Why do you assume this was our only data?
I don't assume these were your only data. Just the opposite. Many times over the past year you have assured me that you have lots more and that you wish to make them public. I believe you. That is why I am encouraging you go ahead and do it.
Misfire?
Yes. As I pointed out at the time (here), the steady-state power vs temperature plot you displayed in slide 6 of your ICCF-24 presentation shows no indication at all that excess power depends exponentially on temperature. Moreover the low-temperature behaviour of the reactor/oven system as shown in that plot is strange. Extrapolating to zero input power seems to indicate that when the control reactor (i.e., with no active mesh) has no input it sits at 50C or higher. Which seems ridiculous. Put this together with the fact that you are claiming to show a COP of only 1.08 in that slide (the only slide in that presentation containing empirical results that were said to support your claims of excess heat) and I would say that the presentation is far from the sort of persuasive argument you would like it to be. In other words, a misfire.
I expect that all these things have some explanation and indeed you yourself said that more results were upcoming which would be better, clearer, more trustworthy, etc. Those results have not yet appeared and that is why I am encouraging you to keep working to make them public.
Bruce all claims are 100% supported by third parties and that has nothing to do with the situation at MTI. Mizuno and I have a good, positive relationship and I will continue to support and assist him in any way I can.
Good to hear.
I continue to encourage you make public the supporting evidence you mention. If you have a good case to make, then make it. Doing so would do nothing but good for your own efforts as well as Mizuno's. Your ICCF-24 presentation as is a misfire so far as empirical evidence is concerned, and that is a shame.
Daniel_Gはもはやミズノテクノロジーズ株式会社で働いていません。
Over the past 2 years, on this forum and in public presentations, Daniel_G has made a number of claims regarding excess heat measured from reactors equipped with meshes based on Mizuno's discoveries. Does Mizuno Technologies Corp. support these claims as accurate?
Old stuff
[ ... is creating flux ...]
US5942206 is interesting but not relevant here because the concentration technique is said to depend critically on an impermeable surface layer trapping the deuterium inside the palladium lattice (so that deuterium at the hot end cannot just diffuse out of the lattice and must therefore diffuse towards the cold end). No such coatings anywhere in the Mizuno-style preparations so far as I know.
After going back over this thread to track what Daniel_G was saying in early 2021, I believe that he did claim to evoke LENR heating using the standard R20-style mesh in an "incubator" oven which delivers uniform heating from outside the reactor. This contrasts with the comments of me356 who says that he obtains LENR heat using using a heater located along the axial centreline of the reactor. As Alan Smith mentioned earlier, Mizuno also claimed success with a centrally placed heater.
Based on all this, I think that my previous observation stands ... if me356 and Daniel_G's accounts are both correct, temperature gradients probably don't play much of role in initiating excess heating, I understand the point that once heating is ignited in various parts of the mesh it could lead to local temperature gradients that may amplify or sustain excess heat. But the problem magicsound is faced with is initiating the behaviour, and I don't see much indication that temperature gradients will play a role in this.
You took part in the discussion, but for other members information, nickec started a thread about that Mizuno style reactors WITHOUT precious metals...by Nickec
The problem with the new thread is that Daniel_G has indicated that all details about meshes that produce excess heat without the use of precious metals are confidential. So the thread is bound to be nothing but speculation.
In contrast, Daniel_G has been plain that Mizuno regards information about his experiments involving the R20-style meshes to be openly available. It was even said that raw data files from 2020-21 experiments were to be posted. That hasn't happened yet, but it might.
And here is a picture Daniel_G posted, also in February 2021*, of reactors inside the incubator. Note the large heating coil sitting between the reactors and the fan situated at the top of the oven cavity to promote even heat distribution.
*Note added in edit: Sorry, my error. The picture is taken from a post dated February 2022. But to my knowledge the oven used is still the same one as described a year earlier as an "incubator" in February 2021.
As far as I know there was nothing said about incubator until last year.
