I said simplicity of reactor, not cheapness of peripherals!
And my food has had rave reviews from a 2 star chef!!
On TV!!!
And I've got the DVDs to prove it!!!!
Anyway, to mix house keeping terminology, how's the post-element-change big bake and vac going?
But nuclear mass is not formed by potentials, its almost all defined by magnetic flux. It looks like any rotating mass with energy of about 1keV can attach to nuclear mass and cause a physical reaction. Thus there is no such thing as a coulomb barrier for LENR.
Is this accepted?
If it is, it's amazing.
We can make some awesome velodromes with the multi zillion i.c.u. (international currency unit) cyclotrons.
In what sense should I understand your use of the word "burnishing"?
I don't want to speak out of turn, but I would say very much the former rather than the latter.
Yes, the Mizuno method is one of several methods I can suggest that can or have worked. However, each is influenced by unknown variables that can make them difficult to reproduce without suitable efforts being made to understand and apply this understanding. In the case of Mizuno, the burnishing process is the important variable not the mesh.
Your knowledge of this field is far greater than mine, and if there are other methods that have worked as well as the Mizuno one, that is fine. I was under the impression that Mizuno's cop is the biggest that hasn't been shown to be a fraud. However, there are aspects of Mizuno's method that are very appealing. The elegant simplicity of the reactor, easy scaling up, heat produced in useable real world quantities at useful temperature.
I totally get that the mesh is not the vital factor here, and, in fact, if we look at the spectrum of parameters involved, it may be that the burnishing is not the key variable either. TM has said that a) he used burnishing as the appliction method because the other method of electroless plating was expensive due to high cost of solutions over base cost of metal content. b) The reason for the big increase in cop was nothing to do with the method of preparation, which was also used in R19, but is attributed to the heating of the R20 reactor from inside rather than outside.
It may well be that there is a coupling of the preparation, involving the use of tap water rather than the perhaps to be expected de ionised variety, with the burnishing, which we know causes intercalation of calcite with the Pd, and which also leaves the larger unpalladised area of the Ni mesh liberally populated with calcite. Were this to be a vital part of the series of conditions necessary, then the burnishing would be merely a coincident facilitator to the real ingredient.
My approach is that in view of the decades of effort that have gone into this area, not least by you, and the lack of reliable repeatability, then there is clearly something about it that is resisting analysis, and very effectively, too. For example, there is clearly a need to increase the number of active sites, which are highly likely to be related to grain characteristics, or morphology. It could be a very unfortunate coincidence that as the NAEs are generated by, in this case, thermal/pressure cycling at fairly modest temperatures, the instant there is the success of generated heat at somewhat higher temperatures, these will be enough to increase the grain size, thus reducing the number of sites, or compromising them in some way. However, there is no arguing with the magnitude of the Mizuno R20 result, so it needs to be focussed on in great detail imho. That is the main reason why I accept the mesh as a given in this situation. Not because I advocate the use of it, but because if something has worked, and you don't know why, the last thing you want to do is change any part of it without very clearly demonstrated reason. If we can find a system, it may well transpire that sheet is better, or foam, or nanowhiskers, or monocrystals or whatever. You can only say what is required when you know what is going on.
The vital thing with this type of analysis, obviously, is to fix as many things as you can. The analogy I choose is differential calculus. An obvious approach: fix everything, and see what happens as you vary one thing- simple; nice. A sheet of A4 and a biro, and you're sorted. But what if you haven't got the luxury of everything conveniently nailed down? If several things are in a state of flux, you can forget pen and paper, you're into Navier Stokes, a much higher level of maths, and a super computer. It may well be this type of mechanism that has made analysis and repeatability so illusive over the years. Coupled processes and the like. We may need to accept that what we 'know' or think we know, has more variability than we find convenient. This field has defied systemisation for so long that we may need to forget Nobel Prize-winning mechanisms, and just look at what has happened, and devise simple experiments to run the numbers of variables in order to see how Mizuno did something that worked. I can't see the logic in relying on known constants in a situation that is famous for not having many.
Right now it is apparently made by luck and an accidental combination of uncontrolled variables. These important variables need to be identified. Can we focus on this problem?
I am of the understanding that one of the best shots at 3. we will ever get, is to take the "lucky" Mizuno meshes, analyse the crap out of them, and work hard on the logic. So we are waiting for the analysis.
