Which two?
If you like to read the full patent: Mizuno US20200156182A1.pdf
The worst XXX was the burnishing. Only dilletants will belive such nonsense. Second XXX the heater. But we know how to do it much better. So no problem at all.
MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
-
-
That is also apparently a continuation of International Patent Application WO2019/016606A1 from July 2019. It includes provisions for HV deposition and so refers to Mizuno's earlier work. Regarding the missing secret sauce, there is passing mention of reactor activation ("step 306") but no details are provided in that document, and the references to activation are missing from the US application.
-
At Mizuno's suggestion before patents were filed a mutual decision was made to use a generic lab photo downloaded from a Google image search
Oh give me a break! He knew nothing about it.
-
I'm being polite here in saying what I think this Mizuno experiment remains very unclear
You are right. It is very unclear. There is nothing impolite about saying that.
-
Probably we need again a kind of "Secret catalyst" ??
That is also apparently a continuation of International Patent Application WO2019/016606A1 from July 2019. It includes provisions for HV deposition and so refers to Mizuno's earlier work. Regarding the missing secret sauce, there is passing mention of reactor activation ("step 306") but no details are provided in that document, and the references to activation are missing from the US application.
-
I am not going to discuss IP related issues in this public forum for obvious reasons. There is nothing sinister about protecting IP.
-
There is nothing impolite about saying that.
The post you quote had been very slightly edited before you saw it.
-
People who are saying the latest Muto experiment is unclear, could you please be a little more specific? I described in more or less the same way to a group of professional scientists and they had no problem understanding what was done. There is a calibration between power input and final equilibrium temperature done with a dummy reactor. You have the model number and manual from the incubator used. The dummy reactor was replaced with an active reactor and the numbers run again. Wattage differences were calculated between dummy and active reactor temperatures. Temperature within the convection fan mixed oven is uniform within 5C.
If there are any specific questions anyone has, I will do my best to answer them.
-
I salute your scientific breakthrough, probably you have reached the KW milestone, well done.
However, I don't expect your patent is used to protect anything.
I consider it rather as an advertising process in order to extend your funding.
In the same spirit even if you are able to make Lenr large excess heat as the precursor Piantelli, for future business considerations, it will be necessary that your device will be able to start quickly and both with an easy tuning.
Good luck, for next work still to be done, for example Rossi has spent also a lot of time to achieve this goal.
People who are saying the latest Muto experiment is unclear, could you please be a little more specific? I described in more or less the same way to a group of professional scientists and they had no problem understanding what was done. There is a calibration between power input and final equilibrium temperature done with a dummy reactor. You have the model number and manual from the incubator used. The dummy reactor was replaced with an active reactor and the numbers run again. Wattage differences were calculated between dummy and active reactor temperatures. Temperature within the convection fan mixed oven is uniform within 5C.
If there are any specific questions anyone has, I will do my best to answer them.
-
Sorry I cannot comment on our IP. All I can say is we have the best possible patent counsel one could ask for. Please don't mention Rossi in the same sentence as Mizuno, and I will not respond again if that name is mentioned. We have a diverse team of superstar engineers from well known industrial MNCs to help us solve the problems ahead. Turning on quickly is not an issue at all. Engineering is much easier than physics. Now we are moving to the engineering stage.
Again, I was waiting for a specific question since you stated and Jed agreed that the Muto experiment was unclear.
-
Again, I was waiting for a specific question since you stated and Jed agreed that the Muto experiment was unclear.
In fact, i have no special question because i'm more aware than you can expect
-
Also Cydonia, getting money from investors does not require any kind of showmanship. Do you think its a good idea to fool VCs and CVCs to get funding? Or that its even required? A company like this cannot survive on a single round of funding. If you say anything misleading in the first round, how do you think investors will respond which its time to raise the second round?
That's why I am saying is so preposterous to claim we would do anything underhanded or misleading when working with investors with such an early stage company. My shares are worth about as much as a role of toilet paper unless we make it through several rounds of funding, complete product development and successfully pull off and IPO or other exit.
Our team is full of professionals who have done this whole thing before. Naysayers or people with other agendas will continue to admonish us in the group no doubt but I will do my best to answer your questions and be as transparent as I can.
