MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

  • An obvious example would be NASA, who have previously shown themselves interested in such testing.


    According to Forsley, who is now an experimental physicist at NASA, NASA has replicated the SPAWAR co-dep protocol.


    Additionally, NASA has contracted with GEC to scale up the work and NASA scientists are publishing papers on LENR.

  • I just don't see the diverse evidence here as proving that, because if it was real, it would by now be much more real

    At least THHnew has given up on debugging Mizuno's R20 calorimetry..

    2017.. 2019...

    perhaps the last convincing Ascoli spreadsheet fiasco has been educational.

    or the laminar turbulence before that


    perhaps the calorimetry.. is too real..

  • Anyone who has read Miles and others who replicated the helium results will know this is bullshit. I will not argue the details, because you won't read them anyway, and even if you do, you will repeat this same bullshit.

    For people who want to learn about helium, see for example:


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


    All of the issues raised by THH are either wrong, or they were resolved by Miles and others decades ago.


    There are also examples of helium above atmospheric concentration, which negates another of his points.

  • According to Forsley, who is now an experimental physicist at NASA, NASA has replicated the SPAWAR co-dep protocol.


    Additionally, NASA has contracted with GEC to scale up the work and NASA scientists are publishing papers on LENR.


    That is one reason NASA would be an easy choice - there are people there who are highly interested in LENR.


    But, the SPAWAR co-dep results are an example of unexpected results, quite different from the core (that I have more sympathy with) He / excess heat results, that can be interpreted as LENR, or something else.

    https://www.coolescence.com/2009-10-co-deposition.html


    In fact your raising these disparate results as an argument for the core He / excess heat from Pd/D electrolysis observation is exactly an example of what I talk about.


    However, new papers, describing new results, are obviously of interest. If those tracks could be substantiated as from charged particles using other detection methods that would be interesting.


    THH


    Jed: There are also examples of helium above atmospheric concentration, which negates another of his points.


    That is why I said lab concentration. Basically, in a lab using or storing He the He levels have ben observed (as is pretty obvious) to be much much higher than atmospheric. So before abandoning absorption from the atmosphere as a hypotheses for positive He concentration results it would be necessary to conduct a thorough analysis all around the apparatus, and inside the lab, for possible local He sources. Further, it would be necessary to unsure that no equipment that could be an He source is moved into the lab during the experiment.


    That level of care is significantly more than was shown in any of the clear positive He experiments (or if not you can post a link which i will happily read).


    All of which is irrelevant. If new excess heat / He correlation experiments are now being done, with all previous knowledge of issues and complexities, then surely results from such new experiments will trump the older evidence with better controls and instrumentation (for example robust and continuous testing of He concentration around the apparatus during the experiment, and an "exclusion zone" to prevent inadvertent local transient contamination. I have been awaiting this a few years now since Abd said they were rumoured to be happening.


    THH



  • RB - you'd do better to argue facts instead of personalities. That way, both sides of the debate can be considered dispassionately and without personalisation.

  • THH, I would like to ask a personal question. You seem to have a continued interest in evaluating claims for the LENR effect, which frequently is useful, but at the same time you admit you do not believe the LENR effect to be real. So, why invest so much of your time in an effort you believe has no reality, an opinion you maintain in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Even if you think the LENR effect just might be real and important, so as to justify an evaluation in order to reveal this small possibility, your approach makes no sense to me. We who are studying LENR are well aware of the errors and do not need coaching, even though such discussions are frequently useful and welcome even when they are not necessary.


    In my case, I have concluded the effect is real based on seeing it for myself and having mastered what other people have seem. Consequently, my effort is to understand how it works. Of course, this goal has to take errors into account in the same way you require, but my goal in doing this is much different from yours. In my case, I will have something of value to show for my efforts. I see nothing of value coming from your efforts. So, please tell me what value do you intend to achieve?