This does echo thoughts I was having the other day when I was reading a Storms article about finding a general mechanism for LENR.
In the past, I have often used the tactic that when researching one area, if you look to another, dealing with the same mechanisms but from a different objective, you can glean very good insight. I had just been reading in the field of corrosion- H2 embrittlement. An very similar but historically much more lavishly funded area of research, in which they accepted years ago that the field is too varied for a one fits all approach, and several mechanisms are at work. Which one is applicable depends on the particlar context in hand.
Oh, I forgot to mention a very important condition.
That's if the fast food joints will have them.
Anyway, I'm sure the original JR comment is a slur against all those nice people who work in fast food joints.
That is hilarious. There is some truth to it. But if we do that, what are the cosmologists supposed to do for a living? Work at a fast food joint?
Yes, or get a job any where else, like anyone else has to do. And from the crap I've seen in published papers over the years, they need to be joined by a lot of other 'professional scientists' too.
wouldn't more directly and more often cycle through pressure and temperature regimes that promote PdD formation and removal be advantageous?
Absolutely. I have been thinking this for a while.
I am sure I've read that trying to achieve the cycling in too large a step overstresses the forming active sites, and ruptures them, or at least forms them with dimensions which are too big. It therefore seems valid to cycle it more gently. Then, clearly, to avoid protracted time scales, the obvious thing to do is to cycle it more often. I have been thinking about a reactor that does this in a way that morphological changes can be monitored more easily. It's project name is R^3; Rapid Reaction Reactor. I will be using wire rather than mesh, and any ideas regarding morphology can be tried and easily, and cheaply, and quickly assessed.The object is to monitor changes by eg. 4 point resistance measurement. It is quick, cheap and accurate, and any grain boundary cleavage or similar morphology will result in an increase of electrical resistance. Any excess heat will, of course, also show up as a resistance increase, but this would not be permanent unlike the other type. Calorimetry will not be involved, this is an effect analysis with a large field of subjects. Anything that seems to be of interest can be simulated and investigated.
Where the Mizuno R 20 type core is pressure/temperature cycled once a day, R^3 will be able to go through maybe 6-10 cycles. This will mean that all the cycle parameters can be analysed in high resolution detail, and the most effective forms can be implemented much more quickly.
I am starting to think that in the light of the impending analysis of the Mizuno mesh, while people attempting replications is fine, it is probably a bit like playing a negative form of Russian Roulette with 117 chambers (to pick a random number). It is negative because here, one wants to pick the chamber with the round in it, as opposed to it meaning instant death. But there are many empty chambers. Maybe 117 is a high number, but it serves to illustrate the point. For me, the focus is on designing targetted experiments that will examine a parameter spectrum across any envisaged potential process or effect.
Mizuno himself has said that he is unsure of the accurate details of the mechanisms at play. It would be very convenient if he were to manage to produce a mesh that had similar properties to the famous R20 trio, then that would mean things are starting to get repeatable more easily-that the right areas are being closed in on. But the main thing is to target the forming of a system of reliable repeatability: high excess heat is brilliant, but likely to be sporadic until this can be done.
@Jed Rothwell, quoting Zhang wrote:
"Deuterium-filled gas 1.5 ml 0.3 MPa"
I saw that too. I just decided it was a typo as the numbers don't stack up. That is unless his reactor is 0.5ml, in which case you would need some good tweezers to load the mesh.
The mesh consists of regions were Pd can be deposited and regions were it can not be deposited, with no control over how much of each region exists in the material.
In view of the undeniable success of TM's R20, I am unable to agree with this approach, and would like some clarification.
This field is not led by predictive theory, it is ruled by the findings of the experimenter. There is some good QM argument, but it seems to provide precious little insight to help with practical matters.
With this in mind, I am of the opinion that the use of mesh has somewhat more to offer than mere thermal contact with the reactor walls. I have modelled it in CAD, and the TM preparation produces something like 10E7 elliptical sites. These are well defined, and cause the effect of areas where Pd is definitely applied, and also where it is definitely not. Due to the TM prep. method, the Pd is also intercalated with oxides of Ca, and almost unavoidably, Ni. TM's calculations indicate that the bulk of the D2 inventory is absorbed by the Ni rather than the Pd.
