Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
I have always thought it important to be isotopically pure when it came to the material that is active and participate in the LENR reaction because of quantum mechanical issues. The reason why deuterium is functional in the R20 reactor may be because it is isotopically pure. Protium might work as well in the R20, but that isotope might need to be make isotopically pure before it is used in he R20. Getting pure protium is maybe more expensive than deuterium, just in regards to the way that the isotopes of hydrogen are separated. Ordinary hydrogen may not work in the R20 because it has a significant contaminant of deuterium in its mixture. One of the reasons that H2O is scrupulously cleaned in the R20 flush out procedure is that its protium content is quantum mechanically destructive of the LENR reaction. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:53 PM wrote: > Hi, > > Should separation distance between metals prove to be important, then a > very > small separation between two metal sheets can be obtained by etching a > honeycomb > pattern into fine gold leaf, and using it to separate the two target metal > sheets. > > This could allow gas pressures as high as 17 atm. to be used if so desired. > > Regards, > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > local asymmetry = temporary success > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Hi, Should separation distance between metals prove to be important, then a very small separation between two metal sheets can be obtained by etching a honeycomb pattern into fine gold leaf, and using it to separate the two target metal sheets. This could allow gas pressures as high as 17 atm. to be used if so desired. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Hi, Observation:- When Hydrino formation energy is used to clone more Hydrinos of the same size, the maximum energy gain is a factor of about 6. This is pretty close to what Mizuno is getting. I wonder if he tried Hydrogen vs. Deuterium, and if the result was different? (BTW cloning depends on having atoms not molecules available.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:50:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] >This lack of dense deuterium loading speaks against the old fusion meme, >doesn't it? The working gas pressure is .003 bar. At that pressure the MFP ~= 0.2 mm. Maybe the separation distance between Pd cladding and Ni? In short, it may allow D atoms to migrate from the Pd to the Ni without recombining to molecules. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
I wrote: > But, in this system, when you load the Ni high, that reduces or prevents > adsorption into the Ni surface . . . > Onto, not into. People have asked some good questions. I will update the paper to answer them. Such as: Q: How long should I rub the mesh? A: Until the weight increases by ~50 mg.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Axil Axil wrote: This lack of dense deuterium loading speaks against the old fusion meme, > doesn't it? The working gas pressure is .003 bar. > Yup. Mizuno's opinion is that to generate cold fusion in pure Ni, you need to load it as high as possible. But, in this system, when you load the Ni high, that reduces or prevents adsorption into the Ni surface, and the interface between the Ni and Pd. He thinks that is where the reaction occurs in this system. My opinion is that cold fusion doesn't work in pure Ni. I think there is no doubt high loading is essential to the bulk Pd-D system. But apparently it is not a universal rule applying to all cold fusion systems. That was a big surprise to me when I first saw this data. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
This lack of dense deuterium loading speaks against the old fusion meme, doesn't it? The working gas pressure is .003 bar. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:40 PM JonesBeene wrote: > Here is another question for Jed – probably factually unanswerable but > informed opinion will suffice. > > > > This experiment is so similar to what has been done before over 30 years > – what is the one detail which makes it so much more robust? > > > > On the basis of a few reads – it looks to me like the one crucial detail > could be the very thin application of palladium to the nickel mesh by > mechanical action. That would be mind boggling if true. > > > > Most curiously – Mizuno indicates that LOADING of deuterium is no longer > an important parameter. > > > > Bizarre. > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
This replication method goes without saying. But what is the plan for continuing improvement of this type of reactor? On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:29 PM Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > I would like to suggest and experimental modification as follows: . . . >> > > I would like to suggest that before you make ANY modifications, no matter > how slight, you should first do it exactly the way we told you to. Then, if > it works, go ahead and modify it to your heart's delight. > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Here is another question for Jed – probably factually unanswerable but informed opinion will suffice. This experiment is so similar to what has been done before over 30 years – what is the one detail which makes it so much more robust? On the basis of a few reads – it looks to me like the one crucial detail could be the very thin application of palladium to the nickel mesh by mechanical action. That would be mind boggling if true. Most curiously – Mizuno indicates that LOADING of deuterium is no longer an important parameter. Bizarre.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Axil Axil wrote: I would like to suggest and experimental modification as follows: . . . > I would like to suggest that before you make ANY modifications, no matter how slight, you should first do it exactly the way we told you to. Then, if it works, go ahead and modify it to your heart's delight. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
