H. Zhang: First successful independent Mizuno R20 replication!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    "We'd need to know that the sequencing and length of the calibrations was comparable with the active runs."


    You made that up. It is an excuse to ignore the data. If you applied that standard, it would be an excuse to ignore every experiment on record, because no one ever calibrates for as long as an active experiment continues.


    It is a logical consequence. If you have occasional intermittent active run spikes you need enough calibration time to be sure that whatever caused them has had time to appear in cal too - if it is the same for active and cal. Sure, if your anomalies are much more common in active runs you need less cal time to detect them. But if you see these spikes just once or twice in say 10 active runs you'd need at least that time cal to know whether the spikes are specific to active, or just happening sometimes anyway.


    All this is not rocket science, and only somone determined to see error in what I post would object.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is a logical consequence. If you have occasional intermittent active run spikes you need enough calibration time to be sure that whatever caused them has had time to appear in cal too - if it is the same for active and cal.

    By that standard, we should reject the top quark and other rare events from high energy particle physics. They don't do blanks. If they spend 6 months colliding particles, after they find a few collisions producing what they are looking for, they do not spend another 6 months finding nothing before declaring success. The entire run is considered active. We should also reject all observations of super-novas, because after astronomers find one, they do not spend years not finding one, as a blank. (Astronomers don't actually look for them at all; the moment one appears is the active run, and there is nothing like a blank run. But the fact that they seldom appear is not taken as evidence they do not exist, or that they are are instrument errors, which is what your standard would lead us to conclude.)


    A calibration should cover all likely events, and all variations in power levels or ambient changes. It should be statistically valid proof that the instrument is working. If you demand that a calibration last as long as the active run, that would lead you to reject nearly all cold fusion results, and most results in other experiments as well. People seldom do as many blank tests as active ones. They seldom devote as much time to blanks as to active experiments. Although, I would point out, Will et al. actually did more blanks, over a longer time, than their active tritium experiments, if you count their tests of unused samples. They got 4 out of 4 of the active cells, 0 out 4 of the control, and 0 out of 150 unused samples:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf


    Since you reject Will et al. along with all others cold fusion results, you don't actually believe your own standard here. You made it up on the spur of the moment as an excuse to reject Zhang. You would make up some other arbitrary standard to reject Will.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    It is quite common for equipment to fail only after some considerable time of operation. Short cal runs with much longer active runs would not detect such a failure which would then be categorised as LENR.


    Worldwide some hundreds of nuclear power plant are still up and running obviously with no prior THH' like calibration made... Such unphysical machines (THH: no model/theory available did predict their failure and fission products, thus these nuclear power plants are unphysical ) are accepted, albeit these power plants nearly destroyed the whole country of Japan.


    THH: Says 110 days of excess energy are a calibration failure called LENR. Mizuno each day failed to clean the old mercury thermometer and his glasses thus, he could dot correctly read the temperature... Or may be he mixed up the ventilator with his hair dryer that by mistake delivered the heat...


    Or may be THH drunk to much beer again or his live is awfully boring and he thinks the LENR forum needs a clown.

    You made it up on the spur of the moment as an excuse to reject Zhang.


    No - Zhang is clearly some anomaly, and until there is more info it does not seem likely LENR. Having longer/additional cals would (possibly) help to work out what the anomaly is. Quite likely they will do it some other way.

    If anything Zhang's data is less of an anomaly than Mizuno's. LENR excess heat results characteristically show transient or burst-like behaviour like Zhang's data whereas Misuno's prolonged, sustained heat data is quite unusual. Studying the Pd/Ni mesh that produced the 3kW heat output will hopefully give some new insights into how this high power level is being generated. Time TM and JR were given the financial backing from IH to get on with the job (it would certainly undo all the damage AR did if it is a success! If not, the ship's going down with Woodford anyway so they have nothing to lose,

    Just as with the other Mizono-type experiments, much could be learned in the Zhang experiment from showing graphs while cycling the input power on and off at some interval longer than the thermal time constant.

    • Is the output delay for excess heat the same same as the delay with just heater power observed in the control?
    • Are there spikes in the excess or is it a constant delay from when heater power is applied?
    • Do excess heat spikes appear only with input power applied or also when it is off?
    • How long, if at all, is there heat after death?
    • Does the baseline with heater power off rise or fall gradually over time or remain the same?
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Suppose there is some intermittent (like, happens only on Mondays) change in the environmental conditions.


    It is true that we cannot ignore possibilities as such! We have an exact case here posted with much ado just over a year ago.

    There were undeniable gammas detected and at some regular time event. (~24 hrs?)


    My understanding that it took quite some time, but the source was finally determined to be foreign from the reactor and possibly even extraterrestrial.

