Posts by can

    Where's everyone gone?

    Personally I'm for the most part playing the lottery with different materials and experimental conditions (electrolysis) than Mizuno, following Edmund Storms' suggestions from his papers, so what I'm doing isn't really in-topic for this thread. Storms believes that a Mizuno-style burnished material may produce energy in an electrolytic cell as well.

    I'm not geared to measure any heat in the watt–few-watts range but if it works it might produce low-level radiation emission which I could detect with a Geiger counter. Since a few weeks ago in different experimental attempts I found it to be sensitive to air flows due to charged radioactive particles from Radon progeny accumulating on its exposed high voltage portions, this time I put it inside a well-closed plastic box that is not exposed to any air flow.

    I found out recently that Storms had something similar occurring as well and he reported it in one of his papers in 2012. As an air flow calorimeter is used in the original Mizuno R20 experiment which might circulate air around any radiation detector in the environment, this could be an in-topic observation.

    Excerpt from

    I interpreted what Alan said about 'glassy' to mean that it is slippery, which is why it doesn't transfer the Pd. He also uses the words 'rather than abrasive', which do tend to confirm that, I think.

    I meant that of the two categories suggested by Alan Smith, the oxides formed from Fe/carbon steel as described in my case seem to be of the abrasive type rather than glassy and slippery as possibly observed by Storms from NiO.

    It's a rather thin layer. When I tried a similar procedure on a CuNi-Ni coin piece (I couldn't get it higher than 600°C, visually), it formed an apparently thicker blue-black layer similar to what Storms reports for his Ni sheet. Hard to tell if it's more slippery than the clean portions though. I'd like to try on a Ni sheet at some point.


    I thought the keyword here was "apparently" i.e. that it makes it look "as if"; but also that it might not necessarily be the case and this would need to be studied ("explored") more in detail. I'm not familiar enough with Storms' papers to know if he weights words this way, but other researchers seemingly do, so I might be reading too much into the text.

    In any case, the oxide formed on the surface of my Fe samples (after heating up to about 650-700°C in a reducing oxidizing (EDIT: blue-looking, "lean". Wiki) flame and quenching in water a few times) is definitely more of an abrasive nature, along what Alan Smith suggests above.

    I read that Storms heated a piece of Ni mesh to blue ie noteable thickness of NiO. He found it impossible to transfer Pd, even though he rubbed the crap out of it. As though the oxide layer acts like a lubricant, preventing the galling action. Also, judging by AlanG's awesome s.e.m., presumably the NiO layer also gets mixed up with the Pd too.

    Did he actually mean that? I read/interpreted that as the NiO layer getting removed by the procedure and the loss of material counterbalancing the deposition of Pd, making it look as if no Pd has been transferred.

    In his predictions further in the text (paper here) he writes that a sufficiently thick oxide layer on the NiO would make the material more active and suggests that other oxide-forming materials could be used as the substrate. If transferring Pd was impossible with NiO, why would he suggest this?

    I thought that to be consistent with what I observed in my tests, although I used different materials. The oxide layer formed by flame heating the substrate was significantly rougher than the starting surface and seemingly made burnishing the other material easier. Most of the oxide layer fell off in the process, which I'm assuming would cause a weight loss (without a microbalance it would be difficult to tell, however).

    For what it's worth I tried doing what I wrote earlier and applied and dried a saturated potassium carbonate solution on a flat steel piece. I noticed a few things:

    • Applying heat too quickly will cause water to evaporate vigorously and the formation of low-density bubbly carbonate deposits that in general make a mess. So, heat must be applied gently so that water slowly evaporates.
    • After a short period of exposure to the atmosphere (humidity 65-70% at the moment) the piece becomes moist and burnishing other materials becomes rather difficult. This is likely due to the hygroscopicity of the carbonate solution, but possibly also to the large amount applied.
      • Similar results whether the carbonate was dried at high temperature or low temperature.
    • From a quick search, all alkali carbonates and alkaline earth carbonates are hygroscopic, it seems, but I don't know if some tend to be more hygroscopic than others.
      • EDIT: Alkali carbonates in particular are deliquescent, which is a slightly different phenomenon than hygroscopicity. I guess I never exposed large enough amounts of it in the atmosphere before in order to observe it.
    • I can't rule out catalytic effects of the metal surface onto which the carbonate has been applied as suggested by magicsound above.

