Nevertheless, efforts are underway to correct some of these flaws in understanding, but these efforts are highly confidential because reliable success in causing LENR would have great economic value.
LENR would make large parts of today's energy market obsolete. Therefore, both policymakers and all entrepreneurs in the market will prevent LENR technology from unregulated destroying the markets where trillions of dollars are earned and millions of people (ie voters) work and earn a living.
But, even if Google replicates Mizuno, you can be sure there will be no news of it in any mainstream newspaper or magazine.
I'd like to argue that if Google Research confirms the Mizuno experiment, it will cause a news earthquake that the world has not yet seen. Not only that, there will also be an earthquake on the commodity and equity markets, as it will soon be clear that countries that exist on commodity trading will experiencing significant difficulties and stocks of traditional energy producers and suplieres will be under massive pressure, unless they are not Vattenfall who conjure with e.g. Elforsk Cold Fusion patents and applications out of the hat. The world will be totally different when such a message has arrived and been understood. That's what disruptive technology means.
He would have used a Ni-based catalyst for such a study, not pure nickel.
I am still convinced that LENR is a kind of exothermic stripping reaction and pulverized carbon is the secret triggering element. In some cold fusion experiments excessive heat reactions occurred due to minimal and random contaminants on the surfaces of the selected metal powders by carbon nanoparticles. That would also explain why replications often failed, because the carbon coating was coincidental and actually an unwanted pollution in the selected starting materials.
An exothermic stripping reaction (like for example the Oppenheimer-Phillips process), would explain the transmutations taking place and solve our problem with the coulomb barrier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…%E2%80%93Phillips_process
From the Lugano Report:
QuoteDisplay MoreSample 1 was ash coming from the reactor in Lugano. Only a few granules of grey sample were
possible to obtain from the ash and they didn’t look exactly the same. One large and two very small
granules were observed.
Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the
analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca,
Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…et-catalyst-jamie-sibley/
Quote2) Lugano reactor contains more carbon than would be expected from a carby-nickel produced powder. Possibly up to 6.6% by weight. I suspect that this carbon is actually only on the surface of the particles.
I think the purity of the fuel is the problem with any replication, if the fuel is to pure without traces of e.g. C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn (and here especially Carbon) then there will be no excess heat. I personally think that Rossi has found the Carbon reaction by coincidence.
Takes a long time from inception to finish, when aiming for a Nature, or Science publication.
The most important thing is that when making a choice no quick-shots are made and above all the decisions are not burdened by prejudices, legacies and these often decades-long petty wars among the scientists themselves. Better a longer selection phase and unencumbered expert opinions, as e.g. such often meaningless discussions of the here known protagonists who often only feed their own ego and do not serve the cause.
Some people suspect the tap water in Sapporo may make a difference.
https://www.wassertechnik.pro/…it-leitwertmessung-wasser
e.g. the values of the electrical conductivity of drinking water here in parts of Germany are much higher between 350-400
But we have 800-1000% excess what's 2- 5%of out??
...and they are actually heating a room! 
Rends, I have no idea what this means. If it were me with those results, I would dearly want to bound errors. I've no preconceived idea about what these bounds are. I have accepted many alternative opinions, notably the useful info about turbulent flow not having time to develop, which reduces one part of the airflow bound from 20% to 10%.
Many users have pointed this out several times in this thread, but this post is best.
THHuxleynewIn the machine that makes 250W out with 50W in, don't you think it would be very difficult for Mizuno to have made a large enough error to account for that power ratio at that level of power? Yet you postulate some errors due to various routes of heat transfer that may not have been fully accounted for? Not to mention the apparently accurate calibrations with simple Joule heating? Seems if the result is not real and valid, this is either some colossal mistake which somehow escaped notice (how does that happen?) or it's Mizuno's fabrication or delusion. That would seem more probable than that large an error but it's improbable as well. I wish someone capable would go to Mizuno's lab and step by step would verify the work and the results.
So THHuxleynew do you really think errors in accounting for the full thermal budget of the experiment could explain the result? And if so, how do you account for the calibration result being essentially dead on?
