MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Rends

I am pretty sure that all researchers want to keep their ingredients so extremely pure that they thereby eliminate the elements that are essential for the LENR reaction, and I am thinking primarily of carbon.

If the reaction is occurring predominantly on the outer surface of the mesh, carbon could possibly have a role and there are instances where it might be inadvertently indirectly introduced in a less than optimally maintained high vacuum system. As far as I am aware of, it's important to have a slight surface layer of carbon on the catalysts in Leif Holmlid's experiments; in his earlier works this often came over days/weeks of activity mainly from diffusion pump oils volatilizing in his ultra-high vacuum chamber and decomposing on the catalysts. I believe its main effect here is through advantageous modification of the catalysts' work function, but its precise role hasn't been detailed yet in a paper from his group. I can provide some references about it if interested.

If it's instead occurring predominantly at the interface between Pd and Ni like Edmund Storms predicts, then the surface state (e.g. oxidation or presence of other impurities) of the mesh/substrate when the burnishing step is performed could be important. In his paper on the process that I already linked earlier he suggested:

Quote

[...] The second requirement involves the small particles of NiO that would be removed from the Ni surface and mixed with the Pd layer. A gap would be expected to form between the surrounding Pd metal and this inert inclusion, as hydrogen is lost from the structure.

If this description were correct, it would be expected to apply to all Pd found to produce LENR. I predict that commercial Pd observed to support LENR contains similar unintended inclusions that remain in the metal after the refining process and were not altered when the metal was formed into wire or sheet. Consequently, most pieces of the batch are found to produce LENR regardless of the final form created by physical means. This behavior explains why some batches of commercial Pd produce LENR for no obvious reason.

As an example, Fleischmann has described how boron is added to the molten Pd during the purification process to remove oxygen by formation of insoluble boron oxide, which floats to the surface and is physically removed. In view of the Storms model, the small pieces of oxide scattered throughout would make the Pd eventually nuclear active rather than the absence of oxygen.

So, also according to this model, an excessively clean material may not work well or possibly not work at all in many cases.

Pre-synthesis of UDD using Holmlid's tech or Norront's muon generator would be analogous to using a carborettor to pre-mix petrol and air on a petrol engine. It wouldn't run on fuel alone. This would be a simple upgrade to the R20 design with the D2 delivery pipe containing the KFeO2 catalyst and a thin layer of Pd or Nii for it to diffuse through into the reactor vacuum. The SAFIRE project reactor anode could also be primed with such UDD catalysts, and maybe it would raise Brilloin Energy's COP by this appliance of science?

.........and it TG want to try it remember you read this idea first on LENR forum. Thanks again guys for disseminating all our ideas worldwide!

Dr Richard

The main issue is that small amounts of that catalyst (obtained only when suitably activated—it's not stable in air and the precursors are Fe₂O₃ and K₂CO₃/KOH are not active on their own) might not necessarily dissociate well large enough amounts of hydrogen gas into the atomic form to yield useful spontaneous excess heat; Ultra-dense hydrogen cannot be formed from molecular hydrogen. A second issue is that apparently it is easier for them to emit excited alkali atom clusters (Rydberg matter) than of hydrogen, especially when large amounts of promoter (potassium) is present in the catalyst.

So, an easier possibility could be instead having a form of such catalyst in close proximity to the Ni-Pd mesh, which could dissociate molecular hydrogen to separate atoms more efficiently. The excited potassium clusters emitted from the K-Fe oxide catalyst in large amount could then assist the conversion of atomic hydrogen adsorbed on the mesh. This is similar to the intended function of the K/Sr–Fe/Mn -impregnated fiberglass sleeves in Francesco Celani's constantan wires (although I have some reservations on their actual effectiveness in the absence of an in-situ activation step similar to the one required with the actual K-Fe oxide catalyst).

This is also assuming that the excess heating reaction occurs mostly on the outer mesh surface exposed to the inner heater... and assuming that people who are trying to replicate Mizuno's experiments will actually want to do something along this lines, even if it requires less modifications to the experiment than what you're proposing. Have you thought about this? It would not be a "Mizuno replication" anymore, but something different along different ideas.

