MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY

We are in uncharted territory. The difference of opinions is healthy here. Even passionate disagreement is interaction that may open our minds to other paths in the future.

Quote from Bruce__H

But this is a big assumption too isn't it? You can't get away from the process of conjecture and refutation ... that is just science. It isn't intellectual arrogance.

Not an assumption, but an inference based on studying reports of a quite large number of observations.

Quote from Daniel_G

We are in uncharted territory. The difference of opinions is healthy here. Even passionate disagreement is interaction that may open our minds to other paths in the future.

I am fond of different opinions and points of views when they are honest. Paradigmnoia has honestly stated his thought we all are a bunch of self deluded hopefuls (perhaps in not so many words) and he has done experiments himself to prove his point, the interpretation of which we not always agree upon (case In Point, the so called strange radiation tracks).

Quote from Curbina

Not an assumption, but an inference based on studying reports of a quite large number of observations.

So is temperature-sensitive activation of internal heating. Lots of groups seem to think that this is a characteristic of LENR. So how is it arrogant to include it into a model?

Quote from Bruce__H

So is temperature-sensitive activation of internal heating. Lots of groups seem to think that this is a characteristic of LENR. So how is it arrogant to include it into a model?

I have never said it’s arrogant to create a model (albeit it might as well be useless if the understanding of the phenomena is poor). What I consider is arrogant is to deny the validity of observations because they don’t fit a model. And this is what you have been doing all along, casting doubt on the validity of the data because it doesn’t fit what you think it should do.

Quote from Curbina

I am fond of different opinions and points of views when they are honest. Paradigmnoia has honestly stated his thought we all are a bunch of self deluded hopefuls (perhaps in not so many words) and he has done experiments himself to prove his point, the interpretation of which we not always agree upon (case In Point, the so called strange radiation tracks).

I am not saying that exactly. But there are many of those for sure.

Scraping the gunk out of the LENR bin is a good idea, however. It spoils the rest of the batch.

I made a Lugano Style COP of 7.2 not just to prove a point, but to keep thousands of hours and dollars from being wasted on a dream made of bullshit. People can still cook ceramic rods full of nickel and lithium etc, but at least they are forewarned. Notice nobody uses IR cameras for LENR claims anymore. Not because it doesn’t work, but because as soon as someone does, they figure out the Lugano problem for themselves. But then they seem to say nothing about it.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I am not saying that exactly. But there are many of those for sure.

Scraping the gunk out of the LENR bin is a good idea, however. It spoils the rest of the batch.

I made a Lugano Style COP of 7.2 not just to prove a point, but to keep thousands of hours and dollars from being wasted on a dream made of bullshit. People can still cook ceramic rods full of nickel and lithium etc, but at least they are forewarned. Notice nobody uses IR cameras for LENR claims anymore. Not because it doesn’t work, but because as soon as someone does, they figure out the Lugano problem for themselves. But then they seem to say nothing about it.

And all that’s good, but assuming that all people that report an excess heat are scammers because one can fake a high COP experiment is kind of arrogant, too.

As for the old Mizuno calorimeter, I showed that it can be easily improved.
Why should it be?

The main reason is that in all but one, maybe two instances, the total calculated heat output power is less than the measured input power. The Mizuno acrylic calorimeter is about 75% effective in capturing the input heat, and the typical reactor output is usually about 1.2 times input. Improvements to the calorimeter to bring it to just 85% effective would consistently put the captured output greater than input power with no changes to the reactor or important apparatus. Simply surrounding the acrylic with rigid insulation top and three sides, leaving the entire front transparent (uninsulated) would achieve that goal.

Your reactors are no good and it's not worth building a calorimeter for them, go the other way. I heard this report at ICCF 15 from Parkhomenko, who wanted to warm up the whole of Siberia. Go the other way, take my ideas from geology, where iron-manganese and spherical nodules are obtained, how diamonds, minerals, oil, gas, water are obtained, in general, all this happens due to cold nuclear fusion. You will be distracted from the water heating that you want to supply to the turbine so that it makes electricity. This is all nonsense!!!

Quote from Curbina

... this is what you have been doing all along, casting doubt on the validity of the data because it doesn’t fit what you think it should do.

Well yes. Daniel_G (and Mizuno and Rothwell and others) portray the LENR process as one characterized by temperature-sensitive heat production. All I am saying is that if this is so then by the normal laws of heat capacitance and cooling we expect the reactor to behave in certain ways. Now I am asking if that is so.

This style of engagement is absolutely typical of scientific discourse worldwide in the academic community. I am doing nothing unusual in that regard although it seems to be greeted as weird behaviour by some here.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Notice nobody uses IR cameras for LENR claims anymore. Not because it doesn’t work, but because as soon as someone does, they figure out the Lugano problem for themselves. But then they seem to say nothing about it.

A bit off-topic here, but I think it would be useful for LENR Forum to establish a thread or find a way for people to report their negative results. I suspect that a lot of sincere attempts at replication fail and then disappear. It is the file drawer problem. This creates a distorted view of a field.

Quote from Bruce__H

Well yes. Daniel_G (and Mizuno and Rothwell and others) portray the LENR process as one characterized by temperature-sensitive heat production. All I am saying is that if this is so then by the normal laws of heat capacitance and cooling we expect the reactor to behave in certain ways. Now I am asking if that is so.