The mesh system therefore offers an excellent opportunity to analyse this interaction. SEM may show the creation of active sites, the NAEs of ES, which are detached from the palladised area, or it may show them to be totally associated only with the palladised area. It may well show a mixture, or idiosycratic 'hot spots' in random areas of the mesh. Either way, it is a wonderful chance to observe and deduce.
The way forward here, imho, is going to be simple logic. To form a logical bridge that runs from material aquisition all the way to the density and location of active sites. This will be led by analysis of the successful material in any way that can be done. The more information, the better.
The atom can not see the mesh: true. But the atom ( or whatever part thereof), from my understanding of the labours of ES and others, is contained in large numbers, in a well of tightly defined geometry. So the mesh, because of its heterogeneous nature, surely offers a brilliant opportunity to study the combination of circumstances which can lead to the production of these sites. It may give us nothing, but with the success of TM's reactor, I fail to see how the mesh can not give us useful, if not vital, information.
Sure, there's all kinds of parameter-spread experiments that can be done, and it will be productive and rewarding to do them.
First though. for me, we need to find in as high resolution detail as possible just exactly what occurred around the R20 mesh, so we can logic out what may have happened, and thus be able to target them more reliably.
Lets hope that the lab will liaise with TM and get some really relevant and copious data.
The results are so large that quibbles over calorimetry don't exist.
Nicely put.
Regarding your mention of sceptics, I don't give a flying toss about them.
They can sceptic off to the bottom of a sceptic pit in sceptic land.
The data in Mizuno's paper are loud and clear.
The calorimetry is far more exacting than it needs to be.
Following the analysis, I can't wait to get started working on the logic of how to develop a system of repeatability.
Mizuno has put this on a whole new plateau which is a stone's throw away from real world useful kit.
If the R20 had been repeated, then it would have been said that it will only be worthwhile when it is proven to be re repeatable, and quite rightly so. Mizuno would then have had to make more meshes to prove he could repeat his own results. Something that Mizuno himself may well admit is no certainty. (Not presuming to speak for him, of course). He probably will make more meshes that perform. So we may as well make the forward step now anyway because it makes no odds. Even if R20 had been repeated 10 times in front of the World President, it would still be no guarantee that it could be repeated again. So until we can learn how these results can be systematically repeated they will remain a wonderful one off anyway.
The figures are good. Let's proceed.
Following our little tete a tete yesterday, it appears that Jed realised there were anomalies and decided to seek clarification.
I am glad the outcome was positive. We are here to make progress, not rail at eachother.
Re the analysis, I suppose if we start to ask questions, the lab concerned may well say "look, we are doing this pro bono, so we will do what the hell we think is best". Which would, to a large extent, be fair comment.
Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a bit of a discussion about how would be best to go about this. You don't get too many opportunities like this to get top analysis done on something important, without which you would be fishing in the dark- a full on investigation like this is a bit like AlanG's SEM but turbo and supercharged, and running on nitro! (Please forgive the analogy deeply rooted in fossil fool technology).
The following are my own suggestions for discussion, I am not trying to call the shots or anything like that.
I agree that doing several analyses of areas of the mesh would be desirable from the point of view of knowing how consistent it is, but I would have thought that as it is mass produced, and from wire that has been drawn from billet to 0.05mm, the metallic content of the Ni wire would be fairly consistent. Also, for me, finding unnatural isotopic ratios is evidence after the fact, rather than before it. I would be more interested in what is present, intercalation wise, in the palladated areas. There is much evidence of the involvement of oxides, which may well be a crucial catalytic influence. There has been previous occasion where, regarding purity of the Pd, Rh present as a contaminant has meant the difference between excess heat and not. At least that is what was reported, so clearly knowing exactly what is there would be an opportunity not to be missed at this important juncture. Jed has already made intimations to this end, but here is a chance to nail it good and proper.
Also, Mizuno calculated that of the D2 inventory, the Pd absorbed only a small fraction of it, most was taken by the Ni. At least as important as chemical analysis, is physical analysis. Mizuno's D2 calcs may well indicate that he has generated a situation in which Ni is able to absorb D2 at sites separate from Pd. SEM of varying magnification both of, and between adjacent palladated sites would give an insight into where the NAEs have formed/been generated. There seems to be a good body of evidence that where they form they locally melt, or majorly thermally transform the metal they form in. So this type of analysis would also give a good idea of how consistent is the population of sites, stats. of where they have a higher likelihood of forming, how closely are they related to Pd etc. All this is potentially vital information in understanding the processes involved.