    All of this may or may not apply to the Ni-Pd mesh with CaCO3 residues.

    EDIT: in the end I still managed to burnish some material even with this moist layer. It took some effort as it was slippery. No idea if the same embedding and shattering (probably more like "spreading" in this case) would occur under these conditions.


    If burnishing wet won't produce the same results, it could also be tried after heat-drying the concentrated carbonate solution, which should form a uniform white layer on the surface of the substrate used. I suggested Al or Cu because they're easily burnished soft metals, from a few tests I attempted in the past few days.

    The prolonged preliminary cycles of vacuum-heating might then serve to decompose the carbonates into their oxides. With the Mizuno procedure eventually CaO-Pd layers might be formed. The Iwamura group used such materials in their LENR transmutation experiments.

    If this was the case, using higher temperatures during that part of the process would speed up the decomposition.


    Now the photos work. They show interesting results. It looks like some of the carbonates are being embedded together with Pd.

    How lengthy is to run a SEM analysis like this? I'm curious to see what would happen if the burnishing was performed with the substrate wetted with or immersed in a concentrated carbonate solution. This could be done as a preliminary inexpensive test with Al or Cu on a steel surface using any carbonate you have at disposal.

    If it works better towards embedding more of the stuff into the burnished layer it could also have the advantage of being less hazardous due to the significantly reduced amount of airborne dust particles.

    A suggestion along these lines has been added in the supplementary document, but not with a carbonate solution:


    Preparing Meshes Underwater

    Several people have recommended sanding and preparing meshes underwater, in a tray full of water. This prevents nickel nanoparticles from escaping into the air. It is probably safer. However, it is not clear whether this will affect the outcome of the experiment.…or-heats-room-in-sapporo/


    [...] But if replications confirm the kilowatt effect, funding won’t be a problem, and Prof. Mizuno isn’t waiting around. He’s put reactors that he calls HIKOBOSHI in the hands of users, for other labs to independently test.

    "I rented and sold 12 CF furnaces to Japan and overseas. They are collecting data and having a lot of data, I am going to announce the data."

    It seems implied that they are R20 reactors (which he nicknamed "Hikoboshi"), but it's not 100% clear from the interview. From his comment about them collecting data and him announcing it at some point, I assumed that they were already informally confirmed to have reproduced his results.


    Surely more advanced methods than elbow grease will exist for achieving similar results. The burnishing I believe was intended to be a very accessible, low-cost alternative to them. Mizuno used it in alternative to an expensive Pd plating solution he used in previous experiments. on page 12:


    In the tests reported in this paper, the nickel meshes were prepared by rubbing rather than electroless deposition, to save money. The plating solution is expensive.

    In any case a possible question related to the ideas suggested by Storms is why would the extensive surface cleaning mandated by Mizuno be necessary if the reaction occurs within cracks/voids developed at the interface between the substrate and the burnished material(s), which should be relatively well isolated from the external environment.

    Storms suggested these metals not as burnishing but as burnished as an alternative to Ni mesh

    "Other metals that form hydrides, such as Rh, Ti, Zr, or Hf, should cause LENR when used as the burnished material"

    Ni on its own doesn't normally form hydrides, but does oxidize easily. Pd easily forms hydrides, but does not oxidize easily. Why would Storms write as follows if he meant the ones you listed to be in alternative to Ni?


    1. Use of Ni that has been slightly oxidized by being heated in air to a temperature sufficient to cause thickening of the oxide layer will be more nuclear active than clean Ni

    3. Use of other metals that form an oxide surface layer, such as Ag, Cu, Ti, and Fe, will be suitable as a substrate to which Pd is applied

    While access permissions in the version uploaded in the opening post are in the process of getting fixed, I can upload the version I was forwarded earlier (see attached).

