MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

I would like to point out that Mizuno has not had all these problems with vacuum chambers, pumps and so on. Not because he is especially gifted, but because he pays an expert to fabricate the reactors. If you can afford to pay someone, you should. This is division of labor. Without it, you are forced to learn about vacuum chambers, and spend time working on them, instead of working on the main problem.

If you don't have the money, I sympathize.

Quote from Alan Smith

Well, he's a lucky chap.

Not lucky. Elderly. He has no children, so he is spending all the money he has left. Plus he has gotten intermittent funding from various sources, including me.

Quote from Alan Smith

A set of bellows valves (7) for a complete system including a deuterium source, turbo pump, mass spec and 2 vacuum gauges comes to almost $4000. Plus another $1000 for the various connectors.

Yes, this stuff is expensive. He purchased a lot of it when he was a professor at Hokkaido Nat. U., from the 1980s on. (Some of his equipment dates back to the 1960s, and a voltmeter is from the 1940s, I think.) It is antiquated but it still works. A few years ago he was still using a computer with floppy disks. However, the reactors and Swagelok components are all new.

There was a discussion here of which type of Swagelok connector works for this application. I expect Mizuno simply asked his supplier, "what kind of connectors should I get?" As I said, this is the division of labor, a.k.a. letting experts do what they do, while you do the voodoo that you do so well (Blazing Saddles & Cole Porter, 1929 -- who knew?).

Quote

Well, he's a lucky chap. A set of bellows valves (7) for a complete system including a deuterium source, turbo pump, mass spec and 2 vacuum gauges comes to al;most $4000. Plus another $1000 for the various connectors. So I make my own connectors and am working with used Swagelok diaphragm valves. The reactor is the least of the problems, but I'm getting there.

Look, that's a lot of money for a hobbyist but think of the potential upside if it works.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Look, that's a lot of money [$5,000] for a hobbyist but think of the potential upside if it works.

Yes, $5,000 is a lot of money for a hobbyist. But it is nowhere near enough to do a cold fusion experiment. You would need more like $500,000 to set a lab like Mizuno's. Replacement value, I mean. As I said, he has old instruments from the 1980s. Unfortunately, the SEM was smashed in the earthquake and cannot be repaired for less than ~$25,000. It is awfully difficult to do this without an SEM.

Frankly, if you do not have $500,000 burning a hole in your pocket, or you don't happen to have a bunch of lab equipment worth $500,000, I think you should not try to do a cold fusion experiment. Your chances of success are very small. There is little chance of success even when you have the money, you are an expert, and you farm out the difficult parts such as fabricating the reactor. Without the moola, you are wasting your time.

When Fleischmann introduced cold fusion to the world, he said it was relatively inexpensive. He was comparing it to plasma fusion. It is a lot cheaper than something like the PPPL Tokamak reactor, which cost billions to make and $93 million a year to operate. Or ITER, which the ITER staff claims will cost $22 billion, but the DOE thinks will cost $65 billion. (https://physicstoday.scitation…63/PT.6.2.20180416a/full/)

(I must say, for scientists, these people seem to lack basic math skills. 65 is a lot more than 22. As they say in Congress, a billion here and a billion there starts to add up to real money . . .)

(Along the same lines, you would think the engineers and construction companies making the nuclear power plants in Georgia would know how to make realistic estimates of the cost. Nope. It was supposed to cost $14 billion when they started in 2006, and it was supposed to be finished in 2016. It has cost $27 billion and it bankrupted the manufacturer. It is now supposed to cost $7.3 to $8.4 billion more, and be finished by 2022, but I do not think anyone takes those estimate seriously. No one knows how much more it will cost or how much longer it will take. This is why there will be no more nuclear plants in the U.S. You could blanket the state of Georgia with solar cells for that kind of money.)

Quote from RobertBryant

Perhaps 100K would be enough with a bit of serendipity

It is enough if you know someone nearby who has a SEM they will let you use from time to time. Some of the people replicating are in that situation. People in universities often are.

Quote from RobertBryant

The following two instruments were installed for the measurement of low-energy photons. (1) For low-energy soft-X-rays (1keV-100keV), we made it possible to detect with an SDD detector (XR-100SDD; AMPTEK Inc.) through a Be window installed in the chamber. (2)For visible light measurement, a spectroscope using amp array CMOS image sensor(C12666MA; Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.) was installed, and the visible light transmittedthrough the viewport was guided to the spectroscope using a fiber so that the spectrum (340-780nm) could be measured.

Details of the experiments and results will be reported. "

A similar presentation: http://jcfrs.org/ohp/2-23.pdf

Quote from Jed: "$500,000 to setup a lab like Mizuno"

Quote from RobertBryant

Perhaps 100K would be enough with a bit of serendipity

To replicate and measure the heat as was done by Mizuno we don't need a SEM nor Gamma spectrometry.

Rough needs:

Vacuum turbo pump, rougher pump, vacuum chamber, tubing and valves, reaction mesh, lab grade gas, mass spec or RGA, temperature sensors, air flow calorimeter rig as per Mizuno, and a garage workshop to host it all plus about 6 months of time to put it together. If you have the spare time and the spare workshop space, maybe $20K. Not $100K. Certainly not $500K. You get excess heat or you debug why you don't have excess heat. Assuming it works the experimenter can bring in other scientist to his/her lab to review and then rehost the rig in their lab with all the more specialized equipment.

This is what makes the Mizuno recipe so valuable -- its relatively cheap and fast to build and it is a completely open recipe (unlike some others whose names will not be mentioned). I would wait until 3 to 5 people have either confirmed or rejected that the recipe works. Looks like we have one confirmation so far in Hokkaido, but the details are sparse, i.e. half the data has not been provided to Jed and hence published. Over time we will get here in public complete confirmations. If we don't get them, then the experimenters' had problems getting positive results.

