MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

magicsound i'm glad you finally became less angelic.

Quote from magicsound

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.

Thank you for your good work. It has (in my opinion) been very positive to LENR in general. It shows quality work, experienced approach, excellent equipment and VERY important, unbiased attitude! Just because this particular effort has not shown excess heat, it has been very informative. The fact that you state "it has not worked yet" is a big plus to credibility. Now when (hopefully) you do hit that "holy grail" with this or some other reactor design, your results will be in high esteem.

This is exactly what I think the field needs.... solid scientific approach with an open, unbiased attitude... not give excuses! Not trying to silence valid criticism but, as you have stated something along the lines of "the data will speak for itself".

Again great job and thanks. I await the day when you report "I found excess heat!", because I am very comfortable that if you report it, it will be something to REALLY take notice of!

Quote from magicsound

If my premise is correct, they would all be subject to possible undisclosed details and systemic errors in the system.

That is not a premise. It is a guess, or an intuitive feeling. For that to be a premise, you would have to tell us what specific systematic error or errors you have in mind, and how we could detect them. A premise has to be falsifiable, as do all scientific assertions.

You may be right, but neither you nor anyone else can verify that. Or show why you are wrong. Your assertion -- that there is systematic error -- must be held to the same standard of rigor as Mizuno's own statements, and his conclusion that there is no known systematic error.

Quote from magicsound

Jed will probably contend that the calorimetry is beyond reproach

I do not know if it is beyond reproach. No one has reproached it yet, as far as I know. But that does not mean no one will in the future.

I can say that the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons, McKubre, Miles and others is beyond reproach. People have had many years to reproach it, and some have tried, but they failed. There has to be reasonable time limit for skeptics to prove their point. If they cannot do it after years of effort, we can conclude that no one can do it, and it is case closed. If we do not say this, no experimental claim will ever be considered settled. We would have to hold out indefinitely from someone to step forward and say he found a mistake.

Quote from magicsound

I'm told by Mizuno through his "business manager" that positive results cannot be detected without use of a calorimeter.

That goes for all cold fusion experiments. Without calorimetry you have no way of knowing whether cold fusion is occuring or not.

Quote from magicsound

So I remain skeptical until at least one fully independent replication demonstrates excess heat using a different type of calorimetry

So do I. So does Mizuno.

Quote from JedRothwell

magicsound wrote: So I remain skeptical until at least one fully independent replication demonstrates excess heat using a different type of calorimetry

So do I. So does Mizuno

Perhaps you and Mizuno remain skeptical.... but evidently the company that bears Mizuno's name does not.....!

Quote from Ahlfors

We currently lead the field in excess heat production. We now have safe, controllable, nearly unlimited heat production.

These are big claims and if a company that was bearing my name was making them, I would be darn sure it was true! If I was "skeptical" as you are stating Mizuno is, then perhaps he should contact his people and have them reword their website. "We now have safe, controllable, nearly unlimited heat production." is NOT a skeptical statement!

Again, I hope this does not fall into the "the age of fossil fuel is over!" type of hype... where the "dance" was proof that the world was going to change and now the project evidently dropped! LENR does not need that kind of PR nor defense of that type of PR!

Jed, I chose my words carefully, and urge you to read them with corresponding care. A premise is an idea or theory on which a statement or action is based (Cambridge Dictionary). The premise I stated was that most of the reported replications used reactors and/or meshes supplied by Mizuno, installed in an air flow calorimeter of his design. This is clearly a falsifiable premise and if not correct, your comments can set the record straight.

I further stated that the experiments of Mizuno as reported by yourself might be "subject to possible undisclosed details and systemic errors in the system". This is not a premise but rather a belief that the available information, whether accurate or not, is insufficient to draw a conclusion from the evidence. I went on to suggest that this is correctable by demonstration of excess heat using a different calorimetry system. I certainly don't dispute your integrity or honesty, but merely point out that the incomplete documentation makes replication very difficult.

Quote from Bob#2

Perhaps you and Mizuno remain skeptical.... but evidently the company that bears Mizuno's name does not.....!

I do not know anything about this company.

Quote from JedRothwell

That goes for all cold fusion experiments. Without calorimetry you have no way of knowing whether cold fusion is occuring or not.

We measure the radiation that is known to occur. Calorimetry is just one more thing - nice to have and finally nice to know whether we get 1,10 or 20 Watt's from 1ccm of fuel.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not know anything about this company.

Why should we believe this???

Did you already forget that we know about your IH friends??

Quote from magicsound

Jed, I chose my words carefully, and urge you to read them with corresponding care. A premise is an idea or theory on which a statement or action is based (Cambridge Dictionary). The premise I stated was that most of the reported replications used reactors and/or meshes supplied by Mizuno, installed in an air flow calorimeter of his design. This is clearly a falsifiable premise and if not correct, your comments can set the record straight.

It would only be a premise if you state the reasons why an air flow calorimeter of his design might be faulty.

As far as I know, this kind of air flow calorimeter works. Let me state my main reasons:

1. Calibrations and null runs by Mizuno all show a balance of zero.
2. Other people using similar calorimeters report a balance of zero with null runs. Unfortunately, they do not see excess heat when they hope to. That indicates the material does not work. It does not indicate the calorimeter is unreliable.
3. Mizuno and everyone else using this type of calorimeter have not reported artifactual negative heat. This is evidence the calorimeter itself is working. Most failure modes I know of would produce an artifactual negative result as often as a positive one.
4. This method is used by HVAC engineers thousands of times a day.