  • TH Huxley, after reading your comments, I get the impression that, in your mind, acceptance of LENR requires publication of a single study containing no detectable error and with such solid data that it alone proves the existence of the LENR effect. Ideally, the paper should also provide an explanation consistent with this "perfect" data. You reject all the imperfect papers published so far no matter how consistently they show the same behavior, including correlations between heat energy and helium production as well as the production of tritium. Frankly, I do not see how the criteria you impose can be applied to any discovery, even ones that are now accepted. All would fail because the perfect study is so rare to be an event by its itself. We all can and do nitpick over details in papers we read but we seldom reject the basic claim based on this approach, except in your case when LENR is discussed


    For example, the Mizuno study clearly contains error, which makes the heat energy uncertain. We all agree about this fact. But, why does this study have to be so error-free that it alone can prove LENR is real? That fact has been already established by hundreds of papers and consistent correlations. We are now exploring ways to make the effect work better, as Curbina noted previously. When this viewpoint is applied, the Mizuno method is important because it provides another way to cause the effect that might be better than the many others revealed so far. Consequently, the discussion should be focused on how to make the Mizuno method work better, not on errors it will always contain.


    AMEN!


    The truth is that THH is the kind of pseudo-scientist that has been holding back humanity for the past hundred years. If it weren't for him and his ilk - along with sometimes business and governmental interests getting in the way - cold fusion technology would have became mainstream a VERY long time ago.

  • We who are studying LENR are well aware of the errors and do not need coaching . . .


    Yes. And not just the errors. Researchers know about the difficulties, the limitations of the instruments, and so on. For example, THH mentioned that the amount of helium in some experiments is minute. It is sometimes less than the atmospheric concentration. (Although it is higher than atmospheric concentration in other experiments.) This is true, and it is important. It is worth discussing. But here is what irks me about THH. He does not seem to realize that Miles and others addressed this. They discussed it in detail. They took steps to ensure that the helium is not contamination, despite the low concentration. In fact, as Miles pointed out, if it were contamination leaking in, it would be at some random level, likely far above what is measured. You cannot leak in such tiny amounts of helium. Furthermore, the mass of helium correlates with the total heat release, in approximately the same ratio as D+D => He fusion, measured in many different tests. If it were leaking in from the atmosphere, it would not be in this ratio. In that sense, the low concentration actually bolsters the results. That is counterintuitive.


    Miles and the other authors explain this. THH should read their explanations carefully before commenting on the low concentration. He should acknowledge that the issue has been addressed. He doesn't have to agree with Miles, but he should not act as if he is the first person in the history of cold fusion to realize that the low concentration may be a problem. All of the other genuine issues he raised were also addressed, decades ago. He also listed some bogus problems that cannot arise, so they do not need to be addressed.


    Miles addressed this issue in other ways. He had three different labs measure the helium in single-blind tests. He did not tell the people measuring helium what the other two labs found, yet the results agreed. It is unlikely all three made the same mistakes in many tests.


    If THH wants to make useful contributions, before he starts listing one problem after another, he should read the literature carefully to see if the problems he comes up with have been addressed. Granted, it is a lot of work reading the literature, but there is no point to critiquing an imaginary version of the research. If he wants to take a shortcut and avoid reading all those papers, he can read my summary of Miles' work, written in 2004. As I said, we have known about these issues for a long time.


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

  • After a seemingly infinite time, the last UHV vacuum components arrived yesterday. So today I assembled the components (using nitrile gloves to minimize contamination) and began pumpdown. The setup is shown below. The two baratron controllers on the left monitor forepump pressure and the UHV chamber pressure. The first controller is configured to turn on the T/M pump when the pressure falls below 3 Torr. The second controller monitors a heated 1 Torr F/S baratron and is configured to permit the Ionization gauge to power on for pressures < 0.1 mTorr. As soon as I get pressures less than 0.1 mTorr I'll turn on the ionization gauge and see how good an UHV is possible.


    Jeff

  • In my case, I will have something of value to show for my efforts. I see nothing of value coming from your efforts. So, please tell me what value do you intend to achieve?

    I think many skeptics do this as an ego trip. They want to show they are smarter than cold fusion researchers. Or, they want to sit at the cool kids table in junior high. Or as they say in Japan, there is safety in numbers. If you are going to join in a fight, be sure to pick the stronger side.