I would like to suggest and experimental modification as follows: Instead of using an internal sheath heater, generate heat by applying a high frequency square wave alternating current directly to the nickel mesh. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:15 PM Jed Rothwell wrote: > wrote: > > >> A molten salt coolant in a flow calorimeter with an inlet temperature of >> e.g. >> 300 C and an outlet temperature of 300+ C, would allow both accurate >> measurement >> and high power operation concurrently. The whole should be well insulated >> to >> ensure low losses. >> > > That would hold the entire cell at a high temperature, both inside and > outside. I have a feeling the reaction wants to see temperature gradients. > It wants to see heat flowing through the top mesh, to the next, to the next > and out the stainless steel wall. I don't know why, and I do not have > rigorous proof of that, but that's what the data seems to indicate. > > Mizuno probably has a stronger grasp of this. There are a zillion details > he knows that I do not. He also has quite a lot of conventional material > science theory that explains why low loading probably works better. This > started off as a 23-page paper that would have ended up 50 pages if we had > put in everything interesting. For the last several weeks I have been > ruthlessly cutting out everything that does not directly tell the reader: > "How To Do This, Hands-on." Focus, focus, focus. > > We can always write another paper. > > > >> Such an arrangement would not only allow for accurate measurement, it >> would also >> constitute a prototype power reactor. >> > > I don't think we will have any trouble making this into a power reactor! > It gets hot in a hurry. We have estimates of the amount of Ni that was > activated, and projections of how high the power will go when more of it is > activated. We are far below the limit. I am sure of that. The question is: > can it be controlled at high heat, with a high output to input ratio? I > sure hope so. But I sure hope Mizuno does not try to test that himself in > the lab. Because the place is a dump, and a fire trap, and severely damaged > by the earthquake. His SEM and other instruments were never fixed. The > GoFundMe kept him in business, but just barely. I hate to think of him by > himself doing high temperature experiments in such dangerous conditions. I > am hoping that other people replicate and then run with this. Frankly, I am > hoping thousands of people replicate. > > I hope many people try to replicate, because based on my experience, most > who try to replicate will screw up. Typically, you find out years later > they did their own version which was nothing like the original. I am just > making up a pretend example here . . . but the paper says keep the pressure > between 100 and 300 Pa. Some know-it-all guy will say: "This is gas > loading, so we need high pressure. Make it 30 atm!" Which is 3 million Pa. > It won't work. He'll tell the world, "This is a fraud! It doesn't work" but > he won't reveal any details of his experiment, so we will never find out he > got a critical parameter wrong by a factor of 10,000. > > I can *feel* that happening! Right now! Some nitwit out there is getting > ready to do this wrong, despite weeks and weeks of our efforts to provide > clear instructions. So I hope enough people do it according to the > instructions that some of them will succeed. But you never know. > > One person did it already, and it seems to work. > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
… that’s good, Robin. Even better would be na organic Rankine cycle (ORC) to convert the modest temperature gain in the warm fluid into electrical power. Forget calorimetry when you have enough COP for self-power which is the present claim. Nothing proves “net gain” like “self-powering” … In fact small ORC systems are commercially available… Hmmm… From: mix...@bigpond.com A molten salt coolant in a flow calorimeter with an inlet temperature of e.g. 300 C and an outlet temperature of 300+ C, would allow both accurate measurement and high power operation concurrently. The whole should be well insulated to ensure low losses. Outlet temperature would be determined by controlling the flow rate. Such an arrangement would not only allow for accurate measurement, it would also constitute a prototype power reactor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