Finally Mizuno's paper did not leave anything out. Two independent groups got ESH based on this paper. Now Muto is using a completely different method of calorimetry and getting even better results at low temperatures. There are old reactors based on the same technology as that paper. As Jed said a million times here CF is not easy. Many links in the chain and failure at any one link means no ESH.
-
Again, I was waiting for a specific question since you stated and Jed agreed that the Muto experiment was unclear.
In fact, i have no special question because i'm more aware than you can expect
So why did you state it was unclear?
-
Probably a misunderstanding,
I hope to your team to be successful however i found your patent very light in appearance ( even if i understand..)
It makes me laugh when I remember that all Lenr specialists laughed at Rossi's first patent because it seemed very light too ..
Now, i have to say that way between laboratory up to the market remains long, good luck !
So why did you state it was unclear?
-
People who are saying the latest Muto experiment is unclear, could you please be a little more specific? I described in more or less the same way to a group of professional scientists and they had no problem understanding what was done. There is a calibration between power input and final equilibrium temperature done with a dummy reactor. You have the model number and manual from the incubator used. The dummy reactor was replaced with an active reactor and the numbers run again. Wattage differences were calculated between dummy and active reactor temperatures. Temperature within the convection fan mixed oven is uniform within 5C.
If there are any specific questions anyone has, I will do my best to answer them.
How long (approximately) does each temperature/power step take to stabilize at equilibrium?
-
In what way do the control and active reactors differ? Is the control reactor literally the same piece of hardware as the active reactor with some crucial difference made?
How does one actually perform a calibration reading or an active-run reading? Is temperature treated as the independent variable or is input power the independent variable here? If it is input power, does that mean that the oven has been modified in some way?
Is the heating timecourse of the control reactor exponential? What about cooling?
Same questions as above for the active reactor.
What is the timecourse of input power for control and active runs?
-
If you look at the link to the maker of the machine I posted they have both heating and cooling curves published in the brochure. The device is programmable. Control reactor does not contain nickel mesh, otherwise identical. The power input is set, and the equilibrium temperature is recorded after the temperature is stable. Power is the independent variable. Temperature the dependent. All of this was stated in previous posts.
-
I don't even know what patent you are referring to. I don't think any of our patents have been published yet.
-
If you look at the link to the maker of the machine I posted they have both heating and cooling curves published in the brochure. The device is programmable. Control reactor does not contain nickel mesh, otherwise identical. The power input is set, and the equilibrium temperature is recorded after the temperature is stable. Power is the independent variable. Temperature the dependent. All of this was stated in previous posts.
I meant the heating and cooling curves, during the experiments, of the reactors ... not of the oven as a whole.
The picture I get is that the control and test runs are performed with reactors that are as closely matched as possible except for the presence/absence of the mesh, but are not physically the same reactor . Does the identity of conditions extend to gas composition and pressure?
Perfect control conditions would have been to include a nickel mesh that is faux-burnished somehow and to have the operator blind to control/active conditions. Just saying. don't know what difference that would make but then that is exactly why you run controls ... because you don't know what difference it would make.
Is the input power controlled as a step function? Or is there some sort of interaction between oven set temperature and input power? Something that might change from run to run?
Do the nature of the control- and active-reactor heating curves differ in some way other than equilibrium temperature? For instance, is the control heating curve exponential in nature but the active heating curve nonexponential? Same questions for cooling.
-
No breaks today! That was a stock photo, and everyone knew that right away. It was not used to make "exaggerated claims"...it was simply there for window dressing. He admitted it immediately to us, and said he did not want to use a real photo to prevent competitors gaining an advantage. Barty promptly, and without complaint from the Mizuno team, put in a more appropriate one.
If we are going to start wrecking scientists reputations based on such flimsy reasons, then no one will be spared. How about we declare a truce? Your old team is at wits end over this, and would like to get onto the business of running a company; i.e. investors, patents, R/D without these public distractions.
If you want to air your dirty laundry, they welcome your private input. You are still valued as one of the team, and will always be grateful for your prior contributions. They feel close to getting this thing done, and if they do, it is something you, as Mr. LENR should welcome, and support.
You made him the sacred cow, time to clean up the admins mess?