    THH and especially Ascoli think they are smarter than Fleischmann, Bockris or Miles. They are mistaken. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect, explained here by John Cleese (of Cornell U. and Monty Python):


  • THH, I would like to ask a personal question. You seem to have a continued interest in evaluating claims for the LENR effect, which frequently is useful, but at the same time you admit you do not believe the LENR effect to be real. So, why invest so much of your time in an effort you believe has no reality, an opinion you maintain in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Even if you think the LENR effect just might be real and important, so as to justify an evaluation in order to reveal this small possibility, your approach makes no sense to me. We who are studying LENR are well aware of the errors and do not need coaching, even though such discussions are frequently useful and welcome even when they are not necessary.


    In my case, I have concluded the effect is real based on seeing it for myself and having mastered what other people have seem. Consequently, my effort is to understand how it works. Of course, this goal has to take errors into account in the same way you require, but my goal in doing this is much different from yours. In my case, I will have something of value to show for my efforts. I see nothing of value coming from your efforts. So, please tell me what value do you intend to achieve?


    My primary interest here is in educating myself: and trying to understand the experiments does that. For example, I for the first time learnt about heat exchangers when working out whether Rossi's claimed heat exchanger could dissipate 1MW (it could not without much larger power going to the fans than was drawn in total from the utility supply, because the air speeds needed would have been very high). I enjoy this site where there are (some) other people who are thoughtful, have large and varied expertise, and are clever.


    Now, for me, learning the fluid mechanics governing laminar and turbulent flow in heat exchangers for the first time (at uni I did some fluid mechanics, but only the stuff with neat analytic solutions) was really good fun. I would not have done it without the motivation of wanting to understand Rossi's claims, but it has left me richer. Looking at Mizuno's stuff was fun for me here precisely because I was not expert, and had to learn a lot.


    I also find speculations about what might be possible, and what not, in nuclear physics, to be fascinating, and have been driven to understand much more about standard model physics than I'd bothered to look at before. I find the enhanced reaction rates at relatively low collision energies in lattices interesting because not well understood.


    Finally, I find intellectual questions where intelligent people can look at the same facts and reach opposing answers fascinating. What is it that makes you and I come to different reasoned conclusions about the likelihood of LENR being "real"? And, anyway, what is the definition of "real LENR". The second question I expect we would agree on, although it is not simple to answer.


    Of course I hope to be proven wrong, I look with interest at experimental results, and I have some hope also that the "no smoke without fire" argument applies particularly to deuterated metal lattices. Just because something is unlikely does not mean that it is impossible. and in spite of what is a widely held view here I am not, I think, emotionally driven to deny LENR. I'd love something new and interesting to emerge, it is just that the pattern of positives and negatives in the experimental results, for me, does not well fit unexpected nuclear reactions at rates high enough to be a measurable power source.


    You are correct in that my motivation would not sustain proper work in LENR, where unless I was pretty well convinced that it was real I'd probably not bother. That is a reason to consider those in the field to be in principle less good judges of whether LENR exists. Of course they have a correct argument that those outside the field have not spent as much time considering it, and so from that point of view are in principle less good judges.


    Re THH and Ascoli think they are smarter than ...


    I think it is pretty obvious that all humans have biases and flawed judgement. Also that how much you are biased and have flawed judgement, and in which areas, when looking at new problems, has not much to do with how clever you are, not how expert in a particular area. Expertise will dramatically reduce flawed judgement on normal problems, but not on extraordinary and atypical problems, within the field of expertise.


    So I can do my best to be unbiased, and think as we all do that in some (not all) cases I may be less biased than someone who has devoted their life to a specific endeavour, exactly because I have less emotional investment. Whether that lower bias counteracts the loss of judgement through lower expertise is a moot point. Also whether what I think on general grounds is less bias is really less bias is also a moot point, since by definition none of us know what our biases are. Scientists (including LENR scientists) all try hard to counteract their own biases, and some are better at it than others, but I don't think there is any simple correlation between that and either expertise or cleverness. For me it is precisely the uncertainty here that intrigues me, were I certain LENR did not exist this would be more boring, and were I certain it did exist I would probably leave watching the field from frustration at the intransigence of others (I feel like that at the moment about politics in the UK and US where the world seems to have gone crazy for understandable but frustrating reasons).