Yes, that's a really good idea putting the catalyst inside the reactor would also pre-synthesize UDD - but how could such catalytic activity over long periods be maintained without some run-down in activity. That's why I was proposing a separate unit to inject UDD into the reactor from in which the catalyst could be replaced at regular intervals. As to the problems with the KFeO2 I think Norront is trying to find alternatives - they might have better catalysts maybe incorporating hydrogenation catalysts like Ir or Pt by now or dehydrogenators like ZrO2 etc. Let's wait and see.

On a possibly related note, in his 1980–90s work on thermionic emitters—before focusing on iron oxide catalysts at lower temperatures—Holmlid found that alkali atoms desorbing from metallic foils like Ir or Pt at high temperature would form excited states and clusters (Rydberg matter), but only in the presence of graphite islands on the foil surface. This may be also considered in reference to Rends previously suggesting that carbon could be an essential impurity. My understanding is that Holmlid's group did not immediately realize that carbon was important also in later catalytic experiments (EDIT: on this regard, read this Google-translated Swedish article from 2003 up to the conclusion).

https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6028(91)90605-R

In these early studies the graphite coverage was usually obtained by thermally decomposing a light hydrocarbon gas on the metal foil at high temperature. Graphite on its own when heated to the same temperatures would also emit excited states, but graphite does not appreciably dissociate molecular hydrogen into the atomic form like many metals do and so similar studies employing hydrogen (example 1 and 2) generally found molecular excited states.

To relate this with Langmuir's research as cited by Alan above, it might be plausible that a partially graphite-covered tungsten heating device in a hydrogen atmosphere could also work towards producing Rydberg matter of atomic hydrogen and its ultra-dense form. The clusters formed this way might need a further metal surface in their proximity to dissipate their condensation energy on and stabilize.

This would be something different than Mizuno-type experiments or other experiments with catalysts at lower temperature, although the tungsten heater–metal surface configuration could be arranged to loosely resemble the heater–mesh used in these experiments.

I fear this might be unnecessary information cluttering discussions on the Mizuno replication work here, though.

Quote from Alan Smith

This has been Russ George's approach all along. The philosophy is simple - LENR is a natural phenomenon, and nature never works with high-purity materials.

Semiconducting is a natural phenomenon, but semiconductor transistors only work with highly purified materials.

I do not think cold fusion occurs in nature. But there is some evidence for that. Tritium is found in deep lakes. It seems unlikely this is primordial or the result of fission. There is some speculation that it might be the product of cold fusion.

If only there was a way to make this process continous without pauses and unnessesary steps. Hydrogen/Deuterium pressure fed through a hollow but closed electrode made of whatever metal alloy has the properties you want seems like a way to maximise both hydrogen loading, free electron flow and tempurature at the reaction site in the chamber itself. Firstly it negates the lenthly loading and unloading in special procedures, then you have catalysts and probably a second source of H/D in a low pressure plasma set up to be efficient. That way you have something producing "transmutations" in the metal and copious amounts of dense H/D at the same time. In all seriousness, anyone planning combined hydrogen loading and plasma approach experiments?

Quote from can

Dr Richard

The main issue is that small amounts of that catalyst (obtained only when suitably activated—it's not stable in air and the precursors are Fe₂O₃ and K₂CO₃/KOH are not active on their own) might not necessarily dissociate well large enough amounts of hydrogen gas into the atomic form to yield useful spontaneous excess heat; Ultra-dense hydrogen cannot be formed from molecular hydrogen. A second issue is that apparently it is easier for them to emit excited alkali atom clusters (Rydberg matter) than of hydrogen, especially when large amounts of promoter (potassium) is present in the catalyst.

So, an easier possibility could be instead having a form of such catalyst in close proximity to the Ni-Pd mesh, which could dissociate molecular hydrogen to separate atoms more efficiently. The excited potassium clusters emitted from the K-Fe oxide catalyst in large amount could then assist the conversion of atomic hydrogen adsorbed on the mesh. This is similar to the intended function of the K/Sr–Fe/Mn -impregnated fiberglass sleeves in Francesco Celani's constantan wires (although I have some reservations on their actual effectiveness in the absence of an in-situ activation step similar to the one required with the actual K-Fe oxide catalyst).

