QuoteObserved excess thermal power levels in average were 10, 86 and 186 W/kg-sample for PNZ10, PNZ10r and PNZ10rr, respectively with deuterium-gas.
I like to read that together with:
QuoteGeneration of excess thermal power was very reproducible by week cycle runs of heating power on/off mode, and was steady for several days in each elevated temperature run.
And all of this done with respected Japanese scientific institutions (Osaka University, Technova Inc., Kobe University)!
Isn't this the huge breakthrough we all have waited for? 
It is a big step forward for sure, by a group with the resources and skill to do impeccable experiments in impeccable surroundings. Congratulations to all concerned.
And all of this done with respected Japanese scientific institutions (Osaka University, Technova Inc., Kobe University)!
Isn't this the huge breakthrough we all have waited for?
There are many papers presented by sch recognized team.
Some were presented or cited at JCF20
the slides are there I suppose
https://www.researchgate.net/p…Nano-Metal-and-HD-Gas.pdf
the japanese ex-NEDO seems to work well, except that nobody cares out of LENR community...
The work with Nissan reported at JCF20 was enthusiasming for me at it looked more engineer way of mind than physicists.
It should be a great moment in a rational world.
Quote
We have repeatedly reported [1-11] that observed level of excess thermal power was too large to be explained by chemical reactions which happens by exchange of atomic and molecular orbital electrons with small energy (less than a few eV per hydrogen or other atom, for instance). In this work, we have also obtained data of specific reaction energy per D-atom transfer as shown in Fig.10. Under long-lasting excess thermal power of near 90 W for nearly a month (190 MJ of total heat), we observed evolution of specific reaction energy reaching 100 keV/D-transfer at maximum.
it should be shocking.
That's what I said last year. The Japanese are way ahead - just what we need! Maybe at some point we could test out some of their nanomaterials?
Isn't this the huge breakthrough we all have waited for?
It will be, if it can be replicated. The same goes for Mizuno's work. Both would be a breakthrough. I think they are related.
I am a little concerned that Takahashi et al. may have not revealed enough about the materials to allow independent replications.
What are the odds of someone like Google or NASA choosing to replicate the work and then publishing?
Slim?
What are the odds of someone like Google or NASA choosing to replicate the work and then publishing?
Without hands-on assistance from Takahashi et al., and materials from them, I think it is unlikely anyone can replicate in the first round. Unfortunately, they have not been very helpful about providing materials or detailed information about how to make the materials.
Materials are the key to cold fusion.
I also think it is unlikely that Google or NASA would publish a positive result, because of academic politics.
What are the odds of someone like Google or NASA choosing to replicate the work and then publishing?
Slim?
I probably should not be saying this, but one of the positive developments directly resulting from the Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" thread was that Google did take an interest. There was a high level meeting with another party to discuss common interests/goals, and explore possible ways to cooperate.
I do not know if anything came of it though, as I voluntarily opted out of the loop once the meeting was arranged, so as to ensure the privacy of the participants.
I probably should not be saying this, but one of the positive developments directly resulting from the Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?" thread was that Google did take an interest. There was a high level meeting with another party to discuss common interests/goals, and explore possible ways to cooperate.
I do not know if anything came of it though, as I voluntarily opted out of the loop once the meeting was arranged, so as to ensure the privacy of the participants.
That sounds encouraging. Appreciate the colour.
The calorimeter in this paper shows variations in the start-up of the reaction. Figure 1 top left shows the heat increasing as the temperature reaches 300 deg C. This kind of behavior cannot be observed with Mizuno's air flow calorimeter, because the reactor has a large thermal mass and there is a long delay before the heat reaches the temperature sensors.
That sounds encouraging. Appreciate the colour.
Sorry to say that I have been informed it did not work out. All I can say is DF, and I did our part in bringing 2 well funded, talented teams together. We were hoping they could work something out for the good of humanity. One side with acceptance of mainstream science, the other with the PNZ formula/know-how that I was told worked almost 100% of the time. Seemed like the perfect match to finally carry LENR across the finish line.
Both parties were certainly interested, and seemed enthusiastic about meeting, so lack of an agreement must have had something to do with IP, legalities, or logistics constraints. Maybe next time.
so lack of an agreement must have had something to do with IP, legalities, or logistics constraints.
Perhaps it had something to do with ego, academic politics, priority and nationalism. Primate nature, in other words. I know nothing about this meeting, but I have seen other projects in cold fusion and other things fall through for those reasons.