    Relationship between the burnishing (final).pdf

    Basing on his ideas on the NAE (nuclear-active environment) and experience, Storms makes interesting predictions in his paper on pages 4-5, some of which might make, if verified, iterating through different materials suitable for a Mizuno analogue much simpler and cheaper:

    Edmund Storms wrote:


    1. Use of Ni that has been slightly oxidized by being heated in air to a temperature sufficient to cause thickening of the oxide layer will be more nuclear active than clean Ni.
    2. Use of Ni sheet rather than a mesh will increase the effectiveness of the process by increasing the surface area of the deposited Pd.
    3. Use of other metals that form an oxide surface layer, such as Ag, Cu, Ti, and Fe, will be suitable as a substrate to which Pd is applied.
    4. Application of surface layers other than oxide to the substrate can be expected to improve the effectiveness of the process.
    5. Other metals that form hydrides, such as Rh, Ti, Zr, or Hf, should cause LENR when used as the burnished material.
    6. Use of softer alloys of Pd, such as Pd-Li, are expected to produce a more effective burnished layer compared to pure Pd. This alloy might also be more effective because it is more reactive to hydrogen than pure Pd.
    7. Burnished Pd can be expected to produce LENR when used as the cathode during electrolysis and gas discharge, as well as when the gas loading method of Mizuno is used

    I found interesting that he suggests slightly oxidized materials (1) in the form of sheets (2) as the substrate, that a possible substrate material could be Fe (3), and that not necessarily surface layers in the form of oxides (4) can work as inclusions that might be included when burnishing a secondary software materials. By using a flame-heated substrate like he does to obtain a NiO-covered sheet that he will test his hypotheses with, not just oxides but also carbon impurities might be added in the process, which I thought still would fulfill point 4.

    It almost sounds like one could use flame-heated plain steel as a substrate, which according to some sources (e.g. here, see excerpts below) would have the advantage of having a higher permeability to hydrogen than Ni.

    Tadahiko Mizuno suggests this to be a more important characteristic than hydrogen loading itself (solubility).

    Permeability, not high loading, is necessary

    The results in Table 1 suggest that high permeability is necessary for excess heat, but high loading is not. On the contrary, high loading apparently reduces excess heat.

    Nickel subjected to the treatment described in this paper can be loaded much higher than pure nickel [2]. This appears to be a necessary condition to produce excess heat. However, it also appears that it is not highly load ed deuterium itself, but rather the ability to load (permeability) that is necessary.

    However point (5) in Storms' list seems to be in contrast with the above from Mizuno. Besides, palladium at the temperatures and especially pressure range used in the R19 and R20 reactors shouldn't be forming hydride phases.

    The possible process Storms describes for NAE preparation would be the almost the opposite approach of keeping materials perfectly clean. If the samples will show excess heat under electrolysis in his subsequent test (to be performed), then that might be an argument against keeping conditions ultra-purified.

    It depends on what you want to achieve: For good initial hydrogen loading you need a clean surface. But afterward for a good NAE we cannot exclude that oxygen can be a help. But without a clear, reproducible protocol you will never know when/why it worked.

    He's actually going to test his hypothesis using a NiO-covered sample and one that is not, so we'll know soon enough.

    In any case, since the paper "May be quoted freely with attribution" I'm quoting it in its entirety and attribute it to Edmund Storms.

    Relationship between the burnishing process used by Mizuno and the Storms theory of NAE formation

    Edmund Storms

    Kiva Labs, Santa Fe, NM (8/1/19)

    For what it's worth, from a few tests with different materials I did today, burnishing will be much easier on a slightly oxidized surface. The surface oxides are very hard and will bite through the piece. Although for different reasons, Storms also seems to suggest that an oxidized surface will work better in the document he's prepared on his thoughts on the process that I've been forwarded by a contact with access to the CMNS group. It looks like Storms hasn't posted it yet on LENR-Forum—he promised preparing one earlier.

    Not all the literature. The formation of Rydberg matter of H at the surface of a metal such as Ni requires a low pressure. Actually it is best formed exactly at the pressure levels recommended by Mizuno. Hardly a coincidence IMHO.

    A high pressure may OTOH be required when the metal has to be loaded in order to have desorption of H in cracks within the metal, in other words at internal metal surfaces. Loading/unloading cycles may not only create cracks but also create a low pressure environment in cracks.