Quote from anonymous

To replicate and measure the heat as was done by Mizuno we don't need a SEM nor Gamma spectrometry.

You need an SEM to see if the Pd deposited on the Ni, or if the Ni was rubbed off by the Pd.

You need a lot of other instruments to analyze the results. Fortunately they are not in situ. You can send samples to another lab. Unfortunately, the samples seem to get contaminated in the mail.

Quote from JedRothwell

You need an SEM to see if the Pd deposited on the Ni, or if the Ni was rubbed off by the Pd.

You need a lot of other instruments to analyze the results. Fortunately they are not in situ. You can send samples to another lab. Unfortunately, the samples seem to get contaminated in the mail.

I don't recall that in the instructions. Regardless ...

Cannot an ordinary 100x optical microscope aid in differentiating transfer of Pd to Ni or Ni to PD -- surely it has a scaled layer effect similar to when a layer delaminates that can be seen with optical inspection and appropriate lighting?

Quote from anonymous

I don't recall that in the instructions.

There are a ton of details not in the instructions! We don't even know what they are, because people have not been able to replicate. We know what some of them are. The paper says: "We hope this is enough detail to allow persons skilled in the art to independently replicate the results." Skilled in the art means you know all kinds of things about vacuum chambers, chemistry and so on. Or you have paid experts who know about them. A complete set of instructions would be hundreds of pages long. And will be, if this is ever made into a practical device. As I said, the first published instructions for making transistors was a 2-volume book from Bell Labs, "Transistor Technology."

Quote from anonymous

Cannot an ordinary 100x optical microscope aid in differentiating transfer of Pd to Ni or Ni to PD -- surely it has a scaled layer

Maybe. I wouldn't know. The researchers I know use SEM.

Quote from Alan Smith

That will enable you to see 'stuff' on a mesh, but not of course to identify it.

The SEM I have seen identify the surface elements. (Which they detect with x-rays, I gather.) That's a big help when you want to determine how much Pd is on the mesh.

The cost is largely related to sizr. I keep seeing the mistake of trying to go large in order to impress the ignorant that an application of LENR would be possible. Such scale up is much too premature. In fact, even the Mizuno apparatus is much too large for scientific research. An effective study of LENR requires the ability to easily, quickly, and cheaply explore a variety of conditions and materials. Fleischmann had the right idea about doing the work on a small scale. In my case, I designed the calorimeter so as to allow its use for any kind of study (electrolysis, gas loading, or gas discharge) without having to redesign and remake the apparatus. The sample size is no more than a few grams with accuracy of less than 10 mW.

Working on a small scale saves money and allows for more rapid turnaround. Also, achieving increased sensitivity and greater accuracy is easier. At this stage the object is to understand how the process works, not make a large amount of energy. The often quoted COP is meaningless at this stage. In the case of using a vacuum system, the smaller the system, the fewer the number of leaks would be likely and the faster the pump-down. Contrary to how ignorant skeptics think, proof of LENR does not require making a large amount of power or energy. The generated power only has to exceed the uncertainty in the detection system, which can be made very small when a small system is used. But as always, I do not expect this advice to have any effect on what people do. As Jed so correctly observed, "everyone does their own thing" regardless of how pointless it might be in view of what is known.

Quote from Storms

In fact, even the Mizuno apparatus is much too large for scientific research.

It is unwieldy. I do not know why he made it so large. Maybe it was because the experiment started as glow discharge, and it sort of evolved into the other technique, but he continued using the same reactors. He has also mentioned that he thinks only a fraction of the mesh is activated, so the more you use, the more likely it is you will get a measurable level of heat. A few years ago he was only getting 5 or 10 W even with that mesh, so I guess that made sense.

Quote from Storms

Contrary to how ignorant skeptics think, proof of LENR does not require making a large amount of power or energy.

Yes. S_o_T and others often say that. I have never understood why.

Quote from Storms

The generated power only has to exceed the uncertainty in the detection system, which can be made very small when a small system is used.

Yes. Not only that, but smaller calorimeters can have a larger signal to noise ratio. They are easier to contain and control. With a small calorimeter, you might be able to measure 1 W on 0 to 10 W scale with more confidence than you can measure 10 W with 0 to 100 scale calorimeter. On the other hand, I think below ~0.2 W things become dicey. When someone reports 100 mW of excess heat, I want to know a lot about the calorimeter and calibrations before I feel comfortable with it. If the report comes from Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles or Storms, I have 100% confidence, but others have gotten that wrong. Swartz sometimes reported even smaller results, such as 50 mW. I do not know enough about his calorimeter to feel confidence in that. (I am not saying I don't believe it. I just can't judge.)

Quote from JedRothwell

When someone reports 100 mW of excess heat, I want to know a lot about the calorimeter and calibrations before I feel comfortable with it.

Miles thinks that some isoperibolic calorimeters become inaccurate at power levels below 600 mW when you use a single cell constant. At low power you have to take into account the heat flow out of the cell top. In other words, factors that have no measurable effect at one power level may begin to play a role at a much lower power level. There is a interesting discussion and graph of this on p. 5, here:

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

I always use a simple cell constant, but I realize that only works for a normal range of power, which I estimate is from ~0.5 W to ~10 W for a small calorimeter. It is an approximation. People such as Miles or Fleischmann do much more detailed analyses than I am capable of.

I am sure Ed can measure low power accurately! I think he usually uses a Seebeck, which I think is a little easier, more accurate, and more reliable.