wrote: > A molten salt coolant in a flow calorimeter with an inlet temperature of > e.g. > 300 C and an outlet temperature of 300+ C, would allow both accurate > measurement > and high power operation concurrently. The whole should be well insulated > to > ensure low losses. > That would hold the entire cell at a high temperature, both inside and outside. I have a feeling the reaction wants to see temperature gradients. It wants to see heat flowing through the top mesh, to the next, to the next and out the stainless steel wall. I don't know why, and I do not have rigorous proof of that, but that's what the data seems to indicate. Mizuno probably has a stronger grasp of this. There are a zillion details he knows that I do not. He also has quite a lot of conventional material science theory that explains why low loading probably works better. This started off as a 23-page paper that would have ended up 50 pages if we had put in everything interesting. For the last several weeks I have been ruthlessly cutting out everything that does not directly tell the reader: "How To Do This, Hands-on." Focus, focus, focus. We can always write another paper. > Such an arrangement would not only allow for accurate measurement, it > would also > constitute a prototype power reactor. > I don't think we will have any trouble making this into a power reactor! It gets hot in a hurry. We have estimates of the amount of Ni that was activated, and projections of how high the power will go when more of it is activated. We are far below the limit. I am sure of that. The question is: can it be controlled at high heat, with a high output to input ratio? I sure hope so. But I sure hope Mizuno does not try to test that himself in the lab. Because the place is a dump, and a fire trap, and severely damaged by the earthquake. His SEM and other instruments were never fixed. The GoFundMe kept him in business, but just barely. I hate to think of him by himself doing high temperature experiments in such dangerous conditions. I am hoping that other people replicate and then run with this. Frankly, I am hoping thousands of people replicate. I hope many people try to replicate, because based on my experience, most who try to replicate will screw up. Typically, you find out years later they did their own version which was nothing like the original. I am just making up a pretend example here . . . but the paper says keep the pressure between 100 and 300 Pa. Some know-it-all guy will say: "This is gas loading, so we need high pressure. Make it 30 atm!" Which is 3 million Pa. It won't work. He'll tell the world, "This is a fraud! It doesn't work" but he won't reveal any details of his experiment, so we will never find out he got a critical parameter wrong by a factor of 10,000. I can *feel* that happening! Right now! Some nitwit out there is getting ready to do this wrong, despite weeks and weeks of our efforts to provide clear instructions. So I hope enough people do it according to the instructions that some of them will succeed. But you never know. One person did it already, and it seems to work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:13:26 -0400: Hi, [snip] >We recommend air-flow calorimetry for this experiment. The reactor walls >must be hot for this reaction to occur. In previous experiments we used >water-flow calorimeters with cooling coils up against the reactor walls, or >cooling coils with insulation between the coil and the wall. Both types >removed heat too quickly, reducing or eliminating the reaction. The >calorimeter is an integral part of the experiment. It can interfere with >the results, or enhance them. [snip] A molten salt coolant in a flow calorimeter with an inlet temperature of e.g. 300 C and an outlet temperature of 300+ C, would allow both accurate measurement and high power operation concurrently. The whole should be well insulated to ensure low losses. Outlet temperature would be determined by controlling the flow rate. Such an arrangement would not only allow for accurate measurement, it would also constitute a prototype power reactor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Of course the major assumption will be that this is typical “cold fusion” – should it be duplicated. But is there more to it than the normal P effect? Definitely there could be more since this is neither electrolysis nor glow discharge. It is worth noting that in some ways the mechanism of low pressure, rapid diffusion resembles the Holmlid effect of deuterium densification. And moreover there is a hybrid of the two processes which is already described In the literature. It is almost directly on point. The researchers are top notch, as well. Hora and Miley et al published a paper entitled “Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for LENR” which could be the closest explanation available to Mizuno’s new breakthrough, and it mentions the ultradense state as necessarily preceding fusion. It is available from ResearchGate, but you have to join to get it there. Hora and Miley call this refinement to the old version of cold fusion “Two-picometer Deuterium Reactions by Coulomb Screening”. If this is correct then copious neutrons are expected at the kilowatt level of output… “million times” more! In fact, there could be health risks at the high heat level, especially heating one’s home with the reactor as Mizuno has done. I hope that Mizuno has taken the necessary precautions. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Anyway, if you want to replicate this experiment, you should have a calorimeter that puts the cell in something similar to room temperature air. Don't wrap tubes of flowing water around it. That's what Mizuno did for a few years. It didn't work. Or it barely worked.