    For what it's worth (I realize few subscribe to his theories), Leif Holmlid often saw increased Rydberg matter production after a prolonged period of operation at a low pressure in his UHV chamber also thanks to catalytic hydrocarbon cracking on the surface of his catalysts. The graphite islands formed there, which eventually became visible in the form of an easily removed dark surface layer, apparently in some instances were the spots where Rydberg matter emission would be the most intense. Holmlid often used a diffusion vacuum pump which tends to dirty up the chamber with pump oils more than other vacuum pump types.

    So the state of the foreline trap (if used) or for example of the mesh itself after a prolonged period under dynamic vacuum conditions might be worth examining in Mizuno's reactors, as catalytic cracking of any volatile hydrocarbon will also occur on these meshes and as—I suspect—possibly more of them will get volatilized the lower the vacuum level reached and the more prolonged the operating period under such conditions is.

    Attached excerpts from:

    Today I summarily cleaned the jar and electrodes and started a new run with low amounts of demineralized water, allowing water to evaporate until the carbon anode tip (from a depleted zinc-carbon battery) got too worn to continue. At the end of the test the steel portion of the anode were making contact with the copper cathode, and that's where I stopped it.

    The DC resistance of the electrodes and coil was measured to be about 1.1 Ohm, with supply voltage still in the 11.8-12.0V range.

    I think the sparks got less easily occurred, dimmer and more on the yellow-orange side when the water started approaching boiling temperature. It got darker probably from dissolved iron ions and carbon particles from the anode tip. At some point, around minute 10:00, I started assisting the process by manually rotating it to an orientation that seemed more favorable to the spark discharge process.

    Afterwards, after adjusting electrode tip length one last time following the previous run, I made another run until the previously used water (filled with anode electrode impurities) evaporated completely. The brightest sparks occurred from the moist carbon tip when water evaporated almost completely or completely.

    Along the way I manually adjusted the positioning of the anode either for avoiding the steel parts to touch the cathode or optimize spark generation.

    Now I'm out of carbon tips, but I should have a few proper graphite electrodes in a few days. Still, I don't think significant results will occur until I will be able to use a significantly higher voltage. However I'm not really geared / prepared for that. I'd need a new coil too.

    So far I haven't observed a direct effect of the experimentation on Geiger counter readings. Since I put the counter outside the Cu tube it is now showing daily swings, so discerning a real signal from the background is made even more difficult.

    * * *

    EDIT: for what it's worth, As a quick test I added trace amounts of 1M KOH solution close to anode contact point with the copper cathode, to finish it off. In some instances it showed quite bright results that I'm not sure would have been accomplished just with the carbon tip alone.

    Spark generated from the carbon tip were clearly different from those occurring from the steel anode parts.

    A photo of the now unusable tip. It's not visible here, but it's cracked in half.

    From a source I've read hydrocarbons for example from the foreline trap / vacuum pump oil always exist in a (= the source's UHV chamber, at least) vacuum environment and may decompose/crack on hot catalytic surfaces in the chamber, forming an easily removed carbon/graphite covering that can eventually become visible over prolonged periods. I wonder if the prolonged deep vacuum cycles mandated for these and similar experiments (which I argue would make this more likely) actually have an effect of promoting this phenomenon.

    Alan Smith

    Boiling is very easily achieved right now, but when that happens a few things take place:

    • The carbon particles produced become agitated and suspended by the boiling, making it very difficult to tell what's going on besides acoustically. The solution becomes completely black and very little light can be seen filtering out.
    • Near boiling temperature the electrical conductivity of the solution increases and electrolysis does too. This would produce H2-O2 bubbles (in addition to CO and CO2 from the carbon arcs) which to some extent will leave the cell, in some other get adsorbed in the porous carbon-metal particles produced, and in another keep the water gasified / oxygenated.

    EDIT: I made a very short test to show how the particles become suspended after a cold start. Near boiling or after stirring the jar, the solution becomes much more opaque.

    The jar in this test had a cap on the top which immobilized the anode and made it perform suboptimally, by the way,