MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Due to technical issues which JedRothwellexplained, Mizuno could not measure the output in his lab or anyway, that was the claim.

Of course he can measure the output! It is right there in the slides I referred you to:

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

He cannot see the surface with his SEM because it is still broken from the earthquake. It will take ~$25,000 to fix.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Perhaps someone else independent could have and in so doing, might have placed LENR permanently on the map.

You keep repeating this fantasy. Who is it that would do this? Why would they be convinced by 250 W, but not by 108 W? If you know these people, why don't you ask them to visit Saito, who is much better positioned to demonstrate a 150 W reaction. He has better instruments, a better lab, and access to some best surface analysis machines in the world, at Hokkai PEEN, Inc.

Explain why your imaginary wealthy friends would flock to see a 250 W reaction, yet they will refuse to see a 150 W reaction in a far better equipped lab with a much higher s/n ratio. What sense does that make?

Besides which, you can see from the Hokkai PEEN website photos that they are testing one of the external cells set up to be a room heater. As you have been demanding all this time.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Instead, the most powerful reactor ever made (if the claim is true) was dismantled.

For good reasons. You still have not told us how we might make progress if we never examine the used reactants. Samples have been sent to two top-notch labs for analysis. Why do you think this is a bad idea, and it would better to leave the cell running?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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.

You make up stuff! I said repeatedly that it has been working for a year or so. Not some of the time; all the time, when it is heated up. It is right there in Slide 8.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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.

The temperature of outer surface of the reactor varies a great deal from one spot to another, and it changes over time. This is shown in the last slide of the supplement (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf). So that method would not work.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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.

If you have no idea what it could be, and you cannot suggest a candidate, your assertion cannot be tested, or falsified. It is not scientific. This is like claiming there is an invisible, undetectable unicorn in the garden.

The other possibilities "ventured" further up are crackpot nonsense, along the lines of invisible macroscopic drops of water that defy gravity and thereby magically change the conservation of energy for no given reason. They have no merit.

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

Jed, trial and error has already resulted in many hundreds of examples of LENR. Mizuno's work is just the most recent.example. His method is important because he used an unique technique for producing the active Pd. He has added to the already 7 different kinds of material (dense metals, powdered metals, electroplated metals, sputtered metals, chemical compounds, mixed materials, catalysts) known to produce the effect. I think its safe to assume each of these materials has some unique feature in common when LENR occurs. Why not use this huge experience base to develop a theory rather than wait for the results using the Mizuno method? I have done this and have a theory that has been successful in explaining and improving the LENR process. Why is this idea not acknowledged and applied? In fact, I suggest the Mizuno method can be more easily replicated and explained by applying my theory. Why is this approach not considered?

Quote from magicsound

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.

How long did you bake out? I see it is at 150C which should be high enough, but remember that the volatiles can include oils at have higher boiling points than water. It looks like you baked for about 3000 seconds, i.e. about 40 minutes. Normal bakeout would be around 12 to 24 hours. And you have to bake everything that is within the sealed to vacuum pump section, i.e. including the lines right up to the valve and the vacuum gage. This implies heater elements around additional components. This can present a problem in that the heat might damage the vacuum gage and depending on your metal vacuum line lengths, they may also transfer heat to your vacuum pump, potentially damaging it.

My suggestion is to bake for 24 hours, come back in, turn the heater off, let the pump pump down to the maximum vacuum (minimum pressure), and then seal the lines off and do the times vacuum rise test.

Then, repeat with another 24 hours bake, heater off, pump down, valve off, and other vacuum rise test.

1) Is your minimum pressure lower after the second bakeoff. If so, this proves you have removed some volatile elements from the rig during the additional bakeoff and you may have to continue for more time.

2) the rate of rise indicates the amount of volatiles or gas entering the vacuum chamber from either the walls or a leak. Changes in the maximum vacuum or rate or rise between bakeout cycles are indicative of whether you have an actual leak or have volatiles or absorbed gas coming out of the metal walls. You can curve fit this equation on excel for example and thus calibrate the parameters of your system to see how it is performing.

3) Remember that exposing the walls of your apparatus to air to change components will bring you back to the pre-bakeout stage.

It's tedious, but in some ways fun. Enjoy.

Quote from JedRothwell

Of course he can measure the output! It is right there in the slides I referred you to:

...

You keep repeating this fantasy. Who is it that would do this? Why would they be convinced by 250 W, but not by 108 W? If you know these people, why don't you ask them to visit Saito, who is much better positioned to demonstrate a 150 W reaction. He has better instruments, a better lab, and access to some best surface analysis machines in the world, at Hokkai PEEN, Inc.

Explain why your imaginary wealthy friends would flock to see a 250 W reaction, yet they will refuse to see a 150 W reaction in a far better equipped lab with a much higher s/n ratio. What sense does that make?