This style of engagement is absolutely typical of scientific discourse worldwide in the academic community. I am doing nothing unusual in that regard although it seems to be greeted as weird behaviour by some here.

You know, I respect and admire greatly the opinion of magicsound because he invested considerable time and effort on making a replication of a Mizuno analogue system and he found no trace of excess heat. He reported a number of iterations of negative results in this very thread, and he live streamed the experiments when they were being performed. He still has never said that Mizuno is a scammer or a liar, in spite that he made his best attempt to reproduce the reported results without success, and shared his negative results with the world, and one is free to make one’s own conclusions about it.

One might conclude that crucial information has been withheld by Mizuno, among other things.

One might conclude that crucial information has been withheld by Mizuno, among other things.

This is simply wrong. There were replications that did report excess heat so this hypothesis is falsified.

Given that certain countries control the majority of the Pd Mizuno felt it necessary to develop technology which doesn’t require it. We have moved on. Things develop and we are now a commercial operation not an academic one so we don’t share these developments.

It takes money to develop. This is nothing evil but we have to provide a return to investors. MTI does it’s absolute best to walk the right rope between transparency and IP issues.

I have offered Magicsound reactors to test. Note he doesn’t use known colorimetric methods so we don’t know if his negative result was an artifact of his particular type of calorimetry or if his reactor isn’t producing excess heat.

I am leaving an open invitation to anyone willing to build good adiabatic calorimeters with us.

So far no takers from this group.

For context, copied below is the dialog I had with Daniel_G, to which he has not yet replied directly. His text is in red and mine in blue. In particular, I commented on the difficulty of long-duration testing with adiabatic calorimetry, and I stand by that comment. I'm also anxious to see if Mizuno will offer any further information on the mesh (fuel) preparation process described by Rothwell, which I followed in detail. My full report on the work I did is available for review at https://tinyurl.com/vudbmro

That sounds very good Alan and all due respect for what you are doing. We have several sized reactors we could send. What are the maximum dimensions of your equipment?

The test stand as currently configured could take roughly a 0.5 m cube (20 x 20 x 20 inches). My setup is built on two wheeled carts, with the vacuum system flex connection being the limiting link between them. If that were lengthened or the carts re-positioned or supplemented, a larger reactor could fit.

My only request would be that perhaps we cooperate in building an adiabatic calorimeter as life has been much easier after switching to this method and there are very few possible error sources.

For the expected reactor sizes and powers, that would have to be a pretty big lump, several square meters of floor space. I envision a metal box surrounded with lots of foam insulation. And for true adiabatic ("bomb") testing, a double-wall structure is really needed, with either vacuum or good temperature control of the inter-wall cavity. Otherwise the power resolution is little better than the differential thermometry I already use. A further issue is the inability to do long-duration testing, for which flow calorimetry is really the best choice, and the most difficult.

In either case, accuracy depends on careful calibration, which I suspect would be tricky in the kind of calorimeter you propose. The right way to do it is to calibrate with the reactor body locked in place, using an internal joule heater and no fuel. That is how I calibrate my existing system, and with correction for ambient temperature variation I can resolve as little as 3 watts of excess heat at 300°C.

I don’t know how much discretionary budget you have but if necessary we could likely find a corporate sponsor. Are you working as an independent individual researcher or as part of an organization for this?

I'm an independent researcher (d/b/a Magicsound Lab). I'm also associated with a 501C3 non-profit Quantum Heat Inc, for which I serve as corporate secretary. Occasional grants enable purchase of some needed equipment, such as the Agilent turbo vacuum system I use. Most of my gear including my SEM/EDX system is self-funded.

I will ask Mizuno about your mesh preparation.

Daniel_G , please don’t take it as if I am criticizing. I was simply speculating one of the potential reasons discussed at some point.

Deneum Energy also attempted a Mizuno analog replication and also showed no positive results.

I also know of some positive results from which we know very little compared to the negative ones.

At the ICCF 23 we knew of the work of Ramarao which seems like got a good result but we still know little detail about it.

Quote from magicsound

In either case, accuracy depends on careful calibration, which I suspect would be tricky in the kind of calorimeter you propose. The right way to do it is to calibrate with the reactor body locked in place, using an internal joule heater and no fuel. That is how I calibrate my existing system, and with correction for ambient temperature variation I can resolve as little as 3 watts of excess heat at 300°C.

Hello Alan,

Calibration in an adiabatic calorimeter is the same regardless if we put rocks, reactors or nothing inside.

That’s the way it should be.

I hope we can find a sponsor to support you to work together with us preferably 3-4 labs working simultaneously would be ideal.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Thanks.

1) "A reaction that responds to temperature as a control of some sort should have certain characteristics.

One is that insulating it should increase the excess vs input power, because the input power will make a higher temperature at the same input, but the excess should respond to the increased temperature as if it was being powered at a higher input"

2) "A reaction that instead depends on input power, rather than temperature, seems to be an odd beast"

1) Agreed and this is what we see

2) Our data clearly shows it's related to temperature and not to input power. Electrical input is only used for precise measurement. It is not required.

This is why we used a different type of calorimeter to test for systematic error, and got the same result.

The first point above about insulating is what I have been screaming from the mountain tops about COP. Glad to see at least some people are starting to understand.