And if you don't think that about the results and don't think calibration is wildly invalid, then while it may be fun to perseverate about small mistakes in method and precision, would it really change anything if your concerns were valid? Like anonymous wrote, is this worth tying you up and JedRothwell as well?
The point is that no matter how you calculate it, such results can not be explained by the measurement errors you mentioned. So it would be fair, if you take off your generally negative attitude and e.g. submit a calculation, including all your possible measurement errors, that gives a realistic range of a COP. Because your reasoning basically sounds like this is not working here and everything is fraud.
And to those who are just bored with this exchange.
I do not know that Mizuno has any error in generating those results: obviously many here are hoping they are correct. I am just pointing out that there could be such an error.
Unfortunately, you ride this horse to death, without a single positive representation, or an alternative calculation, just to point out a possible (but in this case, due to the dimensions, a rather unlikely) measurement error, and you accept no other opinion, you just keep going on.
Yahoo continues its stellar performance in bungled science reporting. This has nothing whatsoever to do with cold fusion.
I tend to agree interested observer, I don't know how they got the classical hot fusion attempt of Lockheed mingled so badly with cold fusion.
As you said, this shows in my opinion very well how little informed even the interested press is and how great the need for valid information!
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) promised to change the world forever. In an announcement of blockbuster importance but laconic terseness, the world's biggest pure-play defense company announced that it is working on a solution to the problem of fusion nuclear energy -- aka "cold fusion."" data-reactid="11">Five years ago, Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) promised to change the world forever. In an announcement of blockbuster importance but laconic terseness, the world's biggest pure-play defense company announced that it is working on a solution to the problem of fusion nuclear energy -- aka "cold fusion."
Within 10 years, said Lockheed, it would invent a small nuclear fusion engine capable of powering a large oceangoing vessel or a small town with infinite amounts of clean nuclear power. Ten more years would see Lockheed commercialize free-standing cold fusion reactors to provide "safe," nuclear-"proliferation free," greenhouse-gas-emission-free "clean power for the world."
Goodbye energy crises. Goodbye global warming. Hello cheap, unlimited nuclear power for everyone.
Researchers at SRI International have issued a technical progress report covering their review and independent validation of Brillouin Energys LENR Reactor.
"We" can not ignore them, because they report constant COP values over 2.
https://brillouinenergy.com/test-results
Even if Brillouin Energy won't cooperate with Google Research, i think the technical report of SRI, combined with other papers, gives enough information to try a replication.
Been catching up after vacation. Saw this on Vortex by JonesBeene, whom I pay attention to. According to him, the wheels are starting to turn:
Jones Beene (like me Is Calcium Rossi’s Secret Catalyst? ) discussed the Oppenheimer-Phillips process, or deuteron stripping reaction.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/…and-blacklight-power.html
From my point of view minimal traces of carbon could make the difference between a functioning or not-functioning reactor and/or the amount of excess heat.
Michael McKubre, ein Veteran bei der Erforschung der kalten Fusion, begrüsst die Veröffentlichung in «Nature». Er kenne die Forschungsgruppe. Ihre Mitglieder seien versiert und vorsichtig zugleich. Dass die Forscher bis jetzt noch nicht in der Lage seien, den Fleischmann-Pons-Effekt zu demonstrieren, findet McKubre nicht sonderlich erstaunlich. Man kenne die Bedingungen für die kalte Fusion noch nicht vollständig. Und jene Bedingungen, die man kenne, seien schwierig zu erreichen und aufrechtzuerhalten. Mut mache ihm, so McKubre, dass die Debatte um die kalte Fusion durch die Veröffentlichung in «Nature» nun auf einem anderen Niveau geführt werde.
A bit too quick to
conclusion for my taste and Iam wondering what Ohmasa thinks of BG laughing around in his Keanu Reeves sun glasses.
This is the main problem of BG, it behaves like a small child who has no manners and behavioral problems and thus invalidates any scientific research, as a serious researcher, I would distance myself from him.