Another problem might have been Japanese versus American culture. Nowadays we dress alike, drive the same kind of cars (albeit on the wrong side of the road), and so on, so people imagine the two countries are alike. Yes, they are lot more similar than they were in 1868. But they are still different, and the outward similarities can hide the differences. Here is an example I learned in anthropology in 1974, which I am sure still applies. Suppose a group of American and Japanese people meet to plan a project. The Americans begin by saying: "Everything is fine, except for one little problem . . ." That is what they would mean; there is one last detail we need to iron out. Unfortunately, the Japanese may think they mean: "This project is cancelled, and we are trying to say that politely without blaming anyone or causing hurt feelings." Neither side can figure out why the project suddenly goes off the rails. So, I suggest you read anthropology before you travel to distant lands.
Another problem might have been Japanese versus American culture. Nowadays we dress alike, drive the same kind of cars (albeit on the wrong side of the road), and so on, so people imagine the two countries are alike. Yes, they are lot more similar than they were in 1868. But they are still different, and the outward similarities can hide the differences. Here is an example I learned in anthropology in 1974, which I am sure still applies. Suppose a group of American and Japanese people meet to plan a project. The Americans begin by saying: "Everything is fine, except for one little problem . . ." That is what they would mean; there is one last detail we need to iron out. Unfortunately, the Japanese may think they mean: "This project is cancelled, and we are trying to say that politely without blaming anyone or causing hurt feelings." Neither side can figure out why the project suddenly goes off the rails. So, I suggest you read anthropology before you travel to distant lands.
The differences go deep. Here is the abstract from Kitiyama et al., Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures. Psychological Science (2003) 14:201-206
"In two studies, a newly devised test (framed-line test) was used to examine the hypothesis that individuals engaging in Asian cultures are more capable of incorporating contextual information and those engaging in North American cultures are more capable of ignoring contextual information. On each trial, participants were presented with a square frame, within which was printed a vertical line. Participants were then shown another square frame of the same or different size and asked to draw a line that was identical to the first line in either absolute length (absolute task) or proportion to the height of the surrounding frame (relative task). The results supported the hypothesis: Whereas Japanese were more accurate in the relative task, Americans were more accurate in the absolute task. Moreover, when engaging in another culture, individuals tended to show the cognitive characteristic common in the host culture"
The final sentence doesn't sufficiently highlight the kicker in this research. When tested, Japanese students who had been living in the US for more than 6 months adopted American-style absolute-perception style, whereas American students who had lived in Japan for more than 6 months adopted the Japanese contextual-perception strategy.
The calorimeter in this paper shows variations in the start-up of the reaction. Figure 1 top left shows the heat increasing as the temperature reaches 300 deg C.
The increase in the heating rate measured at about t=9:35 by RTD1 and RTD2 is easily explained by the drying off of the PNZ powder at the lower levels of the reactor chamber (RC). No need to invoke any anomalous heating due to an imaginary nuclear reaction triggered at whatsoever temperature level.
At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet, so the heating rate is slower. As temperature rises above the boiling point, the water evaporates starting from the bottom of the RC, where the cartridge heater is located. Subsequently, the dry powder heats at a higher rate.
The strong initial wetness of the metal powder can also easily explain the flattening of the TC4 curve starting from about t=10:00. Note that 140 °C is close to the saturation temperature of water at the pressure of the gas inside the RC.
At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet,
What is the 'very wetness' of the powder in mass %?
Please provide a source for this wet assertion
Mass%H20...
or Mass% EtOH?
The preparation for the powders is by calcining and dry grinding..
There is no H2O added..perhaps Ascoli has added EtOH..
"
The thin sheets were calcined in air at a temperature of 450 C for 60 h, during which
preferential formation of ZrO2 supporter zone with isolated
distribution of nano-structure zones of PdxNi0.35-x is expected.
They were then ground in a mortar to make the sample particles with diameter of several to tens of mm.
The composition parameter x is 0.044 (Pd/Ni ¼ 1/7) for most samples tested in Kobe Univ [9,13,15,18]. including the CNZ-type with Cu/Ni ¼ 1/7,
except for PNZ6 and PNZ6r with x ¼ 0.032 (Pd/Ni ¼ 1/10).
It will be found that the composition parameter x is one of the most important variables for excess power production
At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet
Wet dreams are back! May be from the first tears, because of ITER's sudden end, which is prognosed by some other parties too...
The excess energy variation among samples aligns with the energy of electron orbits (or atomic #) in the corresponding metal composite powders? As in Cu/Ni is less energy than Pd/Ni? I should read through myself but thought it would jog others thought's if it was posted here.
At the beginning of the test, the powder is very wet, so the heating rate is slower.
Where on earth did you get the idea that the powder is wet? Wet with what?!?
Where on earth did you get the idea that the powder is wet? Wet with what?!?
Trace moisture from the air?
