MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

    Quote from magicsound

    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,


    That is not a premise. It is your unfounded opinion. I do not think you can list any systematic errors in Mizuno's calorimeter, or in any any of the calorimeters now being used to try to replicate. If you could, I suppose you would. You are waving your arms and saying there must be an error. That does not prove anything. You have to say what error it is.


    Also, what undisclosed details are there? Tell me, and I will disclose them.


    Quote from magicsound

    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?


    I have not heard that Mizuno supplied anyone with a calorimeter. He gave out some reactors. One of which was supposedly sent back.


    I gather he helped the undergrads at the Hokkaido Science University. I don't know who did what or where the materials came from.


    Anyway, if he did supply calorimeter, that is an observation, not a premise. As far as I know, most replications use air-flow calorimetry. I do not know how many meshes have been tested or how many reactors or meshes Mizuno has supplied, or who he gave them to. The fact that some replications use air flow calorimetry is no indication there is a systematic error with this method. The method has been widely used for over a century, so if it did not work, someone would have discovered that by now.

    JedRothwell The most immediate piece of information I would like is the type of internal sheath heater used in the R20 reactor, and how it is mounted inside the reactor body. None of the images available show this internal construction detail, other than the rough schematic drawing on pg.14 of your document from 2 July 2019. Figure 16 of that document shows what appears to be a 1.33" Conflat flange holding the external fitting of the heater. It isn't clear from that whether the heater is welded, screwed, or otherwise fastened, and if it is inserted into a thermowell, or is exposed directly to the mesh inside the reactor.


    The image on pg.7 of your Supplemental Information document appears to show a reactor with both the internal heater fitting and a spiral-wound external sheath heater. Were both heaters used in the R20 experiments, and if so in what combination and sequence?


    From your previous postings, the R20 reactor was disassembled for analysis of the mesh, and the results of that testing have not yet been revealed. Perhaps that is now considered proprietary, but I think we would all appreciate any additional information you can obtain.


    Thanks for your ongoing support of replication efforts.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    However in the case of Japan... there is probably more of a yen.. (a non-swooning yen) for cheaper energy sooner..

    and unlike some other countries it is only mildly dysfunctional...I expect replcaton data within five years..

    Maybe five years is too long for Bruce_H and LF.. but my timeline is millenial..


    From what I can make out I think we are talking about different things. I am talking about waiting about 2 years for someone who claims that they have already achieved something to present clear data backing up those claims.


    Science is conjecture and refutation. The extent to which refutation is disabled or delayed is the extent to which the entire enterprise becomes nonscience.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.

    So there is an calibration adjustment added to the calculated input energy total in the 2017-2018 data spreadsheet? (And yet the total input is not adjusted to 100 %)

    Or the calibration heat recovery has significantly dropped in the past year compared to the 2017-2018 experiments? (Even though it seems that no insulation was used on the calorimeter for early tests)


    The calibration output/input ratio used to be nearly 100 % (up to 400 W input), now it is only about 69 % (Hokkaido).

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    So there is an calibration adjustment added to the calculated input energy total in the 2017-2018 data spreadsheet? (And yet the total input is not adjusted to 100 %)


    If it is not 100%, it is not adjusted.


    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Or the calibration heat recovery has significantly dropped in the past year compared to the 2017-2018 experiments?


    I suppose it was a different calorimeter. I don't recall what's what here, and I don't have time to look through the old data today.


    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    (Even though it seems that no insulation was used on the calorimeter for early tests)


    Insulation was used in all air-flow calorimeters. They would not work without it.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Ah. That I do not know about.


    Anything else?


    I would like to echo magicsound 's request to know the details of how the heater is configured and mounted including what kind of vacuum pass-through is used. Pictures would be wonderful.


    In addition:

    - Full details on Mizuno's Palladium source, composition and annealing procedure.

    - More detail on the sanding procedure. How many sanding strokes or how much sanding time on each side of the mesh? Is one sheet of sand paper used for all the meshes, one mesh or just one side of a mesh?

    - A video of the full mesh preparation process would do wonders for answering our replication questions.

    Mizuno recommended exposing the Pd to a flame. I described that here some weeks ago. That's the only thing he mentioned about processing.


    I asked about the palladium source. It wasn't clear to me. I think it was lying around the lab and he doesn't know much about it. We sent screens with palladium rubbed into them to several labs. Two of them told me they have ultra-precise instruments and they would analyze the material. I gather these instruments can look at sample of the palladium by itself, as if it were still on the bar. So I was hoping we would find out more about it. Neither of them reported back, and they did not respond to my enquiries.


    I could ask him to cut off a small sample of the rod and send it out, if you know someone likely to follow through and analyze it.


    I doubt a video can be made. Mizuno can't do it. I guess we could find a professional, but I am not interested in paying for anything more like that. I paid many thousands to provide screens and send out reactors and samples to people. I never heard back from most of them. One, I think, returned the reactor after a year or two of doing nothing. I guess people are busy.

    It could be that the mild detergent used by Mizuno to clean the mesh (Kao, Inc., Kyukyutto Orange scented brand) contains required catalyst(s) (e.g. potassium).

    There is a fair chance that (tiny) amounts of detergent needs to be left behind on the mesh, contributing to very essential catalytic conversions.

    Cleaning it out too thorough might be the cause of non-replication.

    Has anyone looked into this more carefull?

    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    It could be that the mild detergent used by Mizuno to clean the mesh (Kao, Inc., Kyukyutto Orange scented brand) contains required catalyst(s) (e.g. potassium).

    There is a fair chance that tiny amounts of detergent needs to be left behind on the mesh, contributing to very essential catalytic conversions.

    Cleaning it out too thorough might be the cause of non-replication.

    Has anyone looked into this more carefull?

