dartin Member
  • Member since Oct 11th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by dartin

    What the experimenter needs to know depends on the purpose of the experiment. If the purpose is simply to verify the existence of a claim, for example a claim that some assembly of parts and chemicals generates energy, then the experimenter needs to be able to follow the directions regarding how to assemble that collection of parts and chemicals. They also need to have a thorough understanding of how to conduct credible and well documented properly blanked and calibrated experiments -- double blind in applicable cases. These days, it helps to be able to manipulate automated data acquisition systems. Knowledge of statistics is needed for some studies but it's easy to "farm" that out, There is a rarely a need to understand a theory about the underlying mechanisms unless such an understanding is the express purpose of the experiment. To verify Mizuno's tests for example, you need to know high vacuum equipment and calorimetry. Knowledge of the claimed principles underlying LENR will not help you one tiny bit in demonstrating whether Mizuno is right or wrong. I am not sure why the above seems to be a difficult concept for some. It seems so obvious that it hardly needs saying!

    What you say sounds quite logical. But take the example of a replicator whose setup involves no calorimeter. It may seem like a proper replication but the calorimeter changes the heat flow and potentially the outcome of the trial. Without understanding completely how it works, how is a replicator able to properly take the shortcuts which most of us want to take?

    Another example is how most people's instinct as to how fast a vacuum can be established is wrong according to the engineering equations. The effective pumping speed of a pump (Seff) is equal to the given speed (S) divided by the quantity (1 + S/C) where C is the Conductance of the pipes leading from the Turbo Molecular pump to the chamber. Professional setups look nothing like what I see the LENR folks doing. Conductance of a pipe is lower if it has a small diameter and again lower if it is long. The professionals use a Fat Pipe. See pix.

    Keep your pipes fat and your Turbo Molecular pump vertical.

    Formula Ref: Jousten, K., Handbook of Vacuum Technology, pp. 90-93

    Note that there is a reason for the large opening in the inlet of a Turbo Molecular pump. The engineers who invented the device designed it that way on purpose. Yet the first thing most people want to do is to neck it down to a centimeter diameter as if the resistance of the pipe will make no difference. The fact is: you can neck it down all you want if you are willing to wait the number of days or weeks it takes to evacuate your reactor. Mizuno is a very patient man. But will other replicators be as patient? What about someone who lacks a RGA and thinks that waiting 17 hours is long enough to pull a vacuum through a thin straw?

    I own Edmund Storms The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation on my Kindle and I fall asleep at night listening to it being read to me. I also have re-read his earlier book as well as Mizuno's book. I also have acquired books on calorimetry and heat flow and am reading them. We need to obtain an adequate understanding of what is going on. I agree that we don't need to nail down an accurate theory of LENR, but we need to read Storms and understand the common denominator of the successful LENR experiment in the past.

    I am not "skilled in the art" of LENR experiments. As a result, I have heard Jed tell me repeatedly that I should not attempt a replication of Mizuno's reactor. Since I believe Jed, Storms and Mizuno, I am reading much more than doing. If I do attempt a replication, it will take advantage of all of the literature that I can find including the discussions on this forum. It appears to me that we might be on the edge of a breakthrough in LENR.

    Mizuno, Storms and others have sometimes had to repeatedly bake out samples, day after day, continuing for weeks, before finally reducing contamination to the low levels recommended in the paper. So I doubt we can be sure 72 hours is sufficient.

    Also, sometimes you find that baking too soon permanently glues the contamination to cell wall, and it keeps leaking into the system. Several people have told me that. Again, I am no expert, but that's what they say. I think it is good idea to listen to experts.

    That is why anyone expecting to perform this experiment in one week is operating in the wrong time frame. Plan to purge many times and

    From p. 2 of 2017 ICCF Mizuno:

    "Place the electrodes in the reactor. The reactant metal is degassed initially at room temperature. This is to avoid the formation of an oxide film
    or nitride fiom that would be strengthened by the in-system gas when it is processed at high temperature, so that the subsequent activation
    treatment becomes difficult."

    Did Deneum do this?

    Huh. The holes looked bigger. Maybe it was a close-up photo. 200 mesh means 200 holes per inch, so it must have been the same.

    Mesh is graded by the size of the items that pass through it, not by the number of wires per inch.

    Market grade mesh of 180 has holes to pass items 0,0033" and

    Market grade mesh of 200 has holes to pass items 0.0029"

    There are different scales, but Market Grade is what we have been dealing with here.

    Check the rightmost columns at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_(scale)

    I received mesh of both grades and the 180 has about 78.4 wires per inch and the grade 200 has about 80 wires per inch.

    The size of the wires were slightly different. The 180 uses 55 micron wire and the 200 uses 50 micron wire.

    I doubt that those meshes differ much unless it would be in the quality of the nickel used. Both sources claimed high grade mesh.

    Burnishing them with Palladium was much easier after they were roughened up with sandpaper.

    Deneum's use of Nitrogen to purge their system was impressive and very professional.

    Most people probably shouldn't try this experiment without a mass spectrometer or Residual Gas Analyzer so that they can "see" what is happening.

    Our team's plan is to purge using D2 and repeating the purges until the Residual Gas Analyze says that the system is clean.

    We will report how many repetitions it takes so that others can gauge how long it takes if they choose to not use the mass spec. or RGA.


    There seem to be dozens of teams or individuals preparing replication. If replication turns out to be easy, one of them will be reporting success. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be very sensitive to parameters such as the brand of Palladium used, then it may be awhile before success is achieved. The Pd that Deneum used had Cyrillic lettering and the Estonian language uses Roman letters. Is the Deneum Pd from Russia?

    Everyone so far has varied from the original. Is anyone here planning to do an exact duplicate including the calorimeter and the $400 set of Pd mesh from TM?