Jed,

I don't want to in any way support an argument between either or you or 7/20. You in particular do our LENR community a MAJOR service by communicating the Mizuno results to the world. 7/20 is a critic, but in his criticism it allows us to focus and improve our science. I really don't like to see when you two get in an argument. Please gentlemen.

I want to point out one concept only:

The Hokkai experiment has a 500/350 = COP 1.42 output level. However, to calibrate it requires that the airflow calorimeter, which is a complex unit, is calibrated on radiation vs. convection vs. conduction losses on the control run vs. the active run. This is not trivial and takes time to check.

However a 150 watt in, 450 watt out = COP 3.0 device has just so much less ways for calibration to throw off the result, i.e. we can be 3x times less accurate in our calibration and still have a result that is at the same level of significance.

Signal to noise is essentially proportional to COP * Power/Power_Measurement_Error; and because to be incontrovertible, assuming noise is normally distributed, a signal to noise ratio of 3 is 3 sigma = 0.13% single tail = 99.87% probability of disproving the null hypothesis. This is near certainty. That is the major reason why higher power and higher COP makes the test easier for more casual observers to be convinced of the effect -- better signal to noise so near certainty of a positive result.

A couple of observations from the Hokkaido experiment:

- I see only a roughing pump. A turbo pump system is not visible and is perhaps not as necessary as assumed.

- I do not see an RGA or a mass spec. It is unclear to me what instrument is at the top of the reactor. In the close up it looks like there are several (5) pins or vacuum pass throughs that the instrument mates with.

- It appears from the Hokkai PEEM brochure description and picture they are using external heating. It is difficult to tell.

- They appear to be using Swagelok Nupro bellows valves. I have found these to work very well.

There are probably additional clues to be gleaned from the report and these images.

Quote from anonymous

It looks like you baked for about 3000 seconds, i.e. about 40 minutes.

The horizontal axis of the graph is seconds divided by 10. The division lines shown are thus for one hour intervals. There was some additional heating time before the start of the data set, so the total bake-out for this test was around 8 hours. The pump was only run when the evolved or leaked gases reached 250-300 mT. This was done to avoid excessive heating of the pump and its oil, which degrades its performance. The interval between these points was increasing, confirming your suggestion that the gas load decreased somewhat over time.

It may be that this cell is suffering from contamination rather than leaks. It was made from commercial grade 304 alloy tubing, which is unfinished on the inside. After welding the flanges I did clean it thoroughly with Micro90 solution in a 250 watt ultrasonic bath, followed by ethyl alcohol to remove any residual water. The next cell will be made to a higher standard and will hopefully bake out with less trouble.

Quote from anonymous

The Hokkai experiment has a 500/350 = COP 1.42 output level. However, to calibrate it requires that the airflow calorimeter, which is a complex unit, is calibrated on radiation vs. convection vs. conduction losses on the control run vs. the active run. This is not trivial and takes time to check.

However a 150 watt in, 450 watt out = COP 3.0 device has just so much less ways for calibration to throw off the result,

Nope. I am talking about two results from Mizuno. S_o_T thinks the 250 W result is significant but the 108 W is not. That makes no sense. They produced temperature elevations of 11°C and 5°C, respectively. Why would 11°C be significant yet 5°C is not? They are both far above the noise. It is the same calorimeter. Issues such as calibration, radiation and so on are exactly the same. There is no way one could be significant but the other is a mistake.

Also, you are exaggerating the difficulties with air flow calorimetry. It is use a million times a day by HVAC engineers worldwide. It works. It is not complicated.

Quote from Brian Albiston

It appears from the Hokkai PEEM brochure description and picture they are using external heating. It is difficult to tell.

Those look like old photos from Mizuno. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from them. The only thing that looks new to me in the Hokkai PEEM website is a recent repackaging of a cell as a room heater, similar to the 3 kW. That's a new or new-ish cell:

I do not think it is in Mizuno's lab or his house. He and I discussed doing another test. He said it was too much for him. He doesn't have room and he can't handle the safety issues, so he was looking around for someone else to do it. Maybe Hokkai PEEM agreed it? I hope so.

The T-shaped cells in the photos are the old design. Mizuno gave it to Saito. Evidently he decided to give him an old one.

Quote from Storms

Jed, trial and error has already resulted in many hundreds of examples of LENR. Mizuno's work is just the most recent.example. His method is important because he used an unique technique for producing the active Pd. He has added to the already 7 different kinds of material (dense metals, powdered metals, electroplated metals, sputtered metals, chemical compounds, mixed materials, catalysts) known to produce the effect. I think its safe to assume each of these materials has some unique feature in common when LENR occurs. Why not use this huge experience base to develop a theory rather than wait for the results using the Mizuno method?

