Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec

    Quote from JedRothwell

    In the distant future, thermal air conditioning with cold fusion, or with a cold fusion cogenerator waste heat, might be possible. The waste heat will heat the house in winter. In summer it will be dumped out, so perhaps it can be used to run an air conditioner. I think this might be cheaper than today's air conditioners, but I am not sure. So, for now I will leave the $5,651 as is. I will assume it is powered by the cogenerator. Air conditioners draw 2 to 4 kW. With thermal air conditioning, you might get by with a smaller cogenerator.


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1876610214009758

    I would like to see the waste heat from such systems warm massive human habitats in frigid, inhospitable regions of the world, allowing for a multitude of independent high tech civilizations to emerge.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Yes Bruce you are correct. The exponential equation was found in our own lab. The data on slide 6, was from an outside validation experiment. The reactors they had were previous generation. Let’s see how the latest data pans out.

    I don't understand your reply. Why does activation of excess heat appear to be independent of temperature in slide 6 of your presentation?


    Mizuno has been claiming that heat generation depends exponentially on temperature for years now. So why should it matter that the validation attempt uses a previous-generation reactor?

    Daniel_G


    Having just read this thread.


    Not enough info on your setup to comment much, but I can make some general points


    (1) If as seems your independent replication results have very different characteristics than your original in-house results that is a red flag. There are possible reasons for the difference, but the most obvious one is that the results come from (different) calorimetry errors. Or that one set of results comes from calorimetry error, but in that case no replication yet...


    (2) If as I understand it you are using "incubator" type calorimeter then here are some things that can provide artifacts:


    (1) Non-isothermal heat in oven. This can have two effects: (a) make TC temp reading less accurate and (b) alter effective oven to outside thermal resistance, see (2)

    (2) variation in oven to outside thermal resistance. Opening and closing boxes can do this, dependent on construction. Of course it is pretty easy to make them with a fixed well controlled thermal resistance in which case (2) is not an issue. It is also pretty easy to put an isothermal surface on the inside of the box which will vastly reduce 1 (b)

    (3) oxidation of H2 or D2. How you check this depends on the experimental details, I guess. Could be reduction of oxide on material, or oxidation due to ambient leak.

    (4) Change in TC characteristics due to contamination by H2 or D2. This can be diagnosed by repeating control again after active experiment.

    (5) (possibly) variation in thermal resistance of D2 vs H2. Of course this need not be a problem depending on what is your setup.



    Quick and rough check.


    You can check for some of these anomalies (but not all) simply by running experiments identical but with surface areas 1,2,3 X original. The quantitative results from this will give you a lot of extra info because if it is some surface effect it will be proportional to surface area.


    Best wishes, THH

    Quote from Daniel_G

    yes we have moved through several generations of devices since Jed and Mizuno published the Pd rubbed Ni mesh version. We have not yet published anything on the new generation.

    Daniel G,


    Congrats on the fantastic progress. Getting away from Pd and precious metals is a very good thing.


    Have you performed any tests to see if the fuel is sensitive not only to heat (IR) but also other frequencies such as RF or MW?


    Have you observed any luminous "hot spots" on the metal fuel?


    Have you performed any experiments to look for Strange Radiation?

    More validations are planned. We intend to address weak points in our previous data and validations and am grateful for the thoughtful criticism and comments here.


    I presented the data we had in hand at the time of iccf. It’s not ideal but it’s a significant external validation showing significant excess heat.


    Currently 5 units of next gen reactors are under construction and yes we intend to add surface area and map the excess heat with each addition of surface area.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    I presented the data we had in hand at the time of iccf. It’s not ideal but it’s a significant external validation showing significant excess heat.

    The problem is that the plot of steady-state reactor temperature vs. input power displayed in your iccf slide presentation is nothing like the results you describe there, or that you have claimed previously (or that Mizuno has been claiming for years).


    In the presentation you say that the reaction is temperature sensitive. The temperature sensitivity is said to be exponential. But the plot shows no temperature sensitivity at all. How do you account for this? I think you need to address this and not just wave it off. If a mistake has been made by the replicators, doesn't that invalidate all their results?

    Quote from Pavel Vrbovski

    dear Daniel_G

    can you tell us more about COP ?

    Daniel_G talked about this on the original MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY thread. I never quite understood his views. Look for exchanges between myself and Daniel_G starting on March 7 2022 (at the link below) and extending for several weeks


    Post
    RE: MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY
    Our current system of calorimetry is an adaptation of adiabatic that is simple, works very well and can work for very long periods of days, weeks and months.

    Instead of being bogged down in textbook nomenclature you Can find the description of the system in this thread and comment and criticize as you feel.

    I think Magicsound was very well equipped. The type of calorimeter used has no prior experience in measuring lenr reactors successfully. I don’t think it will work but that’s just my…
    Daniel_G
    Quote from Daniel_G

    I’m not hand waving it away. I’m being transparent. We believe more data will clear up this issue. I disagree that the data shows no temperature variation.

    The data show no hint that the excess heat depends on temperature.


    When you present data at a conference and it turns out not to support your claims I think you need to say more. How do you now regard these data? Are you withdrawing them? How do you imagine that more data would make this plot look consistent with a claim of exponential activation of excess heat as temperature rises? The only way I can think of is that temperature-sensitive excess heat activates exclusively below 350 degrees C.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Please wait for next set of experiments

    I understand that you plan to do more experiments and that these may demonstrate temperature-dependent activation of excess heat. But what does this mean? Does this mean that you don't already have such evidence with incubator-heated reactors? You certainly have never shown such data before.

    The data we have that shows the exponential relationship of xsh to temperature is real and from Mizuno’s experiments. The data I published at iccf24 also showed an increase according to temperature but not an exponential function. This is related to the small surface area vs. the type of calorimeter used we believe. We also don’t have control of all the variable in an outside replication experiment. The reactors under construction now have a much higher surface area and the new calorimeters we are building also will incorporate several improvements meant to get more resolution and faster results allowing us to do more data points in a shorter time span.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    The data we have that shows the exponential relationship of xsh to temperature is real and from Mizuno’s experiments. The data I published at iccf24 also showed an increase according to temperature but not an exponential function. This is related to the small surface area vs. the type of calorimeter used we believe. We also don’t have control of all the variable in an outside replication experiment. The reactors under construction now have a much higher surface area and the new calorimeters we are building also will incorporate several improvements meant to get more resolution and faster results allowing us to do more data points in a shorter time span.

    Have you examined the surface of the treated fuel with an electron microscope before and after a run? I know this is something you probably cannot talk about and that's fine. But I've always been curious about the relative degree of coverage and surface morphology after abrasion with palladium that led to high power output from Mizuno's previous systems. Due to varying hardness of the palladium, different amounts of force (some people being physically stronger than others), different abrasive angles, and other variables just rubbing the palladium by hand on the wire mesh seemed a little too variable to produce consistent results.

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.