Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec

  • Mizuno is saying that the physics is done. Only the engineering is left to do.

    If this is true, then I urge Mizuno to publish an update to his papers describing how to build a reactor that produces excess heat. The problem with the papers published so far is that they have not really led to a satisfying set of replications -- it is really a pretty spotty record so far. So if there are new insights that would definitely improve the chance for replicators then I think they should be carefully written up and published forthwith.

  • As Paradigmnoia says, building something that can continuously produce 1kW of electrical power that sits on a desktop is not a moonshot. I disagree that its a waste of money or resources. I may be wrong but before the end of this year we expect this device to be operating and then, if I am wrong, I will bow my head and say I should have listened to Jed.

    If you can do this, it is a good idea. From what I have seen of cold fusion experiments, including Mizuno's, I do not think anyone knows how to do what you describe. It is possible to make a reactor that produces ~1 kW. That has been done by Mizuno and others. But you cannot make it reliable. You cannot replicate on demand. If you happen to make one by chance, I agree it would be an excellent idea to show it to people from large corporations such as GE and Hitachi.


    You should take care to demonstrate it in such a way that the calorimetry is readily understandable. The Brillouin demonstration failed to do that. I am not saying the Brillouin demonstration did not work. I am saying that I and others do not think it clearly demonstrates anything. It might not be producing excess heat. We can't tell.

  • For the record, I don’t think that a tabletop kW device is necessary, although it would be great, if not ideal.

    A tabletop device that makes an obvious excess power, heat, whatever, would be relative to whatever device would be presented. A 5W, 10x chip would be as good as a 15 cm hot tube making a kW with much less input, I think.

    Yes I agree it doesn't need to be a kW. Let me give some additional context: For the record, at the point MTI became a company, we have raised $1.5m thus far and Mizuno has continued to develop the technology far beyond what Jed and Mizuno published. Hence Jed's comments about the reaction not being repeatable and reliable may have been true for the technology of several years ago but this is no longer true today. The reaction can produce excess heat on demand dependent upon only temperature without any precious metals at all. Every test I have observed or arranged has been able to validate the heat. A total of 3 Japanese and 2 foreign entities have successfully validated or replicated so far. When they use Mizuno's next generation reactors, there has never been a case of not being able to create excess heat that I have observed. The replications had a lot more inconclusive results but they did report some brief excess heat.


    Again we learned from these errors, and know why many of the replicators failed but since our IP counsel wouldn't let us publish until they get their heads around a solid strategy, my hands have been tied on reporting the details. From these failures Mizuno has made additional discoveries and amazingly developed a system that can reliably produce excess heat without any precious metals at all.


    I should mention that Pr. Biberian attempted a similar validation but these tests were met with very unfortunate circumstances, which were the fault of nobody, where French customs thought it was a good idea to open the valves on the chamber thereby ruining the activation of the catalyst surface. Since those experiences we started welding the reactors shut and after that there haven't been any cases of not creating excess heat. This all happened during Covid lockdowns and other personally trying times.


    I will be publishing the data from a Japanese autoparts maker at ICCF-24 and another major electronics firm (with a great engineering team) also did a validation and reported excess heat. Unfortunately NDAs forbid me from disclosing their names until an official announcement is made.


    This is such a major advancement, Mizuno has been working tirelessly under very dire personal circumstances and the advancements he has made have been incredible. Now that we have to juggle fiduciary duty to our shareholders, IP issues, etc. transparency has been temporarily sacrificed in order to move this technology forward and protect our investors.


    We are getting 0.2W per cm2 so our latest prototypes which are about the size of a notebook computer have 40,000cm2 of surface area so if the 0.2W/cm2 heat output holds, these units will produce about 8kW of heat. We don't know until we try but if we will get anywhere near that, but whatever heat is produced will be in a form that is readily convertible into high pressure steam. Also, advanced controls will allow us to remove only the excess heat so COP should be infinite. This may go well or we may run into some unknown problem, in any case we will learn something.


    In the not so distant future we should start to see something.

  • ... Jed's comments about the reaction not being repeatable and reliable may have been true for the technology of several years ago but this is no longer true today. The reaction can produce excess heat on demand dependent upon only temperature without any precious metals at all. Every test I have observed or arranged has been able to validate the heat. A total of 3 Japanese and 2 foreign entities have successfully validated or replicated so far.

    I am glad to see this because I was just about to undertake a survey of how many groups claimed to have replicate the procedure as published by Rothwell and Mizuno. No need now, I guess. But I am a bit unclear on what you are saying. Are you saying that 3 Japanese and 2 foreign entities have replicated or validated the original procedure? Or that these entities have replicated or validated more advanced procedures that are still under wraps.


    Who are these groups?

  • We are getting 0.2W per cm2 so our latest prototypes which are about the size of a notebook computer have 40,000cm2 of surface area so if the 0.2W/cm2 heat output holds, these units will produce about 8kW of heat.

