SindreZG - can you tell us anything about the reasoning why Norront chose muon-catalysted fusion for energy production in MK1, rather than attempting direct energy production from the charged particles?
I am reading up on the history of LENR, slowly going through the papers at LENR-CANR step by step.
A question for those of you with longer background — If we disregard the size of the output and only focus on the repeatability rate,
which experiments do you know of that reported a high repeatability rate?
Oh, I dont know what to say. I wanted to be helpful.
If my posts are problematic and unwanted then I will stop writing. I have nothing to loose.
Simply I am unable to post the plot because I am not at work.
Please continue posting 👍
I added some information from Saito et al., including a schematic of the equipment, and calibrations and excess heat tests at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. See pages 6 - 12:
One question: doesn’t the output power graph of the 72W calibration run look weird with a decreasing slope?
In the photos of the R20 reactor, it looks like the electrical feedthrough has a single conductor, is that correct?
I assume then the heater was powered with DC and the other heater wire was grounded to the steel reactor?
This week can be interesting for Swedish Saltx.
I guess we get news from the Berlin project.
Why do you think there will be news this week? (I cant find anything about that in the links)
Mizuno’s tests – Inconsistencies in the spreadsheets of the 120 W runs of May 2016
I hope, the following jpeg better explains the serious inconsistencies which are present in the spreadsheets of the May 2016 tests:
What do you say about Ascoli's first point JedRothwell (that there is a discrepancy between the values of V and I in the control vs. the active runs for the 120 W tests)?
We can see that Ascoli is correct in the literal sense (the spreadsheets are online and the values differs as he says), but maybe it doesn’t matter, or there is some reason for them to differ? What is your standpoint here?
One other departure by Zhang from the protocol was not yet mentioned. His soak at 90°C was done with DI water rather than tap water (pg. 16 of his report). I reported earlier that the use of tap water in the mesh preparation as specified by Mizuno leaves a considerable quantity of Calcite crystals on the mesh, which are subsequently incorporated into the Pd deposited by burnishing.
I have added an SEM/EDS image showing this behavior to my live doc:
Whether this is significant to the experiment is unknown, but it seems worth further discussion.
Good observation. The list of variables that might influence the reaction is of course long, but this one (soaking in tap water vs. DI water) is at least straightforward to test for replicators.
Another variable we previous discussed is the reactor chamber material. In the 2017 Mizuno paper it is specified as SS316, but it isn’t specified in the 2019 (R20) paper. I think it would be very valuable to get a confirmation of the type of steel used for the R20 reactor just to remove this from the list of unknown variables (if it turns out R20 was made of different steel than R19, that opens up a new set of questions...)
Interesting situation regarding the airspeed data.
Jed tells us the values are recorded from an anemometer.
Ascoli & THH shows us the values correlate so well with the power measurements that it seem unlikely that they represent measurements of another physical variable.
I believe Jed is honest. But Ascoli & THH's argument is strong. I mean, in my experience it's often hard to make two measurements of the same physical variable give such closely correlated results. Real world data is messy.
In the end this is a "storm in a teacup" – it doesn't change the fact that the measured excess heat is very interesting. And I hope the examination and debate continues.
Can you come up with any conceivable reason why Mizuno would do this with such a weird, unphysical equation, representing nothing in the real world? No, of course you can't.
Again, from Mizuno’s 2017 article (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTpreprintob.pdf):
The wind velocity at the flow meter was estimated by semi empirical Eq. (5).
V = A exp(-Wb/w) + B; (5)
where A is a constant, -3.7; B = 4; w = 1.375; Wb is the blower input (W);
There is no secrecy.
The heater runs along the central axis.
The heater Jed stated that Mizuno uses is 2 meters long. We don't know how it is mounted (e.g. is the whole length inside the reactor...? any turns? etc).
So I agree there is no "secrecy" around the heater, but some more info around how it is mounted would be good to be able to replicate it.
To everyone: Please stay on topic and stop posting ill-intended distractions like that.
Moderators: Time to up your game. Unfortunately, forums like these become unbearable if you don’t force people to stay on topic.
The only good thing is that the crucial new element that Mizuno used (introduced) for the high performance is not in the patent! And for those skilled in the art & physics this means that an important step for high performance LENR is public and free to use for everybody!
Which "crucial new element" do you refer to?