If you can use this experience, more power to you. I think many researchers want to do their own experiment and then analyze the materials before applying the results to a theory. I guess that's what they are waiting for. They want a so-called "lab rat experiment."

I don't do theory, so I cannot judge whether this is necessary.

I agree with you that people putting together theories often seem to ignore the database of results. People ignore it when discussing the field, or even reviewing it, or -- worst case -- arguing that the effect does not exist! The data shows many things. To me, the clearest message is that materials are the key to cold fusion. That was first made clear by Miles results, especially Table 10 (which I copied here https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf). Yet it seems many people do not realize how important the choice of materials is. They don't even get to the stage of making a theory. They miss out on the first and clearest lessons.

Quote from Storms

In fact, I suggest the Mizuno method can be more easily replicated and explained by applying my theory.

That would be good, if true. You should try it and let us know if your theory helps.

Quote from Storms

Why is this approach not considered?

I guess because everyone in this field does their own thing.

Just to clarify who's who:

Dr. S. Saito is at the Hokkaido University of Science. He and two undergrad seniors are doing this experiment. I put some of their results in the Supplement document. I have a spreadsheet of the calibration from them, but I only have the graph of the excess heat results. (No spreadsheet.)

People from Hokkai PEEM Co., Ltd. are assisting Saito. Their website and brochures indicate they are interested in doing the experiment and manufacturing equipment, but I have no idea what they are up to. There is an English section of their website where you can read about them (https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/english-digest/). Unfortunately, it is poorly written, but you get the idea. The Japanese intro (https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/%E4%B…%A4%BE%E6%A1%88%E5%86%85/), with some help from Google translate, says:

Hokkai PEEM Co., Ltd. [lit. Hokkai Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. -- the Japanese name] is a consortium founded in June 2008 by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. It is a regional R&D consortium to develop "an x-ray microscope capable of simultaneous observation, chemical analysis, and electrical property measurement." It is a collaboration with industry, government, and academia, including Hokkaido National University, Hokkaido Industrial Technology Center, Sakai Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Hayasaka Riko Co., Ltd., Tanaka Co., Ltd., and JEOL Ltd. [which is a major instrument manufacturer]. The goal is to make Hokkaido the source of a state-of-the-art photoelectronic device dubbed "My PEEM," that can be used for imaging catalysts, surface reactions, in studies of organic devices and so on, and for simultaneous measurement of chemical state analysis and electrical property measurement.

Original text:

株式会社北海光電子は経済産業省　地域新生コンソーシアム研究開発事業「観察・化学分析・電気特性測定が同時に可能なＸ線顕微鏡」の成果を元に、２００８年６月に起業したコンソーシアムの中核企業で、北海道大学、北海道立工業技術センター、株式会社菅製作所、早坂理工株式会社、株式会社タナカ、 日本電子株式会社の産・官・学連携の上に成り立ちます。「光電子」をキーワードに触媒、反応、有機デバイス等の分野に表面分析イメージング、化学状態分析、電気特性測定の同時測定ができるMy ＰＥＥＭを北海道から発信します。

The company is on the campus of Hokkaido University of Science, right next door to Saito's lab.

JedRothwell from the paper:

Quote

Here is a cute photo of the R20 reactor used as a room heater last winter. This is the world’s first

cold fusion space heater. It is shown here without the power supply or deuterium gas tank. This

has the mesh that produced 250 W. With 300 W input, it produced much more heat than the

calorimeter can measure. So, Mizuno put it in this reflective heater and used it heat a room.

Space heaters are common in Sapporo. This one kept the room roughly as warm as a 3 kW

conventional heater. So that is a very rough approximation of how much heat the reactor was

producing: around 3 kW.

Display More

This is what you mean by a measurement? If not, please point me to the 3kW measurement.

Quote

Why would they be convinced by 250 W, but not by 108 W?

Because 250W with 50W in is persuasive (and 3kW much more so) while 108W out with 256W in is more likely to be a measurement error or other error of some sort.

Quote

Explain why your imaginary wealthy friends would flock to see a 250 W reaction, yet they will refuse to see a 150 W reaction in a far better equipped lab with a much higher s/n ratio. What sense does that make?

Because I was speaking of the 3kW device which you claimed could not be measured although I told you exactly how to acquire a reasonably good first estimate (heat flow transducers). You poopoo'ed that. 3kW out/300W in is much less likely to be a mistake than that supposed high precision measurement you claim. And it's a spectacular demo which the lesser experiment is not. You need a spectacular demo to get more attention and therefore money and big time replicators. This reasoning is for my imaginary friends since you never seem to "get it."

Quote

Besides which, you can see from the Hokkai PEEN website photos that they are testing one of the external cells set up to be a room heater. As you have been demanding all this time.

I missed those photos. I will go back to look. That would be wonderful, of course. If it actually happens.