    With these higher heat production densities are you not getting thermal runaway to meltdown? For a heat-activated exothermic system, the positive feedback between rising temperature and intrinsic heat generation should result a region of unstable rising temperatures until maximal activation is reached. Since you have repeatedly stated that the activation depends exponentially on temperature, the micro sites releasing energy should have no real maximum and simply ramp up in temperature until they destroy themselves. So I don't understand how you get a stable production density unless you undertake robust cooling to counteract the heat generation.


    I repeat something I have said before. If you want a convincing public demonstration that LENR is real, let the thing melt down. I don't under5stand why no one wants to do that.

  • I will be publishing the data from a Japanese autoparts maker at ICCF-24 and another major electronics firm (with a great engineering team) also did a validation and reported excess heat. Unfortunately NDAs forbid me from disclosing their names until an official announcement is made.

    So, you are going to report their results without saying their names? That seems ill advised. Anyway, I look forward to reading the report issued by autoparts maker. It sounds good, but I will reserve judgment.

  • I repeat something I have said before. If you want a convincing public demonstration that LENR is real, let the thing melt down. I don't under5stand why no one wants to do that.

    I wouldn't want to do that because:

    1. It sounds dangerous.
    2. It destroys your equipment. You can only do that demonstration once, and then you have to build a new reactor. That can take weeks, or months. A demonstration you can do again the next day is better.
    3. That calls for bomb calorimetry, which can be tricky. A large bomb calorimeter is expensive. The calorimeter itself would probably be destroyed, which is even more tricky and expensive. Perhaps it would produce data until a short time before it disintegrates, but that does not seem helpful.

    I do not understand why you think this is more convincing than conventional calorimetry.

  • I do not understand why you think this is more convincing than conventional calorimetry.

    It is because of the hysteresis. Think of it as like lighting a fire. The amount of energy released depends on the amount of fuel present and not on the amount of energy in the match that lit the fire. The initial input energy is just there to push the system past a critical point beyond which internal heating and positive feedback takes over and ramps the system up to a high output state. I would call that an impressive demonstration! ( as long as a chemical exothermic release can be eliminated as the cause).


    Daniel_G claims there are major-league engineers involved in this. They can sort out the safety precautions. It is workable. I made some nice fires in my fireplace last winter!

  • It is because of the hysteresis. Think of it as like lighting a fire. The amount of energy released depends on the amount of fuel present and not on the amount of energy in the match that lit the fire.

    I still do not see how that would be any more convincing than ordinary, conventional calorimetry. In my opinion, you should always use conventional instruments and techniques to do a scientific experiment. Industry standard, off the shelf instruments are best. Do not do anything out of the ordinary unless you have no choice. Destroying the instrument is definitely out of the ordinary.


    Also, you did not address the issue of destroying the instrument and having to wait weeks or months before doing the next experiment. Then there is the expense to consider. Some reactors and calorimeters cost tens of thousands of dollars. Do you really want to throw away that money just to do a demonstration that most experts would not think is more convincing than an ordinary flow or Seebeck calorimeter?


    It is bad enough having to destroy cathodes in destructive analysis testing. Destroying the whole instrument and contaminating the sample just to show what a Seebeck already shows irrefutably makes no sense to me.

  • I still do not see how that would be any more convincing than ordinary, conventional calorimetry.

    It is more convincing because the high-production state reached once you shove the system past a critical point is such a clear signal. In the models I have explored, the high-heat-production state has a COP much larger than those expected in the configurations Daniel_G (or your and Mizuno) have been seeing. Much larger! From an order of magnitude higher to infinitely higher.


    In my opinion, you should always use conventional instruments and techniques to do a scientific experiment. Industry standard, off the shelf instruments are best.

    Well that is a good principle to use in choosing research directions. But another good principle is to study big effects rather than small ones.


    Also, you did not address the issue of destroying the instrument and having to wait weeks or months before doing the next experiment. Then there is the expense to consider. Some reactors and calorimeters cost tens of thousands of dollars. Do you really want to throw away that money just to do a demonstration that most experts would not think is more convincing than an ordinary flow or Seebeck calorimeter?

    True. I didn't address this. But then we appear to disagree on what is convincing. I think it is convincing. And I don't see why others would not think it convincing to see a system producing high heat with no input power and no conventional explanation. So I don't see it as throwing away money. And, in any case, a team trying to push this system towards any sort of industrial/commercial capability will have to investigate possible high-energy excursions or meltdown anyway won't they? Why not do it now?


    Note added in edit: I should reinforce something I said a few posts ago. Given the properties Daniel_G is claiming for the newly reconfigured Mizuno system, loss of temperature control and escape to meltdown should be easy to evoke even unintentionally. It should be a constant threat that the experimenters have to work hard to avoid. Push the input heater just a touch too high and positive feedback should push the system straight up the meltdown region unless vigorous cooling is introduced on an emergency basis. I don't understand why we haven't heard about any such thing yet.