    Should I wait for the official Mizuno mesh hand rubbed by himself?

    Should I construct an identical calorimeter just in case it is part of what makes the R20 work?

    Will there be any more information coming from TM?

    Is he working on a replicate himself? Any chance we get to see a video of it being constructed like the video Deneum made?

    Is the Pd in the chuck a recommendation to take the mesh and rub it against a turning piece of Pd?

    I am getting conflicting messages. Some say they can not proceed unless more info is made available. Others appear to have enough (info) to proceed on with their attempted replication.

    So which is it?

    I am on the edge of deciding either way. If I were really convinced, I would plan on making six units and order that expensive Turbomolecular Combo sited above. As it is, I have ordered enough second-hand equipment and supplies to give it a try. If the second-hand pump doesn't work I will either try to rebuild it myself from a kit or send it in to have someone else rebuild it. I want to look at the Pd on the mesh with a microscope and see how it looks. If more information were available, I would be more enthusiastic. If the picture of Mizuno's unit in front of the fireplace were plugged in and had Bob Greenyer warming his back while giving two thumbs up, that would cause me to become more excited.

    the equations are incorrect. They should be:

    Generation of Deuterium Gas

    Mass D2O = 100 ml * 1.107 g/ml = 110.7 grams

    Molar mass D2O = 20.0276 g/mole

    Moles D2O = 110.7 g / 20.0276 g/mole =5.53 moles

    One mole D2O is equivalent with a volume of 22.4 liter D2O vapour

    5.53 Moles equal 5.53 x 22.4 = 123.87 liters of D2O vapour

    D2O gas <=> 1 (D2 gas) + 0.5 (O2 gas)

    1 mole gas <=> 1.5 mole gas

    mole ratio = 1.5

    The volume of the elemental gases is: Volume D2O gas x mole ratio = 123.87 liter x 1.5 = 185.8 liter or 123.9 liter D2 gas and 61.9 liter O2

    gas are formed by electrolysis.

    The average price of 100 ml heavy water 99% is about 120 USD, hence one liter of Deuterium gas (after electrolysis) for amateur fusioneer

    use costs about 0.969 USD.


    Palladium is a precious metal that has long been used as an alternative to gold electroplating. When combined with nickel — a material known for its corrosion resistance — the resulting alloy resists stress and heat in many heavy-duty applications.

    While palladium on its own is often viewed as an acceptable alternative to gold plating or platinum plating because of its lower cost and greater hardness of the deposit, palladium is not without its challenges. Perhaps the most prevalent issue is because palladium is more stressed than gold, it is more susceptible to cracking. Developing a palladium nickel alloy is an effective way to reduce the stress of the deposit, particularly in heavy-wear applications. The typical palladium nickel alloy consists of a palladium deposit in the range of 70 to 80 percent and around 20 to 30 percent nickel.

    Might be an interesting option in the future.

    I am looking into the option of Palladium only on nickel mesh. Obtaining a quote.

    Remember as well that there were two previous cruciform experiments under the title of Excess Heat form Palladium Deposited on Nickel (J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 29 (2019) 1-12) where it is stated:

    1. Summary of Old Results

    1.1. Old Method

    A reactor with a cruciform shape was first used in this project (Fig. 1). It weighs 50 kg. Later, a 20-kg versions of this reactor were used, as well as cylindrical reactors. All have palladium rods in the center.

    In other words, we are dealing with a history of larger and smaller reactors all of whom contained palladium rods in the various configurations. Presumably the larger reactors had larger palladium rods and might be the source of the rod being used to burnish the nickel mesh in the R20. Cold Fusion is often a history of 'good' and 'bad' palladium. MFMP's Bob Greenyer is supposed to get some of us the Official Mizuno Mesh burnished with Official Mizuno Palladium. I have not gotten an update on this. Has anyone else heard anything?

    It could be I'm getting confused by having skimmed the papers too quickly however.

    The fact that we cannot identify the exact place that it was used in the past is of less concern than the fact that the Pd rod being used is definitely seen at least one past battle and shows the resultant wounds and scars. (Wounds from being wound?)

    Anybody that has tried to replicate LENR experiments knows that if the past predicts the future, the chances of success are slim. As a result, we are all looking for the reason that our replication might fail.

    Pounding endlessly on the calorimetry hasn't show any signs of success (or should I say 'signs of failure'). I am convinced that there is at least one R20 unit working in Japan. That I will be able to reproduce that R20 device given the information that I have is doubtful, however. But questions remain as well such as how the heater was bent and subsequently positioned? The question now under discussion is "How was the Palladium Rod pre-treated?" Even if the "pre-treatment" was unintended and simply due to reuse of a valuable piece of metal left over from a previous trial.

    I wonder if he rubs the tip on the mesh? My guess, yes.

    I wonder if he rubs the length of the rod on the mesh? My guess, possibly.

    Re annealing: I would guess, emphasis on guess, you are correct dartin.

    Perhaps the funny little handle in the rod is actually where the screw attached the referenced high-current wire to the rod. It is the portion to the right of that that seems to be scarred by a wire winding upon it.

    My mistakes Jed. Thank you for clarifying these things. Electroless deposition not sputtering.

    The rod seems to have both concentric notching and a nodule almost drip-like. Any idea how it came be that way?

    I agree with your observation. It appears that on the right end of the rod, there might have been wire wrapped around it. There is a Pd rod mentioned on page 5 of the 2107 paper that states:

    There is a Pd rod to supply high voltage current under the heater, and a thin wire is wound around it.Could this rod used in the 2017 experiment be the same rod that is now being used to burnish the nickel mesh?

    This might imply that the rod has been preprocessed in some ways. Annealed?

LENR Partners