This is also assuming that the excess heating reaction occurs mostly on the outer mesh surface exposed to the inner heater... and assuming that people who are trying to replicate Mizuno's experiments will actually want to do something along this lines, even if it requires less modifications to the experiment than what you're proposing. Have you thought about this? It would not be a "Mizuno replication" anymore, but something different along different ideas.

Display More

The exothermic process has a relatively high initiation energy, thats why it all happens facing the heater! It probably needs to happen among the metal atoms.

Yesterday I pumped out the MR1 cell while heated to 160°C for about 7 hours, to attempt unloading D2 from the mesh. Ultimately 5E-6 Torr was reached. After cooling to 50°C, hydrogen gas was added to ~13,300 Pa (100 Torr, 0.15 Bar). The cell will be left for 48 hours or more while watching the pressure, then pumped out and heated again to remove the hydrogen.

magicsound

Ed Storms also thinks that the gaps formed after unloading will remain stable only as long as some hydrogen still exists inside of them, so it will be probably best not to put too much emphasis on pumping out all of the hydrogen after pressure ceases decreasing (here is one source for this; I recall reading about this elsewhere as well).

In another instance for which I have a source that I cannot cite here, Storms has suggested that if complete loss of hydrogen (deuterium) from the material occurs, "[excess] power production [...] can be restarted only by suitable reactivation" which suggests that the process is not irreversible.

I think for the purposes of applying enough stresses to the material in the case of the Ni–Pd mesh it should be sufficient to form β-PdH; reaching very high loading ratios might not be required.

magicsound Just curious as I'm no LENR expert...

I think you said you only rubbed one side of the mesh. When you put it in the cell was the rubbed side facing in or out? And does anyone think it might make a difference?

CWatters The Pd-rubbed side was facing the center, where the heater is located.

Quote from CWatters

magicsound Just curious as I'm no LENR expert...

I think you said you only rubbed one side of the mesh. When you put it in the cell was the rubbed side facing in or out? And does anyone think it might make a difference?

Hmmm interesting question I would think it matters a lot. Someone with hands on experience should answer?

JedRothwell

You seem to have a good grasp about current subjects, however how do you explain that an eminent replicator as magicsound can't reproduce Mizuno's announced breakthrough ?

Quote from JedRothwell

As reported here, a trial of this will begin tomorrow. This may be repeat info. but, QUOTE:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Sunday that drug trials to test coronavirus treatments will begin in the state Tuesday, after President Trump on Thursday said the Food and Drug Administration approved one of the drugs for clinical trials, as New York becomes the epicenter for the pandemic in the U.S.

• During a Sunday press briefing, Cuomo said 750,000 doses of chloroquine, 70,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine and 10,000 doses of Zithromax were acquired by New York state for the trial.
• Chloroquine (an anti-malaria drug) and hydroxychloroquine (used for lupus and arthritis) were approved by the FDA for clinical trials as possible coronavirus treatments, while Zithromax is a brand-name antibiotic.
• "The president is optimistic about these drugs and we are all optimistic that it could work,” Cuomo said.
• Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said Friday that the drug’s promise was “anecdotal,” adding, “It was not done in a controlled clinical trial. So you really can’t make any definitive statement about it.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/l…-cuomo-says/#2484d36b4203

[If this turns out to work, we will owe a lot of credit to Trump for getting the show on the road. Trump, of all people!]

[750,000 doses of this and 70,000 doses of that is quite a large trial! If the stuff works well, that's sure to tell us. In normal times, to do a study on this scale without first doing a safety check would be unthinkable. Doing it without the double-blind protocol would be verboten.]

Display More

Quote from CWatters

I think you said you only rubbed one side of the mesh.

You want to rub both sides. It seems not enough Pd is being deposited even when you do that. It may be rubbing off more Ni than Pd going on.