    Re We who are studying LENR are well aware of the errors and do not need coaching


    I'm aware of that. But then I post here where most of the other posters are not so specifically expert, though they all have their own areas of expertise. It is good when those like you with more specific expertise do so. And also I think those within any community that feels embattled and misunderstood, as is partly true of LENR, can use help in communicating from those not in that community, if they wish to engage with a wider audience.


    Best wishes,

    and happy Christmas,

    THH

  • They want to show they are smarter than cold fusion researchers. Or, they want to sit at the cool kids table in junior high. Or as they say in Japan, there is safety in numbers.


    But, here, as noted from the number of likes received, on this topic numbers are well against me! And,as has been argued here, of those who have looked seriously at the evidence on LENR numbers may well still be against me! it is difficult to know.

  • After a seemingly infinite time, the last UHV vacuum components arrived yesterday. So today I assembled the components (using nitrile gloves to minimize contamination) and began pumpdown. The setup is shown below. The two baratron controllers on the left monitor forepump pressure and the UHV chamber pressure. The first controller is configured to turn on the T/M pump when the pressure falls below 3 Torr. The second controller monitors a heated 1 Torr F/S baratron and is configured to permit the Ionization gauge to power on for pressures < 0.1 mTorr. As soon as I get pressures less than 0.1 mTorr I'll turn on the ionization gauge and see how good an UHV is possible.


    Jeff

    When starting to do things as this one soon realizes that there is not such a thing as a “simple experiment”. I praise your efforts, I can only guess the level of expenses you are facing and I think I speak for all when saying a big thanks for keeping us in the loop. Patience is key for successful experimental runs.

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

  • They want to show they are smarter than cold fusion researchers. Or, they want to sit at the cool kids table in junior high. Or as they say in Japan, there is safety in numbers.


    But, here, as noted from the number of likes received, on this topic numbers are well against me! And,as has been argued here, of those who have looked seriously at the evidence on LENR numbers may well still be against me! it is difficult to know.

    only within the confines of this forum THHuxleynew , you know outside here we are the minority.

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

  • I think many skeptics do this as an ego trip. They want to show they are smarter than cold fusion researchers. Or, they want to sit at the cool kids table in junior high. Or as they say in Japan, there is safety in numbers. If you are going to join in a fight, be sure to pick the stronger side.


    THH and especially Ascoli think they are smarter than Fleischmann, Bockris or Miles. They are mistaken. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect, explained here by John Cleese (of Cornell U. and Monty Python):


    John Cleese is a master of sarcasm. Always funny to hear him, thanks for the video JedRothwell !!! Best and more precise explanation of the Dunning Kruger effect I have seen so far, and funny, too!!!

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

  • And,as has been argued here, of those who have looked seriously at the evidence on LENR numbers may well still be against me! it is difficult to know.

    No, it isn't difficult to know. It is one of the clearest and most indisputable discoveries in the last hundred years. The energy release exceeds the limits of chemistry by a factor of 10,000 in some cases. The heat sometimes ranges from 20 to 100 W in continuous reactions lasting weeks or months, where a chemical reaction would not last five minutes. Such high power cannot be an experimental error.


    The details of the nuclear reaction, and theory, are difficult to know. But the fact that this is a revolutionary new source of energy could not be easier to understand. Anyone who has burned a stick in the last million years can see that.


    You claim it is difficult to know because you are blinded by an irrational desire to deny reality. I cannot say whether this comes from your ego, or fear of novelty, or a perverse desire to make yourself look smarter than Martin Fleischmann. Your belief is irrational and without foundation. To maintain it, you have to come up with ever-more outlandish nonsense, such as your hypothesis to explain away the boil-off results with macroscopic yet invisible drops of water that violate gravity. You have to deny scientific principles and methods going back to 1780. You have to believe that replicated experiments mean nothing, correlation means nothing, and the scientific method does not work.