Regarding Remarao et al :-
I don;t remember Mizuno mentioning Samarium,---so not a replication but an analogue
experiment.
Dennis Cravens used Sm in his 'Hot Balls' demonstration and i seem to recollect Jean-Paul
Biberian using Sm in an experiment but I can't remember why.
BTW I received my ZOOM link for ICCF23 last night !
nkodama-Cold Fusion and FPE mechanism from MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS
https://www.researchgate.net/p…6756_Kodama-LENR-20210412
the cause of very large excess heat generation in MIZUNO REPLICATION Experiment and in patent rejected.
is very clear based on the cold fusion mechanism.
the total surface area and Nano-roughness is important
as well as the potential control.
This is the big difference for the nano-powder because nano-powder has the difficulty in the control of the voltage.
Cold Fusion mechanism is shown in the below schematics.
Display MoreHere is another independent replication. Again, it is independent because of COVID-19.
Progress of Reproducing the Mizuno’s Experiment in QiuRan Lab
Hang Zhang and Si Chen
Email: [email protected]http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-OA-03%20Zhang.pdf
Here is the video:
Is this a new replication? We talked about Zhang before as one of the first to successfully replicate Mizuno.
i heard R20 way works even better without Pd ? Is it true ?
i heard R20 way works even better without Pd ? Is it true ?
Not as far as I know.
Is this a new replication? We talked about Zhang before as one of the first to successfully replicate Mizuno.
It is the same H. Zhang as I reported earlier, who has some papers at LENR-CANR.org. This presentation has more data, better results, and the instruments are considerably improved. They had some problems with the Seebeck. They fixed the problems by changing the thermoelectric gadgets from a fully serial configuration to a partially parallel configuration. I have never heard of anyone doing that, but the calibration data shows it is a big improvement. See the presentation.
This presentation has more data, better results, and the instruments are considerably improved.
Plus they said the results are "highly reproducible" (at minute 11). That's great news! That's almost better than high power would be. I hope they can show others how to reproduce it.
From the slide at minute 11:
The power level of excess heat was at least 5 times greater than the error range but much smaller than Mizuno's experiment. . . .
The experiments were reproducible for all operating conditions. [Voiceover said "highly reproducible."]
Inspired by recent NASA experiment, we have built a new reaction system and obtained preliminary results . . .
I don't know what the last sentence refers to. I just asked them.
(The presentation was by Zhang's colleague Si Chen.)
Inspired by recent NASA experiment, we have built a new reaction system and obtained preliminary results . . .
I don't know what the last sentence refers to. I just asked them.
I was wondering about that. Surprised no one asked about that in the Q&A. Here is that slide:
The results reported by Zhang show a high quality of experiment design and data collection. However, their measurements show just 1.5 watts excess thermal power at 150 watts heater input and 2.5 watts at 250 input, with a maximum of 5 watts seen. That is a COP of 1.01-1.02, which I would not call encouraging. It is about the same as I saw in my attempts last year, though in my case, using thermometry the error bars were about equal to possible excess seen.
The heat pulse behavior shown by Zhang could result from the non-linear thermal response of the cell mass when the H or D was pumped out or added. I saw similar behavior, with a large difference between the cell core and external cylinder temperatures appearing when the gas was pumped out. Due to the low conductivity of stainless steel, response to power steps was significantly slower with the cell at vacuum. In my smaller cell in ambient air (convective flow) I found the settling time to equilibrium to be up to several hours following relatively small steps in heater power. For details, see my lab notes at https://tinyurl.com/vudbmro
i heard R20 way works even better without Pd ? Is it true ?
The patent says Pt...
The results reported by Zhang show a high quality of experiment design and data collection. However, their measurements show just 1.5 watts excess thermal power at 150 watts heater input and 2.5 watts at 250 input, with a maximum of 5 watts seen. That is a COP of 1.01-1.02, which I would not call encouraging.
The term "COP" is meaningless in cold fusion. Actually, it only applies to heat pumps, which have no relevance. The input power is not transformed in any sense. It does not trigger output. There is not fixed ratio between input and output. Input power in this experiment serves only to raise the temperature. It could easily be reduced by improving insulation, but that would be inconvenient and possibly dangerous. There is no difficulty measuring input power with extremely high precision, so whether it is 10 W or 300 W, it does not reduce the s/n ratio, and it makes no difference at all.
It is a shame absolute output power is not higher in these experiments, but input power has nothing to do with it. What is more important from a scientific point of view is that output can be measured with confidence, and it can be generated reproducibly. That is extremely encouraging. Without progress in reproducibility, no other experimental, scientific or ultimate practical progress can be made.
High output is needed for commercial products, but cold fusion is light years away from commercial or practical use. So, the criteria of commercial reactors do not apply, any more than they did to the Curie's first radioactive sample, or the Chicago Pile 1, or to Tokamak reactors today. This device has only scientific value. It can only be made into a practical device by spending hundreds of millions of dollars more in R&D at dozens of labs.
It is about the same as I saw in my attempts last year, though in my case, using thermometry the error bars were about equal to possible excess seen.
Well, it is a good thing this is a Seebeck, isn't it?
I don;t remember Mizuno mentioning Samarium,---so not a replication but an analogue
experiment.
Correct..Mizuno didn't use samarium..in R20 and I don't think it is in the patent..
but Ramarao et al used Pd/Ni until12/20 and got xs heat.. (replication) after that they found that
putting same Sm on the mesh together with Pd gave more xs heat (variation)
The term "COP" is meaningless in cold fusion.
Your comment is meaningless...
Your comment is meaningless...
Since the COP can be changed at any time, to any value you like, by altering insulation, in what sense is it meaningful? Explain please. Oh, wait, you never explain anything. I forgot.
Since the COP can be changed at any time, to any value you like, by altering insulation,
Only a fool can invent such an answer. Do you know the word melt-down???
i heard R20 way works even better without Pd ? Is it true ?
cold fusion need the narrower space site of metal so Ni is ok and Pd is also ok. The advantage of Ni is the unavoidable transmutation by the emission of neutron or do neutron during cold fusion.So Ni is transmuted to Cu no radioactive element.
So Most cold fusion company use Ni nano powder or Ni coated metal plate or wire.
I was wondering about that. Surprised no one asked about that in the Q&A. Here is that slide:
I think that by the NASA results they mean the Fralick et al paper with the PdAg hydrogen purificator tubing that produced excess heat with deuterium.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf
Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on NickelTadahiko Mizuno, Jed Rothwell
Please chech the voltage condition.
In the paper the metal mesh has the positive surface condition so this is cold fusion condition.
Before the cold fusion D absorption is needed with opposite voltage porality.
I think that this voltage condition must be the issue of lower excess heat generation and it must separate D absroption and Cold Fusion.
I think that by the NASA results they mean the Fralick et al paper with the PdAg hydrogen purificator tubing that produced excess heat with deuterium.
Hmmm . . . Maybe. But they said, "Inspired by recent NASA experiment . . ." Fralick was in 1989, I think, or maybe 2011. Not recent.