I read something by Storms in which he had excess heat in Pd which had been loaded at around 1:1. When he started to shut it down, he showed that the heat continued at reducing loading, finally only stopping at around 0.15. Thus apparently debunking the theory that loading of around 1:1 is necessary. His findings also show that site formation happens for whatever reason, and so the bulk of loading appears to be superfluous. Mizuno agrees with this and shows that it is apparently flux rather than loading which is the important factor. It would seem, therefore, that the way to increase excess heat is to find a way to increase the number of sites. Physical analysis would give an insight into whether TM has found a way to do this. In the light of his broken SEM, this would be wonderful information to have, I think. Also, clearly, this type of investigation would indicate any "hot spots" in areas, showing that there may be further intricate idiosyncrasies in the bringing about of site formation.
Regarding analysis internal to the wire; site clusters, dimensions chemical composition etc., this is to a large extent dependant on what type of equipment the lab has access to. There are some wonderful opportunities with Ion Beam Milling, but I guess that sort of kit doesn't grow on trees.
Finally, regarding the conflict between analysis and repeating with the mesh, I agree that analysis is the way forward. You only need more repeats if you don't believe, and no matter how many repeats you do, you won't convert a lot of folks. The important thing is to try to form a system of repeatability, and what is needed for that is as much relevant fact as possible. Of course, knowing what is relevant and what isn't, is a tricky call, but at least if you have the information, you can analyse it to your heart's content.
So now that Tolstoy has a sweat on, owing to the competition, I think I should button it and see what others think.
Have you spoken with Mizuno? Do you know what the problem is? I don't, so I cannot address your solution. I do not know why Mizuno says it will cost $1,500.
You said the crux of it is that it is broken such that the mesh can't be got out to be tested.
It is a cylinder, with flanges and end caps on each end. Unless someone has welded the caps on for a prank, there are only 2 ways this can have happened. One of them is a virtual impossiblilty.
This does narrow the odds somewhat.
No, I haven't spoken to Mizuno, but yesterday, we analysed it. It is too simple not to be able to do that.
If you read the posts, you will see where we are coming from.
If you think we are wrong, would it be too much to email him a get a bit more detail so we can sort that out and save some money?
We are trying to help, not be a bunch of awkward smart arses.
That is another way of doing it. Like your style. One potential problem is it could get a bit tricky with stainless, it's a fair bit tougher than normal.
May be best to stick to the splitter.
Jed.
You need to read the posts from yesterday. We sorted this out in high resolution. Opening that reactor is not a $1500 requirement.
Alan Smith's suggestion of nut splitters is the cheapeast. It's £20 off ebay. No machining, just a spanner - maybe even the same one he uses to tighten the bolts.
If you've got a lab lined up, don't allow this to pass by.
I'll bet bronze is cheaper than Ti.
Nut splitters:--
Have you got a gangster background- that's one worse that knuckle dusters.
Cringing and going knock-kneed.
I don't think I would ever have the balls (punn intended) to use anything with a name like that.
Bronze nuts is a good idea though, ( no punn intended). I did that once on a 3kL stainless acid copper dissolving drum. They worked very well. Then I discovered that some numb-nuts had run low on stainless rods to weld the end plates on, and made the numbers up with a few mild steel ones. A few days good running and then leak city. Eee.....them wer't good old days.
Yes, it is the likliest cause. Copper grease is another way to avoid it. Reason for not doing either may be fear of contamination. That type of stuff does have a habit of getting around. Still, this is more usual after high temperatures. The only other possibility is a flange weld, but as copper to stainless, especially 316, takes careful planning and execution to achieve, that is not going to have happened, I think.
Still, even if the bolts have galled at both ends, and every single one, it still isn't $1500 worth, or anything like it. The bolts on R20 are nuts and bolts rather than bolts in tapped holes, so there is no flange damage. So drill them out and replace. Drill press, coolant, good drills and a bit of patience-not $1500.
