MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

Quote from Shane D.

The Mizuno Technologies Inc. (MTI) website is real, and admittedly "slapped together" by one of the team members, who is not an expert at web design. They do not intend to make it snazzier anytime soon, as it suits their purpose of a low level, modest appeal to investors. There will be no photos of the developing product, for fear it will give away IP.

I must say I am confused. I thought Mizuno already had funding and a significant partner? That was why the silence on his own recent work. Why are modes investors needed now?

Shane.... "admittedly slapped together.... modest appeal to investors" sounds like something from ECW defending Rossi! You know the "he is dissuading competition by looking so bad"! Modest appeal? Really?

If this is true, then who ever is making this decision has no business experience or education at all! Slapped together will NOT be an appeal to any investor. And again, I thought is was stated that a partner was already in place? Why try to attract investors with a poor website? This is getting too close to Rossi's approach. Try to find a target so gullible to fleece, and do it by weeding out the smart ones with such drivel that he posts....those that stay on are likely easy targets. (A variation of SOT's explained Ethiopian email scam technique)

I "dunno".... this does NOT bode well. The LENR field should stop swooning over such poorly substantiated announcements/ events! They do the field no good!

How many have been similar to this to only disappear or be completely discredited. The number is getting large! No photos due to giving IP away! BS! This is another Rossi standard operating procedure.

Perhaps it is time for the LENR crowd to expect a higher level of professional conduct and presentation. The field already has a black eye and websites "slapped together" for "modest appeal" do nothing to help improve that blemish. Just look at the actions, promoted "end of fossil fuel" and the resulting black eye. Another head shaker.

I want LENR to succeed as much as anyone, but I am not willing to go down the "Rossi lane" support anymore for those who make an "announcement" that looks like this.

Fool me once, shame on you.... fool me twice, shame on me... try to fool me a third time and I will speak my mind clearly and loudly!

Again, this is not just poor PR / marketing.... it borders on really smelling like dishonest conduct. Modest investors from a slapped together website, using fake photos and admittedly will not be refined for some time.....this is not a good sign at all.

Quote from Bob#2

I must say I am confused. I thought Mizuno already had funding and a significant partner? That was why the silence on his own recent work. Why are modes investors needed now?

Shane.... "admittedly slapped together.... modest appeal to investors" sounds like something from ECW defending Rossi! You know the "he is dissuading competition by looking so bad"! Modest appeal? Really?

If this is true, then who ever is making this decision has no business experience or education at all! Slapped together will NOT be an appeal to any investor. And again, I thought is was stated that a partner was already in place? Why try to attract investors with a poor website? This is getting too close to Rossi's approach. Try to find a target so gullible to fleece, and do it by weeding out the smart ones with such drivel that he posts....those that stay on are likely easy targets. (A variation of SOT's explained Ethiopian email scam technique)

I "dunno".... this does NOT bode well. The LENR field should stop swooning over such poorly substantiated announcements/ events! They do the field no good!

How many have been similar to this to only disappear or be completely discredited. The number is getting large! No photos due to giving IP away! BS! This is another Rossi standard operating procedure.

Perhaps it is time for the LENR crowd to expect a higher level of professional conduct and presentation. The field already has a black eye and websites "slapped together" for "modest appeal" do nothing to help improve that blemish. Just look at the actions, promoted "end of fossil fuel" and the resulting black eye. Another head shaker.

I want LENR to succeed as much as anyone, but I am not willing to go down the "Rossi lane" support anymore for those who make an "announcement" that looks like this.

Fool me once, shame on you.... fool me twice, shame on me... try to fool me a third time and I will speak my mind clearly and loudly!

Again, this is not just poor PR / marketing.... it borders on really smelling like dishonest conduct. Modest investors from a slapped together website, using fake photos and admittedly will not be refined for some time.....this is not a good sign at all.

Display More

It's almost like their afraid of drawing "too much" attention, when IMO compact hydrogen reactors should have the same smooth media platform as fission MSR and "compact" hot fusion startups.

Quote from Bob#2

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 meant that any replication reports that I received. I have never heard of Deneum. They have not sent me a report. I cannot report that which I have no idea exists. I do not have ESP.