A link to a post from February 2021, discussing the oven (referred to as and "incubator") used in experiments carried out in late 2020 and throughout 2021.
Hi Bruce. You misunderstood me. I do not use the same meshes as I’ve been working with a new generation reactor design. Apples and oranges. I am using the zero precious metal design so it’s not unexpected to see differences.
I am confused. In 2020 and 2021 a series of experiments were carried out by Mizuno and allies which were said, on this thread, to use an "incubator" oven for heating. I thought that these involved a mesh prepared more or less as described by Mizuno and Rothwell in their 2018 paper. No mention was made of a zero precious metals formulation then. Indeed, I don't recall any mention of a zero precious metals mesh until half way through 2022.
Are you saying that the results discussed by you, here, in 2021 making use of an incubator-style heater used only the new advanced meshes?
Simply hydrogen must circulate throught the reactor. This is what makes COP high or low.
Why do you think that the gas inside your reactor acts this way? Have you modelled it out? Or had situations in which hydrogen did not circulate throughout the reactor and in which you saw a correspondingly low COP?
You have to achieve this flow inside the reactor.
The arrows appear represent a flow of rarified gas established by heat gradients within the reactor.
It seems to be the longitudinal component of the flow that is most important because it is then a flow down the long axis of the cylinder of mesh that is pressed up against the walls. Is that right
Daniel_G 's claims of increased excess heat from evenly heated reactors are based on experiments he says he has actually carried out using "incubator" style ovens.
Have you actually measured the temperature gradients you say are needed for promoting excess heat generation? Are they axial gradients? Longitudinal ones? I expect that a longitudinal gradient would be relatively straightforward for Magicsound to create given his reactor design.
Mizuno also claimed that heat flow from a central element was a critical factor back in 2020/21.
Well I wonder what he would say now. Since 2021 Daniel_G who works under Mizuno's aegis, has been claiming that heating in an "incubator" oven gives improved results. No central heating element at all there.
I am attempting to understand how the claims of me356 and of Daniel_G fit together. They both claim reliable excess heat generation from Mizuno-style meshes. But me356 stresses that heat gradients inside the reactor are important for best results because this results in convective movement of (highly rarified) D2 gas across the mesh whereas, in contrast, Daniel_G emphasizes that even heat distribution is best for excess heat generation. To establish his desired steep heat gradient, me356 uses an internal heater centralized inside the rolled-up mesh in the reactor. Daniel_G does just the opposite -- he says he finds his best results when the reactor is sitting inside what is essentially a convection oven with very even heating throughout.
These two pictures seem to be at odds. If both me356 and Daniel_G really are achieving the results they claim then it seems to me that heat gradients really can't play much of a role after all.
It would also be nice to see an update from Daniel_G who was claiming much success with meshes prepared under Mizuno's supervision.
We should never accept a result that has not passed these tests. We shouldn't reject it either.
Hear, hear!
OK. The 5-year anniversary of the announcement of George's remarkable results is coming up this year. That will be a good time to look back how things have gone and at the state of play now. It deserves its own thread.
However, unless you think I'm lying it happened.
I don't think you are lying. But I think you may be mistaken.
In research it is easy to to be mistaken. You know that. That is why one is careful with procedures and equipment. That is why one repeats experiments. That is why one records and tests results in as many ways as possible. That is why one publishes results and hopes for robust expert review. And that is why one does everything possible to enable others to replicate results.
There is no account of any of Russ George's results on this score that is even close to being satisfactory. He needs to work a lot harder to convince people that he has truly accomplished even a tiny fraction of what he claims. And if you continue to act as some sort portal to George's results, as you have been doing, I think you need to work a lot harder to convince people that you have carefully evaluated all the evidence before you simply assert that something is true.
Because of the gamma bursts and temperature rises.
Yes. But how do you know about the gamma bursts and temperature rises?
Did you perform the experiments personally? Is it via a personal report from the person who performed the experiments? Did you view a written account with data? Has a written account of the findings been posted somewhere?
