• I think Ht2 is pretty well established with Mizuno’s data. H1 still under investigation.

  • Misfire?

    Yes. As I pointed out at the time (here), the steady-state power vs temperature plot you displayed in slide 6 of your ICCF-24 presentation shows no indication at all that excess power depends exponentially on temperature. Moreover the low-temperature behaviour of the reactor/oven system as shown in that plot is strange. Extrapolating to zero input power seems to indicate that when the control reactor (i.e., with no active mesh) has no input it sits at 50C or higher. Which seems ridiculous. Put this together with the fact that you are claiming to show a COP of only 1.08 in that slide (the only slide in that presentation containing empirical results that were said to support your claims of excess heat) and I would say that the presentation is far from the sort of persuasive argument you would like it to be. In other words, a misfire.

    I expect that all these things have some explanation and indeed you yourself said that more results were upcoming which would be better, clearer, more trustworthy, etc. Those results have not yet appeared and that is why I am encouraging you to keep working to make them public.

  • Misfire...trustworthy... ??? Persuasion?

    Why the question marks? All scientific papers are supposed to have a goal. It is usually in the last paragraph, "Conclusions." If the paper does not conclude the conclusion, it misfires. Papers are supposed to be trustworthy. They are supposed to persuade the reader that the author is correct.

    A scientific paper or presentation is an argument, in the second definition of that word:

    a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

    "there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"

    Sometimes the first definition:

    bickering . . .

    an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

    "I've had an argument with my father"

  • Perhaps there is more coming?

    Replication Evidence?

    Sustainable roomheating Patent app 2022

    Sustainable Room Heating Device And Heat Generation Method - Patent

    "According to another embodiment of the present invention,

    a heat generating method involves a low energy nuclear reaction

    within the realm of a cylindrical flanged container to release heat,

    wherein the reaction involves synergistic amounts of Deuterium gas and Hydrogen gas in contact over Palladium treated NickelChromium catalyst

    under temperature ranging from 200⁰C - 400⁰C

    and pressure ranging from 4000 - 5000 Pascals.

  • Modest claims...

    "As evident from Figure 3, the calibration output power value at reactor input
    power of 55W is 57.13W and the calibration output power value at reactor input
    power of 105W is 101.16W. Whereas in case of active experimentation, the reactor
    input power of 55W provides calorimeter output power of 69.34W and the reactor
    input power of 105W provides calorimeter output power of 132.17W.
    Experimentally, at 50 W input power, the power output in case of active
    experiment is higher by 9.79 W with respect to calibration. Similarly, at 100 W
    input power, the output power is greater by 31.01 watts with respect to calibration."

  • Bruce thanks for the input. As explained the data was an external validation done by a group of engineers from an auto parts maker. I presented this data as it was. Warts and all. Why do you assume this was our only data? We are now arranging with some very credible scientists to have a better quality external validation done and more data from the University lab is also forthcoming.

    I would hardly call it a misfire. I don’t agree with your interpretation of the data. It showed excess heat greater than measurement uncertainty. Could it be better? Yes much better. That’s what we are preparing for now. I’m not a research lab with unlimited grant funding. Everything is self funded we do our best to move the science and business forward.

    As for the data doesn’t fit your personal idea of how the data should look is difficult to comment on. You are telling me you have enough experience with Mizuno type reactors to be able to tell me what the data should look like? I think not. I don’t do science this way. Data first. Theory later. I still find your methodology backwards.

  • I just completed an uncertainty budget for Mizuno’s calorimeter and found total heat uncertainty to vary between 7.5% and 10% depending on delta T of the air in and out temps. So a COP of 1.3 is far above any measurement uncertainty. We are also building the new prototypes and calorimeter as described in the ICCF24 presentation.

  • I run tech companies in other fields and things don’t always go according to plan. In fact they almost never do. The ICCF24 data was not perfect but not bad. What exactly do you have a problem with? It was early data by an independent third party showing excess heat above statistical uncertainty.

    You guys are a tough crowd here. Lol.

    The proper response to such a result is to build a better experiment, repeat and open it for external validation which is exactly what we are doing.

    It’s rather disheartening to read the comments here. Yes I have inadequacies as an every human but I compensate with untiring pursuit of improvement. We hope to eventually reach critical mass and he accepted.

  • Daniel_G

    At one point you were enthusiastic about shipping pre-prepared meshes or reactors to independent researchers (Magicsound for instance) for open validation. Has this program been affected by your no longer working for Mizuno Technologies Corp? Do you believe it will go forward?

  • This is maybe one of those arguments it is good to be patient and steer clear of till better evidence emerges. It has been stated this will happen, and all sides will find the results of this better evidence interesting. Given the size of the claimed effect here it will either be very interesting, or show some not understood before defect in the previous results.

    I guess the comment here is mainly a sign of impatience?

    Should too much time pass, with no progression in the evidence base, and no explanation, it would be plausible to think that is because those promising early results could not be replicated in a publishable form.


  • I run tech companies in other fields and things don’t always go according to plan. In fact they almost never do. The ICCF24 data was not perfect but not bad. What exactly do you have a problem with?

    No problem. I was wondering why Robert wrote this with question marks: "Misfire...trustworthy... ??? Persuasion?"

    As for you, I think you should tell us what company tested the reactor, and upload a report from the company. If the name is secret perhaps you can upload a report with no names. Your description is somewhat vague.