    I doubt any detergent would remain after soaking the mesh for an hour in hot water. My SEM/EDS examination showed no trace of potassium following the soak.

    Quote from magicsound

    I doubt any detergent would remain after soaking the mesh for an hour in hot water. My SEM/EDS examination showed no trace of potassium following the soak.


    So, maybe you cleaned it out too thorough.

    I trust Mizuno to work very thorough as well, but maybe this is where he, by accident, failed. Giving the result we are all admiring.

    Doing a SEM/EDS examination on mesh that Mizuno uses succesfully would be of interest. I don't recall this has been done.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Using no insulation, 200 W input, the delta T on mine was 10.6 C. That is just 0.32 degrees less than the 216 W input Mizuno test calibration.


    I repeat: Do not do air flow calorimetry without insulating the calorimeter chamber.


    You seem to have strange desire to do experiments wrong. We tell you "do A, B and C" and you go off and do the opposite. I tell you the air has to be well mixed, and you have to confirm that, but instead you spend weeks working with a flow of air that you say is not well mixed. Or you do something totally off the wall, such as directing the output air back into the calorimeter. Who knows what that will do? Who cares? No one would do that, so why bother trying to find out what it does? There must be dozens of way to screw up this experiment -- or any experiment. You could take it outside in the dead of winter. You could do what Shanahan claims Mizuno did, turning a large fan onto it with a 30 mph wind.


    Steve Jones set out to prove all cold fusion excess heat results are from recombination. Mel Miles described what happened. Jones used a cell with a short, fat shape, which is opposite of what F&P told people to use. He set the power at a level about a thousand times lower than any cold fusion experiment. These two steps are bound to increase recombination. Miles said, "he might as well have thrown some palladium powder into the electrolyte while he was at it, to ensure recombination."


    Jones was obsessed with that notion. He even claimed that results far about the limits of recombination were caused by it. At a conference he once told me that recombination can even explain McKubre's results, with a closed cell. That's going off the deep end!



    I understand that at times, deliberately doing an experiment wrong can be an interesting learning experience. You see why the experts and the textbooks tell you to do A, B and C. That's great, but don't come here telling everyone about what happens when you don't do A, B or C. Do not imply it means something, and hint that Mizuno did not do A, B and C. Your test is unimportant. It is a way to have fun and satisfy your own curiosity.


    I once did a kind of simulation of 19th century conditions, using rudimentary equipment in an uncontrolled environment. I think I mentioned that here the other day. I did that after Martin Fleischmann remarked that F&P used the same type of isoperibolic calorimetry that J. P. Joule used to first measure the heat from an electrochemical reaction. At the time, I had only a description of Joule's experiment. Nowadays, thanks to the internet, I have the full paper. "On the Heat evolved by Metallic Conductors of Electricity, and in the Cells of a Battery during Electrolysis". Philosophical Magazine. 19 (124): 260. 1841.


    https://books.google.com/books…PA260#v=onepage&q&f=false


    I was curious to find out what it felt like doing Joule's experiment. Joule said the ambient temperature was uncontrolled, and that was a problem. So, I left the windows and the patio door open in June. I used a thermometer with about half the precision he used (0.1°C compared to 0.1°F). He had to stir the liquid to get the right answer. So did I. That was interesting. Perhaps it shed light on history. Overall, the calorimetry worked much better than I expected it would. HOWEVER, it tells us nothing about today's calorimetry or today's experiments. You would be crazy to do an experiment with such primitive methods. If you want to do isoperibolic calorimetry, for goodness sake read a textbook, such as Hemminger & Hohne, Calorimetry, Fundamentals and Practice, p. 83.

    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    Doing a SEM/EDS examination on mesh that Mizuno uses succesfully would be of interest. I don't recall this has been done.


    As I mentioned, two labs said they would do it. We cut samples out of his best-performing screen and sent them off. For all I know, those labs did analyses. But they never gave the results back to Mizuno or to me. That is a shame.

    JedRothwell ,

    Test the parameters, man. My best real delta T with 200 W is 14.7 so far. Maybe 14.9 in the squiggles... but nothing ever over 15 C delta T unless I change some major like insulation.

    The same blower fan is set within 1/100 of a W of Mizuno, same acrylic box, same outlet hole...


    Anyways, you might like this next ephemeral iteration, which is like a 50’s television set...

    1 inch R6 polyisocyanate board with aluminum facing all around but bare acrylic for the front using the usual acrylic box as the inside. It should perform similarly to the full bubble wrap coverage, but you can see inside all the time through the front. I have it set up like a letterbox with the top half of the front face also covered. There is an air gap of about 1 cm all around the acrylic box and the cover polyiso board. So the sides of the window part and around the air inlet are pain in the

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I mentioned, two labs said they would do it. We cut samples out of his best-performing screen and sent them off. For all I know, those labs did analyses. But they never gave the results back to Mizuno or to me. That is a shame.


    Good to know!
    But even using small sample areas would not give an exclusive answer if e.g. he used gloves that contained remainings of detergent to pick up the mesh. That would only leave detergent on some areas of the mesh.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Test the parameters, man.


    There are any number of parameters that might be tested. Don't test the ones that are not a factor. There is no need to test any parameter far beyond the value that an experimentalist will use. If temperature will range from 20 to 30°C, do not test 60°C.


    Above all, do not do things that the textbooks tell you will not work. The whole point of a textbook is to avoid doing things that don't work. The parameter space of "things that don't work" is huge.


    This discussion reminds me of dealing with a small child.


    Dad: "See that hole with the yellow jackets coming out? That is their nest, where they live. Stay away from it or they will sting you."


    Ten minutes later . . .


    Child comes in crying, saying: "I poked a stick in the hole and the yellow jackets stung me."

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.