Quote from Wyttenbach

For somebody understanding LENR it was obvious that the stuff Jed presented here in LENR forum was partly fake to divert the experimenters.

Nope. Not fake as far as I know. It would be out of character for Mizuno to give me fake information.

Quote from Shane D.

The article Ahlforslinked to, is an interview with Masao Muto (formerly referred here on the forum as Saito)

I don't think so. They are two different people. Sometimes Japanese names have alternate readings, but Muto (武藤) would not be read Saito (斎藤、齋藤、齎藤).

Quote from JedRothwell

I don't think so. They are two different people. Sometimes Japanese names have alternate readings, but Muto (武藤) would not be read Saito (斎藤、齋藤、齎藤).

That is correct. Saito is here, who is a Prof. of Hokkaido University of Science. Muto is here. Also, "Hokkaido University of Science" is a different University from "Hokkaido University."

Quote from Shane D.

Did you really say all those things about Lion/Suhas/me356/Rossi?

Shane: RobertBryant has answered you. It is an answer that seems to deny he has said these things. But he has said these things. Go back and look at the posts Bob#2 cites in his post (here MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY). You will find that RobertBryant really did say these things and that Bob#2's observations are correct.

Bob#2's point is that the LENR-forum community has a history of repeatedly "swooning" over claims which fail to go anywhere, then moving on to the next claim of the day without learning anything in the process. The Mizuno claim, with it rumored replications, may be another such flash in the pan. So it might just be a good idea to learn from the past and apply a touch of skepticism here.

Quote from Alan Smith

Bruce__H

Thank you for your views. I would point out that the replications are not 'rumours' but really happened and will be published in due course.

Everyone here should think of these replication claims as rumours until they are published in sufficient detail that we can understood what happened.

"Published in due course" means nothing. unless a manuscript has been submitted and accepted for publication.

Quote from RobertBryant

I guess Bruce-H will have to be patient,,.. patience is a virtue... so I hear..

Correct. I am urging everyone to be patient about the claimed replication until we see the evidence. We haven't seen the evidence yet ... just heard rumours.

But patience cannot be endless. It is the duty of science to be both open-minded about new claims (patiently waiting for the evidence to be assembled but not yet regarding the case as made), and to eventually make a call in cases where the evidence just doesn't measure up.

So where is the dividing line? If good evidence does not show up then when do we give up waiting and move from sceptical patience to a more negative conclusion that there was probably nothing there in the first place? In the absence of any real rule that I know of, 2 years seems about right to me. For instance, I now regard the 2914 "Lugano report" on Rossi's ecat device as invalidated since for over 5 years the authors (Levi, Foschi et al) have neglected to respond to serious criticisms of their methods. Also, I regard LION's adventures with diamonds soaked in heavy water as a bust. In over 2 years he has failed to produce good evidence that anything is happening there. The Androcles/Atom-Ecology claims are pretty much in the same boat with no real evidence published in 2 years. It isn't a 1-way street with evidence-light claims being thrown in the trash bin forever, but everyone faces a responsibillity to acknowledge negative evidence or absent evidence on the same basis as positive evidence. The LENR community is seriously deficient in living up to this responsibility.

I have to point out that almost all the reports of claimed positive results seem to have used reactors and/or meshes supplied by Mizuno. Further, they mainly use the same air-flow calorimetry as described by Mizuno. These results should not be called "replications" or even "independent tests". If my premise is correct, they would all be subject to possible undisclosed details and systemic errors in the system. Jed will probably contend that the calorimetry is beyond reproach and that sufficient details were disclosed in the documents he co-authored.

While my own efforts are not without flaws, I've not seen any encouraging evidence so far. I'm told by Mizuno through his "business manager" that positive results cannot be detected without use of a calorimeter. Granted, it may be that air flow over the cell creates unique thermal conditions that are critical to the reaction. This is just one of the many unknown details that may be needed for the claimed reaction to occur. So I remain skeptical until at least one fully independent replication demonstrates excess heat using a different type of calorimetry (or by thermometry as I have been using). For example, the work by Hang Zhang using a Seebeck calorimeter would be convincing if the measured excess was less transient and more repeatable.