    I am not sure that it was ever conclusively determined the exact cause, but if I understood correctly, a initial large foreign signal was measured along with a smaller, possibly reaction based signal. It took quite some time to distinguish the two (If ever?).


    Alan can correct / clarify the scenario, but I believe it took a lot of "calibration" or non-fueled tests to clarify the situation.

    Quote from Bob#2

    Alan can correct / clarify the scenario, but I believe it took a lot of "calibration" or non-fueled tests to clarify the situation.


    No: Very simple shielding could eliminate the stimulus. There wasn't any wrong signal/measurement from the reactor.


    As you can see you completely misunderstand the physics behind the problem.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    No: Very simple shielding could eliminate the stimulus. There wasn't any wrong signal/measurement from the reactor.


    As you can see you completely misunderstand the physics behind the problem.


    Thank you, but it seemed not so simple at the time. There was much posting over several days, which indicated it was not simple. I know some time went by before it was determined and I still do not think results were ever firmly established or at least published here. Perhaps you can give the exact details of the gamma findings since I misunderstand?


    If I completely misunderstood the physics, perhaps your memory of time lapse and postings on the subject is short! Please note that I never stated there was wrong measurement, perhaps you misread. I stated there was a STRONG signal, evidently related to some foreign event/trigger. Not wrong.


    I stand by the original intent.... sometimes experiments do have to have longer term inspections for possible influence of sporadic and or timed events of longer hours. This is common sense and why it is being called into question is odd.

    • Official Post

    JedRothwell, have you received further news from Hang Zhang? I wonder is he has keep the experiment running.

    Quote from Bob#2

    I stand by the original intent.... sometimes experiments do have to have longer term inspections for possible influence of sporadic and or timed events of longer hours. This is common sense and why it is being called into question is odd.


    This is absolutely correct. We know since one year that cosmic (solar) radiation can strongly influence some some types of LENR reactions. It could easily be that some successful experiments were influenced by such conditions if they were run in rooms with daylight access.


    But most physicists work in closed rooms just because of security/shielding reasons, what limits these cases to a few exotic ones only.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This is absolutely correct. We know since once year that cosmic (solar) radiation can strongly influence some some types of LENR reactions. It could easily be that some successful experiments were influenced by such conditions if they were run in rooms with daylight access.


    But most physicists work in closed rooms just because of security/shielding reasons, what limits these cases to a few exotic ones only.


    We do not exactly know that. A hypothesis has been proposed and the experimental evidence is very mixed.


    https://physicsworld.com/a/do-…t-nuclear-decay-on-earth/


    Even with clear causation evidence (which we do not yet have) the mechanism is still unclear - neutrino flux variations being the most popular option. It is new physics (neutrinos are not known to have relevant interactions) so will need a lot of evidence before any conclusion is reached.


    And AS etc evidence we do not know, because it has not been published in any coherent form that would allow its evaluation. I'm happy with the statement that some secretive group knows this stuff, but I've never given much weight to the conclusions reached by secretive groups! The same complexities as for the decay experiments apply to assigning solar causation to anything else.


    Still - I have to say that is AS etc does have such experimental evidence that is strong it could and should be published. Everyone likes evidence relating solar effects to nuclear reactions because of the neutrino link and the fact that dark matter etc is all up in the air, so everyone is open to unexpected interactions involving unknown particles.

    The two endothermic events reported by Zhang are almost the same duration, which makes me suspect they were triggered by a human action, such as pumping down the cell. Zhang is looking for something like that. As I said, I do not think cold fusion produces endothermic events.


    Event 1 starts as 9:42 PM, continues 2:30, -18,352 J.

    Event 2 starts at 7:52 AM, continues 2:25, -16,063 J


    Graph showing the events:



    • Official Post

    I think you meant endothermic, but I get the idea. Any chances of starting with a new mesh not poisoned with argon?

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    Yup. And those are negative joules. Corrections made.


    It seems to have recovered from that.


    You would have to ask Zhang about restarting.

    I see, so you think the two below zero zones are caused by the activation of the vacuum pump but have nothing to do with the above zero zones. At some moment I got the idea that you were thinking the entire behavior after the argon purge was chemical (of which I was puzzled) but now I see you were only referring to the endothermic portions, and your idea of the pump down makes sense, only that I thought that could not happen, unless the control of the pump is not in the same room.

    Quote from Curbina

    I see, so you think the two below zero zones are caused by the activation of the vacuum pump but have nothing to do with the above zero zones. At some moment I got the idea that you were thinking the entire behavior after the argon purge was chemical (of which I was puzzled)

    Actually, someone else suggested it might be related to the pump. I wouldn't know. I have no idea what might have caused this. It seems too large to be chemical, and the chemists I know cannot suggest a candidate reaction.


    It might be an instrument artifact for all I know.

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.