  • Kreysa, Morrison and others have claimed that cold fusion cathodes can produce much more heat.

    Kreysa removed a cathode from a cell after electrolysis and placed it on some wood. The heat from D2O formation scorched the wood. Kreysa claimed this proves that ordinary electrolysis produces as much power from D2O formation as cold fusion does. That is true but irrelevant for two reasons:

    1. D2O formation cannot occur in these cells, as I said.
    2. D2O formation and other chemical processes such as a burning match can produce high heat (power), but cold fusion produces thousands of times more energy. It is like a match that burns for hours, days, or months. Kryesa and Morrison did not understand the difference between power and energy.
  • An ICCF presentation exposed that precious metals can be dispensed with in a Mizuno-style reactor.


    This development has many positive impacts for experimentation, manufacturing, and application scope.


    I debate my next step.

  • Bruce_H, the problem is that Mizuno has developed entirely new technology since that publication due to the shortage of cash we couldn't purchase expensive Pd and Pt so Mizuno was forced to find a way to produce the reaction without using precious metals. He succeeded.


    Not every commercial development gets published. Mizuno has a long history of being very transparent and open but as I have mentioned before we have to continuously balance transparency with strategic IP concerns and fiduciary responsibilities to our shareholders.

  • Let me copy this from the other thread . . .


    ICCF-24 presentation:


    The Role of Appropriate Calorimetric Methods for Scaling-up LENR Devices and the Irrelevance of Coefficient of Performance (COP) - Daniel Gruenberg | Mizuno Technology, Inc., Thailand


    Very impressive. They have made a great deal of progress since Mizuno and I published papers.


    The "irrelevance" of COP applies to this reactor type. It means the reaction is triggered or increased with temperature, and the temperature can be as high as you like by changing insulation. In an experimental unit, heat is produced by resistance heating. The amount of electricity needed is a function of the insulation, so there is no fixed ratio between input and output. So in that sense it is irrelevant. It would be relevant to other kinds of reactors that are triggered or controlled with electricity. Such as electrolysis, lasers, pulsing or some other stimulation technique that takes a fixed or irreducible amount of power. Temperature as a stimulus does not take a fixed amount of power.


    Furthermore, cold fusion generates its own heat once you get it started. So, if you can stimulate it with heat only, it resembles a wood fire after the kindling ignites the larger logs. It is self sustaining in this configuration. I hope it can be scaled to a very small size for use in things like hearing aid batteries, with moderate temperatures. In other words, I hope the COP can be made infinitely high.


    A hearing aid battery or pacemaker will not work if the temperature must be high. That is what I said here, around minute 16:30:


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Here is a whimsical thought. You might wonder how a small device might even work when it is triggered by heat. I don't know if a cold fusion powered hearing aid would ever need to be turned off, because the fuel would last a lifetime, but suppose it is not a good idea to ship them in bulk with all of them producing heat. When you buy one, it is off. You turn it on by putting it in boiling water for a minute. Later, if you need to turn it off, you put it in the freezer. It is engineered to go on at 100 deg C and off below freezing.

  • Bruce_H, the problem is that Mizuno has developed entirely new technology since that publication due to the shortage of cash we couldn't purchase expensive Pd and Pt so Mizuno was forced to find a way to produce the reaction without using precious metals.

    Mizuno has a long history of being very transparent and open but as I have mentioned before we have to continuously balance transparency with strategic IP concerns and fiduciary responsibilities to our shareholders.

    As you heard in the conference they may offer a $100 million Ansari X-prize for cold fusion. If you win, that will give you enough money to buy the precious metals. On the other hand, I believe one of the conditions will be that you must have the device independently replicated by some prestigious lab. Perhaps that can be done while maintaining secrecy, but it still might put you on the horns of a dilemma. It will be an interesting choice. Do you want $100 million with no strings attached, and no need to sell shares? Or do you want to maintain tight confidentiality?


    Several cold fusion researchers may agonize over that dilemma.

  • We welcome credible researchers in academia or industry to join with validating our next generation devices. We have no problem lending devices out that can be measured with researcher's own equipment. Hopefully the next generation devices will have a high enough power, so that many of the past problems will become irrelevant.


    With the risk of sounding like an uninformed idiot, where can I get more information on the CF Ansari X-prize?

  • With the risk of sounding like an uninformed idiot, where can I get more information on the CF Ansari X-prize?

    The founder of the X-Prize foundation (Diamandis) was a speaker on the first day. They are considering doing for LENR, what they have done for the commercial space industry. My take was that he and Carl Page are very much in the "let's think about this, but not too much yet, kick it around for a year or so, then maybe do it or not, stage".


    They are thinking about a $100 million prize, with not all going to the winner. One of the obstacles Diamandis mentioned was that "you do not want to do a prize for something that is already going to happen". Well, after this ICCF, and specially your presentation, he may think LENR is going to happen anyway, and go on to something else.

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

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.