat loss through the enclosure walls linear with respect to changes of temperature within the enclosure? Constant

Yes, this is mainly lost from the walls. They are large, as you see. It is "constant" meaning it is the same at a given temperature (power level).

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Is it correct to assume 150W loss over a wide range of internal temperatures?

The higher the temperature, the more it loses. See Figs. 10 and 11:

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