Quote from Wyttenbach

[I do not know anything about this company.]

Why should we believe this???

It is no concern of mine whether you believe it or not. I couldn't care less what you believe.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Did you already forget that we know about your IH friends??

What do they have to do with this? Are they associated with this company?

How do so many calibrations show almost zero losses with such a lossy calorimeter?

Shouldn’t there be a column of 70 to 90 % heat recovery null results?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

How do so many calibrations show almost zero losses with such a lossy calorimeter?

Don't play games. Don't be silly. There is no such thing as a calorimeter with no losses. You know damn well how the calorimeter works. Losses are measured and then accounted for. They are linear and predictable. The same losses occur at the same power level every time.

Quote from JedRothwell

Don't play games. Don't be silly. There is no such thing as a calorimeter with no losses. You know damn well how the calorimeter works. Losses are measured and then accounted for. They are linear and predictable. The same losses occur at the same power level every time.

I refer mainly to pages 4 and 5 of the poster (38 and 39 of the report) for ICCF 21.

The worst recovery (out/in ratio) was 89.4%, for 500 W.

If the losses were accounted for, then the calibrations would read 100 %, no?

Or is that relative to the aggregate of calibrations at a given input power/energy?

Quote from JedRothwell

What do they have to do with this? Are they associated with this company?

We know that you are educated to tell nothing. Thus it's better that you post no response instead of lies.

If you really want to post something then please give us some details about the existing IH-Mizuno relation. And please no more lies that there is none.

Quote from Bob#2

You duck, dodge and weave as usual RB.

May be, for the rest (members) of the forum, could you first tell us all what is your problem? What did your quotes reveal about the theme we discuss here??

JedRothwell I clearly limited my premise: that most of the reported replications use Mizuno-supplied reactor and/or meshes, and a calorimeter of his design. Is this premise right or wrong?

My other comments concerning the possible omissions of critical information were offered as my view about the experiments. Those thoughts are merely opinion and are not part of the premise I stated.

AlanG

Quote from Wyttenbach

If you really want to post something then please give us some details about the existing IH-Mizuno relation.

I do not know anything about that, either. My policy is to mind my own business. I do not ask people about their business relationships, or funding, or their personal lives. If they want me to know about these things for some reason, they would probably ask me to sign a non-disclosure agreement. I seldom agree to do that. If I had signed such an agreement, I would say "I cannot talk about that." I wouldn't say, "I don't know."

Years ago, Arthur C. Clarke said to me: "Don't tell me any secrets. I don't want to know them. I cannot keep track of where I learned what I know, so if I am not free to share the information, I don't want to hear it." He had hundreds of people passing him information and interesting things. He was a voracious reader. He couldn't keep track of where he learned this or that fact, or rumor, or joke. I am the same way. So, when people ask me to sign an agreement, I usually say, no, and don't tell me anything you don't want the world to know.

People sometimes call me and say "please forget about" this or that, because the follow up experiment failed, or someone got angry that the news got out. That does not happen often. I usually mark the document "CONFIDENTIAL" or I delete it. I write everything down. I have a porous memory, so if I delete the memo I probably will not mention it again.

I have approximately 25,000 files on cold fusion, 1,116 files uploaded to LENR-CANR.org, and thousands of e-mails and notes. It is impossible to keep track of that much stuff. The files are well organized, but even that is not enough to find things. You need an index program. I use X1 Search (https://www.x1.com/products/x1-search/) to search for text in documents and e-mail, and I use "Everything" (https://www.voidtools.com/) to search for filenames. I do not recommend the Windows 10 built-in search tools.

As I said, I don't care what you think, or whether you believe me. I am just clarifying matters here. If I cared what people thought, I would have stopped doing this years ago. Uploading papers about cold fusion is a thankless job. Editing them is even worse. You end up making more enemies than friends. Some of the cold fusion researchers are supportive, but by no means all of them. Many don't like it, and don't want me to upload their work, so of course I do not upload it. Some of them resent it when I return papers with dozens of suggested changes. Some don't want me to upload anything. I guess they want to keep all cold fusion communication strictly in approved academic journals, and others want to keep it secret. Some of them are jealous of other researchers, and want me to upload their work but not their rivals' work. Dealing with researchers is like trying to herd cats.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I refer mainly to pages 4 and 5 of the poster (38 and 39 of the report) for ICCF 21.

The worst recovery (out/in ratio) was 89.4%, for 500 W.

If the losses were accounted for, then the calibrations would read 100 %, no?

Yes, obviously. That is the whole point of accounting for them. To make the total equal 100%. Those are losses. If all losses are accounted for, that's 100%, by definition. Capisce? What else would it be? If the output exceeds total input including losses by a wide margin, there must be excess heat. The losses are linear and predictable, as shown in the graphs. They have been measured by other methods, such as with an IR camera. So there is no doubt the losses are accounted for correctly. (Or, if there is any doubt, neither you nor anyone else has told us what it might be.)

For that matter, output sometimes exceeds input even if you ignore losses. As I am sure you know from the report.