Quote

You still have not told us how we might make progress if we never examine the used reactants.

As others have noted, you have an unpleasant discussion style. Of course, I never said not to examine the used reactants. I said to document the alleged 3kW output independently first. It can't be that hard to get a well reputed professor from a nearby university to supervise or conduct their own test. Just tell them you have a working, stable 3kW LENR cold fusion reactor and invite them over to check it out. See what they say.

Quote

The temperature of outer surface of the reactor varies a great deal from one spot to another, and it changes over time. This is shown in the last slide of the supplement (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf). So that method would not work.

What are typical temperatures? Heat flow meters are small and easily moveable. They have a fast response (seconds to a few minutes) and can be hand held with a handle to avoid getting burned. You could probably get a decent average in an afternoon. Or you could add a thin layer of copper to the outside of the reactor to start to even out the temperature. Anything to avoid a real measurement at claimed very high power.

ETA: never mind, I found that in your data. It's a max of less than 150 degC well within the range of inexpensive heat flow meters and while it does vary, you can still get a ball park estimate. 3kW +/- 1kW is still an impressive result.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Because 250W with 50W in is persuasive (and 3kW much more so) while 108W out with 256W in is more likely to be a measurement error or other error of some sort.

No it isn't more persuasive. You think it is because you do not understand the difference between input power and noise. The 256 W in produces only a fraction of a watt more noise than 50 W input. Since any meter can measure 0.001 W of electric power with confidence, the increased error with 256 W comes to roughly 0.2 W. An increase in the error margin by 0.2 W cannot affect a 108 W signal. It is insignificant compared to 108 W.

Sources and types of all other errors would be the same in both cases.

We have been over this time after time, but you don't get it. See, for example:

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

Quote

If you have no idea what it could be, and you cannot suggest a candidate, your assertion cannot be tested, or falsified. It is not scientific.

I don't think *you* get it. Asserting that there could be an error could be simply tested and confirmed by finding an error. Of course nobody can prove that there is not an error. I never asked for that. You again misquoted me, as often you do.

Google translate from PDF download link:

https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/app/d…E3%83%95.pdf?t=1516582965

or if that fails, start here: https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/%E6%9…6%8F%E4%BA%8B%E6%A5%AD-1/ (ouch! those Japanese chars!) and choose "new business" and then "overview of hydrogen... etc."

or just start here which works for sure: https://hpeem1.jimdo.com/english-digest/

Anyway, a bit optimistic methinks.

Quote

There is no more efficient energy source than a fusion reactor that uses the heat generated when deuterium is fused and converted to helium. A glass of seawater can produce the same energy as a barrel of oil. In addition, it is carbon dioxide free and does not release uranium-derived radioactive material. However, the reaction required ultra-high temperature and high pressure, making it difficult to put it into practical use in this century.

We realized this at the laboratory level by utilizing the catalytic action of nano metal particles.

Simply heating the chamber converts the deuterium into helium by the quantum nanosize effect, releasing heat (energy). The device on the left generates 200W of heat for a heating input of 100W.

(A higher rate output device is under development.

Main uses

・ Residential heating

・ Business offices, work sites, plastic houses

Power and warming in

・ Local power generation in remote areas and remote islands

・ Large power generation as base load power

・ Other energy applications

Display More

Quote from seven_of_twenty

I don't think *you* get it. Asserting that there could be an error could be simply tested and confirmed by finding an error. Of course nobody can prove that there is not an error. I never asked for that.

Nope. It does not work that way. That's not logical. It isn't science because, as I said, it is not falsifiable. In science, your assertion must indicate some method of proving that it is right or wrong. You cannot just say "if you look for an error, you might find one" because that statement applies equally well to every experiment ever done. If we look carefully, we might find there is an error in Newton's prism experiments. We could simply test prisms and confirm there is an error by finding an error. We might find that J. P. Joule's method of measuring heat is wrong. That is the same method Fleischmann and Pons used, so we would show they were wrong. But it is exceedingly unlikely we will find an error in any of these. Air flow calorimetry is performed hundreds of thousands of times a day. The methods Mizuno used, and the equations, are straight out of the textbooks, so it is extremely unlikely they are wrong. Given:

His description of his work;

The photos and the calibrations;

The fact that an independent observer brought a different set of instruments and got the same results (Slide 8);

The fact that Saito et al. got the same results with a different calorimeter,

it is exceedingly unlikely there is an error.

If you make a positive assertion that "there may be a mistake" you must be specific, and say where the mistake might be, and how we can test for it. You do not get a free pass. Your assertion has to meet the same standards of rigor everyone else meets. You must show not only how you might be right, but how we can demonstrate you are wrong. (It has to be falsifiable.) Otherwise your assertion has no possible truth value. It cannot be right, and it cannot be wrong.