According to Jed, Mizuno claimed to have not been aware of the CaCO3 deposits.
He is aware of the water contents. He suggested we include the document from the city of Sapporo. I said that seems like too much information, but then someone here dug it up, so I think I added it to the supplement.
He does not know if the water makes a difference. We can't rule that out.
Finally got the REED read reading smoothly.
(There way too many ways to handle characters, strings, Strings, pointers, addresses, and arrays in C it seems.)
These in the image are printing a new line each time a fresh REED sentence is analysed and the respective thermocouple temperature is updated.
However, the program will normally run in the background and the temperatures can taken from the most recent values at any time.
Whatever complete REED thermocouple channel sentence is read first's array is updated immediately, no matter what channel arrives first (or in what order).
Broken, incomplete, or out of range sentences are ignored and discarded. Note two sets of diagnostic temperature values that also identify the TC channels.
9999 is blank spaces in TC data, meaning open thermocouple, (and also bad non-decimal number character in sentence temperature bytes, in this program).
This one just happens to have the first complete TC 1 update sentence reported by the REED occur last, immediately after the start of the program.
.
Finally got the REED read reading smoothly.
On the Reading Railroad?
QuoteThis is why Japanese powder seems more coherent according to this protocol but Rossi does better " i believe" with liquid hydroxides.
Yikes!
I think a huge difference is the variance in the amount of palladium deposited in the mesh and the distribution of the palladium and the thickness of the layers. If Mizuno could come up with a standardized application procedure which would limit the variability of this step in fuel processing, I think it would be very helpful. Of course I've already been told that my idea of placing the mesh on a spinning wheel at a given RPM and applying the palladium at specific pressures to the spinning mesh wouldn't work. So maybe someone else would have a better idea.
QuoteOf course I've already been told that my idea of placing the mesh on a spinning wheel at a given RPM and applying the palladium at specific pressures to the spinning mesh wouldn't work.
Personally, I liked your idea when you first posted it. The approach of mechanically systemising the Pd application is a very good way of maximising the likelihood of replication. Of course, the Mizuno application method
would need to be accurately replicated, and for that, an array of SEM images of the sucesful meshes would be vital. Jed has previously told us that they are expected "soon", but these things can take time. On the up side,
I reckon there can't fail to be a way of doing this if a rigorous, determined approach is taken.
Here's an image and a progress report for Feb. Getting there, but not cutting any corners on the cell hardware. The data system is also improving and is now stable enough to yield useful data. Can has been very helpful with some Python code for integrating the data. There is still an issue with the limited measurement ranges of the Optris camera, and that will require manual switching of range to follow the experiment as it progresses.
Last week I disassembled the cell and installed clips for the TCs. I inserted a rolled sheet of Ni mesh (not cleaned or sanded) to see if it would affect the thermal transport in the cell. A full bake-out and calibration with 1060 Pa H2 was then done, with heater power extended up to 160 watts. The heater survived and based on good calibration data collected, it should be possible to run up to 400 °C
About midway through the calibration there were several moments of increased Neutron count, roughly twice the usual background level. Measurement was by the Higgins design 3He detector. It was positioned about 10 cm from the cell, protected from IR by a piece of Al foil (not shown in the image below). These events occurred at 175 to 250 °C on the cell exterior. Interior temp at the Ni mesh is unknown. These apparent Neutron bursts could have resulted from chance cosmic ray hits, so any conclusion would be premature. Still interesting though, and it shows the value of comprehensive data collection.
Well done magicsound.
Sadly I've had to park my Mizuno-lite system for a while in order to do some non-LENR analytical research which demands the use of the QMS and will take at least two weeks to complete. A bit boring (because I can anticipate to a certain extent what the results will be, though it does need to be proven) - and very complicated, but necessary because it 'keeps the lights on'.
Nothing to do with LENR (sadly) but important that we do it right, here's what's keeping me busy. We are being asked to test the purity of the hydrogen our process produces, so here we have a gas reactor, (the Buchner flask sitting the the ultrasound tank, gas cooling - the Leibig condenser, then washing, carbon adsorption scrubbing and zeolite bead drying columns, low-volume hydrogen flowmeter and very low volume gas syringe. leading to the QMS gas analyzer -all tested and working just fine. Good vacuum, and clean analysis on these /background tests- the Argon should be ignored, just a carrier gas for testing. The argon btw comes from the cylinder just visible at the bottom right of the main picture. More LENR in the summer I hope.
Here's the end of the bake-out removing H2 from calibrations. Residual water vapor at 2E-6 Torr.
Result of three calibrations over the past weeks. Cal5 and Cal6 were done with hydrogen at ~1000 Pa. Cal7 was done with Argon at ~10000 Pa, since its thermal conduction is about 1/10 that of hydrogen. I was advised to expect non-linear thermal behavior with argon, and that is somewhat evident in the data. There were no changes in the cell setup and instrumentation between runs.
Each calibration takes about 8 hours, to allow for settling time at each step. The full data sets can be made available if any one would like a closer look.
From my what I know, the tally now stands at...there have been 2 successful replications in Japan, and France has one at a COP1.18, which is under review by a major corporation. Others in France, Italy (2), Sweden, and the U.S. (3x's), have recorded null results. Another in Europe had a conflict with Mizuno, and is now returning his reactor.
Two of those in Europe have tried twice without success, with one now working with Mizuno in another attempt.
Another in Europe had a conflict with Mizuno, and is now returning his reactor.
I wouldn't call it a conflict exactly. I think they just did not have the time and resources to test the reactor.
I wouldn't call it a conflict exactly. I think they just did not have the time and resources to test the reactor.
Sorry, should have said "misunderstanding". I read both sides of the story, and that better describes it. These things happen.
From my what I know, the tally now stands at...there have been 2 successful replications in Japan, and France has one at a COP1.18, which is under review by a major corporation. Others in France, Italy (2), Sweden, and the U.S. (3x's), have recorded null results. Another in Europe had a conflict with Mizuno, and is now returning his reactor.
When you say "U.S. (3x's)" etc., does this mean replication attempts by 3 separate groups in the U.S.? ... or 3 attempts by the same group.
When you say "U.S. (3x's)" etc., does this mean replication attempts by 3 separate groups in the U.S.? ... or 3 attempts by the same group.
3 attempts by same group.
3 attempts by same group.
An the 2 replications in Japan? Is that successful replications by 2 independent groups or the same group with 2 separate, successful replications?
There also was a slightly positive report from Zhang (China), although I seem to recall there were concerns of possible chemical reactions occurring: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangHreproducti.pdf
And also a null replication attempt by Deneum (Estonia): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKRt3fa4lfU (a follow-up experiment was supposed to be made but no news since then)
I was advised to expect non-linear thermal behavior with argon, and that is somewhat evident in the data. There were no changes in the cell setup and instrumentation between runs.
All 3 calibrations show nonlinear behaviour don't they? ... to more or less the same extent?
Things (literally) straighten out above 80 Watts heater power and again below 40 Watts.
