MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Shane D.

..........

So I think we can cut them a little slack (go easy on them), while they grow.

Hopefully, but I am very concerned about

"INDEPENDENTLY REPLICATED COLD FUSION" as stated on the webpage and the overall posting.

When Mizuno's R19-R20 reactors were first reported here by Jed, it was CLEARLY stated that replication reports would be openly provided, "negative or positive".

Now approaching 2 years, we have heard basically squat other than the attempt by Deneum(?) Which reported no success / no excess heat and then was roundly criticized by a few ardent supporters here, even though it was a reputable attempt by a reputable firm.

I am very open to give some leeway, but after two years and then a published web site proclaiming independent replication with NO replication reports is not a good sign! I am not accusing Mizuno himself of anything,.... perhaps others involved have taken over and are following the same old BS route that seem to plague the LENR field.

I have been in business management for many years... ranging from automotive to recreation. I have never seen an industry so plagued by scammers or perhaps self deluded peopled as the "Free energy" field! (Perhaps only rivaled by the fake male "enhancement" market!)

I disagree with Shane a bit that

Quote from Shane D.

Most companies first stab at a website are usually raw,

I think most companies, especially ones with legitimate legal and financing backing, do NOT have crude websites or make unsubstantiated claims!

I even use IH / Darden as an example. They were quiet, working privately trying to validate and prove Rossi's claims. No crude website with borrowed photos with them! Rossi on the other hand, was publishing diarrhea on his JONP, showing what a scam artist he truly was, and making claims about sales and availability that only his faithful followers believed.

Using photos off the internet is not a good sign of a professional and well managed venture by experienced and capable people. It is a sign of inexperience and a poorly conceived business plan! (or lack of one!)

No, I do not think this is a positive sign. (But I could be wrong! I thought I was wrong once but found out I was mistaken! )

I am developing the best rocket in the world

Investors contact: [email protected]

[photo credit Elon Musk]

Here's the full reactor photo: https://mizunotech.com/uploads…ound-images/229484340.jpg

Do they really have a reliable and repeatable process?

Quote from Shane D.

Yeah, it does get frustrating. LENR has been down this road too many times since FPs. But there have been replications of the R20 tech though; i.e. Zhang, and then a Frenchman (COP1.18)...although he is having second thoughts about, and the latest from Hokkaido Univ. There may be others we are not privy to. But then there are the negatives as you point out; the most obvious being Magic's.

Unfortunately, I do not expect much transparency from here on out. They will continue being open source with their older R20 tech, but not the new stuff they have developed since then. That is what they are going commercial with. Now that they have a law firm, patent writer, investors looking at the data, and a potential partner with a major French corporation, the IP has to be protected...and we all know what that means. It is no longer just about Mizuno, his support team, and business manager, but about a "Mizuno Technologies". No secure IP, no money, no company.

All we can do is hope this is the one. We should have some more info about the new "Mizuno Tech" soon, and will pass it along. With the caveat that there is info we get that is for the forum/public, and that which we have to keep private.

Shane,

I certainly appreciate and fully understand that if major players are involved, investing significant money and providing oversight, that secrecy (IP protection) will be implemented and that is normal and justified.

What is not normal, is the amateur website with unsubstantiated claims of replication... no linked papers, no linked references... and "fake" photos borrowed from the internet. This is just not done by professional and experienced management teams!

So the evidence is contradictory! What we actually see published on this website and what is reported that is unsubstantiated. I have a lot of confidence in you!.... but am unsure as to your sources! The website appears (as Ahlfors parodied) that it is an amateurish attempt at raising investment money... and not a very good attempt.

"I dunno........"

And two totally different designs inside the box in the first photo on the site.

Is the cruciform one the control?

The calendar has November 2016 on it, but there is what looks like an R20 (?) in front.

That website is so new, it is still chock full of stock animal photos (rhino, panda, etc) in the directory

Domain owner:

https://www.whois.com/whois/mizunotech.com

Maybe JedRothwell knows a bit more or can ask Mizuno whether this is authentic.

Quote from Alan Smith

I don't agree. Mizuno has been quite generous about sharing information and equipment with other researchers without demanding payment. His track record isn't perfect, but he does seem to be sincere

My apologies, as I must not have communicated well. I have no thoughts that Mizuno is insincere or misleading as I stated in my previous post. It is the new "partners" that I am questioning. Mizuno does not seem to have any "bad karma" about him that I have read. So again, I did not intend to cast any shade on him personally at all.

Quote from Alan Smith

2 years is nothing. I have worked on and off in R&D ( mostly on) for decades and know plenty of established technologies that took over 10 years to got from lab bench to pilot plant, and 5 years from 'that's funny' to 'that might be useful, let's develop it further' is absolutely par for the course.

This is the issue! It is not a "start of scratch" operation. Mizuno has sent reactors, answered questions and even sent out prepared fuel. I have reviewed the reactor construction. It is not complex at all. Certainly skill / experience in some fabrication aspects (which Mizuno himself did not do, but had farmed out) and then the running of the tests. All which had instructions laid out in advance.

So while I agree with your statement completely for most start from scratch projects taking that long, I do not think this falls into that category. Look at Magicsound... he is experienced, qualified and has the equipment. He setup and started testing rather quickly... a matter of months. Admittedly not easy, but doable. For a replication with guidance and even materials from the originator, two years should have produced something.

That said, rumors there have been replications. However, a bit contrary to what was originally stated, those replications have not been published with supporting data.... we have to remember, this is "earth shaking" technology if it works. It is hard to believe that such crude websites would be in place at all if legitimate backers were behind this.

So again, a bit of clarification. Thank you.

Quote from AlainCo

For me it smells bad... But who knows. I would be happy if it is real effort by T. Mizuno and associates... I just doubt it is.

My full support to T. Mizuno himself, whatever is that website.

NB: can someone competent intentify the instruments of the main photography ?

The big machine at the back, looks like an analysis machine (spectrometer ?)...

After checking image info, it date from march 2019... It stinks

Display More

That photo data seems to be for the borrowed lab photo.

I can't seem to pull any date metadata from the Mizuno calorimeter photo, (other than the Nov 2016 calendar).

Another aspect I recall is that some of Mizuno's IP is owned by Industrial Heat.

Example: Mizuno's latest (R20 alike).
So, if mizunotech wants to industrialize R20 alike technology they at least require a license from IH.

Quote from RobertBryant

IH has quite a few published applications... but no licenses AFAIK..

Only partly true, there is a tricky detail:

License is required from filing date onwards if a patent application has been granted.

No license required if (in the end) a patent application gets a rejection.

Good remark though. Next time I'll try to be more specific.

USPTO publication date 21.05.20