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Jed Rothwell wrote: > I think it is important that the calorimeter not cool the outside wall of > the reactor much more than this air-flow calorimeter does. I think that > would interfere with the reaction, or prevent it. That was a problem with > Mizuno's earlier calorimeter, as we described in some of the papers. It was > also the problem with McKubre's calorimeter, according to Fleischmann. > Fleischmann and McKubre strongly disagreed about this. > That's unfair to Mike. Martin strongly disagreed. In later years, I recall Mike tacitly agree that Martin was right about this. Anyway, if you want to replicate this experiment, you should have a calorimeter that puts the cell in something similar to room temperature air. Don't wrap tubes of flowing water around it. That's what Mizuno did for a few years. It didn't work. Or it barely worked. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
JonesBeene wrote: > Why not put the reactor in a water bath and confirm the excess heat that > way? … or water flow. > I think a water bath would kill the heat. As we wrote in the paper: We recommend air-flow calorimetry for this experiment. The reactor walls must be hot for this reaction to occur. In previous experiments we used water-flow calorimeters with cooling coils up against the reactor walls, or cooling coils with insulation between the coil and the wall. Both types removed heat too quickly, reducing or eliminating the reaction. The calorimeter is an integral part of the experiment. It can interfere with the results, or enhance them. A Seebeck calorimeter might work. The internal conditions resemble those of an air-flow calorimeter. I think it is important that the calorimeter not cool the outside wall of the reactor much more than this air-flow calorimeter does. I think that would interfere with the reaction, or prevent it. That was a problem with Mizuno's earlier calorimeter, as we described in some of the papers. It was also the problem with McKubre's calorimeter, according to Fleischmann. Fleischmann and McKubre strongly disagreed about this. Fleischmann emphasized that the calorimeter is an integral part of the experiment. It can interfere with the experiment. This must be prevented. To replicate an experiment, you have to think carefully about how the calorimeter in the original experiment works, in terms of heat removal, operating temperatures and so on. > > Few observers are going to be satisfied with air flow alone. > Good. That's a litmus test to filter out pathological skeptics. Seriously, after looking at the ICCF21 paper and and Figs. 2 through 7 of this paper, I do not think anyone can come up with a plausible reason why a 10 deg C temperature difference might be an artifact. (In Fig. 5.) Anyone who thinks it might be an artifact should ignore this experiment. The ICCF21 calorimetry was close enough to the margin that I myself had some doubts about it, as I described here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf *This* is a different story. > Does high heat transfer quench the effect? > Yup. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Jed, Quick question. Why not put the reactor in a water bath and confirm the excess heat that way? … or water flow. Few observers are going to be satisfied with air flow alone. Does high heat transfer quench the effect? Jones From: Jed Rothwell …Tadahiko Mizuno will report increased excess heat with nickel mesh coated with palladium. The results are dramatic, so we decided to upload a preprint of his paper. Wow ! This could be huge if it can be replicated – finally an experiment with high COP at the kilowatt output level.
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
From: Jed Rothwell …Tadahiko Mizuno will report increased excess heat with nickel mesh coated with palladium. The results are dramatic, so we decided to upload a preprint of his paper. Wow ! This could be huge if it can be replicated – finally an experiment with high COP at the kilowatt output level.
[Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat
In the upcoming ICCF22 conference, Tadahiko Mizuno will report increased excess heat with nickel mesh coated with palladium. The results are dramatic, so we decided to upload a preprint of his paper. To understand the calorimetry, you have to read his ICCF21 paper. Unfortunately, the ICCF21 Proceedings have not yet been published. So I decided to upload preprints of both papers: ICCF21: Mizuno, T. and J. Rothwell, *Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel (preprint)*. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci., 2019. 29 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf ICCF22: Mizuno, T. and J. Rothwell. *Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel (Preprint)*. in *The 22nd International Conference for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science ICCF-22*. 2019. Assisi, Italy http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf Here is the abstract for the latest paper: Abstract We have developed an improved method of producing excess heat with nickel mesh coated with palladium. The new method produces higher power, a larger output to input ratio, and it can be controlled effectively. With 50 W of input, it produces ~250 W of excess heat, and with 300 W it produces ~2 to 3 kW. This paper is a comprehensive description of the apparatus, the reactant, and the method. We hope this paper will allow others to replicate the experiment. [The abstract shows Fig. 6 from the paper, which I cannot upload here. Have a look.]
