Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

There is no alpha emission in LENR as we have no kinetic behavior.

Usually the EM energy contained in the 2 x 2 Dimension wobbling D-D pair 
is down-scaled by external magnetic moments, that are able to couple 
with the 2x2D field. At the end kinetic H*/D* are taking over the energy.


There is a lot of experimental evidence for this behavior!

Just to remember you: Hydrogen/H* gets added to elements (A+H*) like a 
neutron as the orbital "deeper" electron is able to bind to the nucleus 
too. Deuterium D* is added as two protons!! equivalent. That's why we 
see a lot of beta+ decay paths after adding D to a nucleus.



This, said here, is not guesswork as most things communicated in the 
last group e-mails: It's experimentally measured behavior!



Jürg Wyttenbach


On 24.06.2019 18:40, Bob Higgins wrote:
Of course, the presumption is that the excess heat in Mizuno's reactor 
is being generated in his Ni screen and thermally transferred to the 
outer SS shell of his reactor vessel.  That is not necessarily the 
case.  If the output of the reaction was kinetic charged particle 
emission, and in particular if it was alpha emission, the energy could 
be transferred almost 50% directly to the shell of the vessel without 
having the Ni mesh be hotter than the outside of the vessel.  The same 
would be even more true if the output were low energy photons.  At 
this point, we don't have enough data to know.


Fortunately, the reactor and protocol seem very simple, and 
replication should provide ample opportunities for evaluation of the 
possibilities.


Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:21 AM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 > wrote:


Jed wrote about the Mizuno reactor wall temperature:

“”Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the
inside wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the
portion of the wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly
hotter than the rest of the outside wall, or the ends of reactor.
That would be difficult to model, I think. It complicates matters.”

Modeling temperatures in a metal object is old hat.  The reactor
vessel would be easy to model IMHO.

Such modeling would add to the understanding of the air cooling
and identify if any heat is being generated in the metal of the
 reactor vessel as a result of unexpected reactions adding or
subtracting energy to the metal of the reactor vessel.

Validation of any thermal model would be substantial with
information from both the dummy reactor and the LENR reactor.  
You cannot have too many thermocouples for a validation from my
experience--complications be damned.

If the Ni mesh is the source of heat from an LENR reaction, then
the contact between the mesh and the reactor wall at any spot will
be a factor in the temperature of the mesh.  An ultrasonic
examination of such contacts over the entire reactor/mesh
interface would be desirable to facilitate modeling to determine
mesh temperatures,   Temperature gradients in the mesh would
likely cause changes in the mesh/reactor wall contact,
substantially influencing the resulting temperature.   The same
issues would apply to the dimensional stability of the heating wire.

Mizuno should specify the details associated with the mesh/reactor
wall contact as well as the details associated with the heating
wire contact.

Bob Cook


 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Congress up in arms over UFOs

[mixent]

In reply to  Chris Zell's message of Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:11:48 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>Could be.  It may be like causes for war.  The US starts militating against 
>some nation and by sheer coincidence causes for immediate military action 
>appear, as if by magic.

Nice to see that at least someone has their eyes open. :)
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:RE: Misuno technology a simple test

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I agree with Brian that there can be a lot of uncertainties associated with air 
cooling.  3 or 4 years ago  Jed and Muzino were fooled by daytime to night room 
temperature variations and how they affected conclusions from air flow 
calorimetry.  Dave Robertson and I commented on Vortex-l about this issue then.

Bob Cook

From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 5:04:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Misuno technology a simple test

Ask Mizuno to run the system making excess thermal energy and then simply 
change the inlet and outlet air flows. The outlet is currently above the inlet 
and that can be a problem. This may show a dramatic drop in thermal output due 
to buoyancy driven convection.

This easy and can get quick evidence that the calorimetry is not fooling 
everyone.


From: Alberto De Souza 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One 
thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature 
difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are 
already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The 
setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the 
kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 9:05 PM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Alberto De Souza 
mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In 
this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: 
one active and one dummy . . .  Finally, thermocouples would monitor the 
temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant 
temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is 
anomalous heat.


Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:


I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in 
the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow 
calorimetry because it is not affected such temperature variations. You do have 
to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal 
about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If 
you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half 
the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.


Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. 
If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just 
outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside 
wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It 
complicates matters.


If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter 
than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing 
heat. An IR camera might reveal that.

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Bob Higgins]

Of course, the presumption is that the excess heat in Mizuno's reactor is
being generated in his Ni screen and thermally transferred to the outer SS
shell of his reactor vessel.  That is not necessarily the case.  If the
output of the reaction was kinetic charged particle emission, and in
particular if it was alpha emission, the energy could be transferred almost
50% directly to the shell of the vessel without having the Ni mesh be
hotter than the outside of the vessel.  The same would be even more true if
the output were low energy photons.  At this point, we don't have enough
data to know.

Fortunately, the reactor and protocol seem very simple, and replication
should provide ample opportunities for evaluation of the possibilities.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:21 AM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jed wrote about the Mizuno reactor wall temperature:
>
>
>
> “”Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside
> wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the
> wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of
> the outside wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model,
> I think. It complicates matters.”
>
>
>
> Modeling temperatures in a metal object is old hat.  The reactor vessel
> would be easy to model IMHO.
>
>
>
> Such modeling would add to the understanding of the air cooling and
> identify if any heat is being generated in the metal of the  reactor vessel
> as a result of unexpected reactions adding or subtracting energy to the
> metal of the reactor vessel.
>
>
>
> Validation of any thermal model would be substantial with information from
> both the dummy reactor and the LENR reactor.   You cannot have too many
> thermocouples for a validation from my experience--complications be damned.
>
>
>
> If the Ni mesh is the source of heat from an LENR reaction, then the
> contact between the mesh and the reactor wall at any spot will be a factor
> in the temperature of the mesh.  An ultrasonic examination of such contacts
> over the entire reactor/mesh interface would be desirable to facilitate
> modeling to determine mesh temperatures,   Temperature gradients in the
> mesh would likely cause changes in the mesh/reactor wall contact,
> substantially influencing the resulting temperature.   The same issues
> would apply to the dimensional stability of the heating wire.
>
>
>
> Mizuno should specify the details associated with the mesh/reactor wall
> contact as well as the details associated with the heating wire contact.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jed wrote about the Mizuno reactor wall temperature:



“”Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. 
If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just 
outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside 
wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It 
complicates matters.”



Modeling temperatures in a metal object is old hat.  The reactor vessel would 
be easy to model IMHO.



Such modeling would add to the understanding of the air cooling and identify if 
any heat is being generated in the metal of the  reactor vessel as a result of 
unexpected reactions adding or subtracting energy to the metal of the reactor 
vessel.



Validation of any thermal model would be substantial with information from both 
the dummy reactor and the LENR reactor.   You cannot have too many 
thermocouples for a validation from my experience--complications be damned.



If the Ni mesh is the source of heat from an LENR reaction, then the contact 
between the mesh and the reactor wall at any spot will be a factor in the 
temperature of the mesh.  An ultrasonic examination of such contacts over the 
entire reactor/mesh interface would be desirable to facilitate modeling to 
determine mesh temperatures,   Temperature gradients in the mesh would likely 
cause changes in the mesh/reactor wall contact, substantially influencing the 
resulting temperature.   The same issues would apply to the dimensional 
stability of the heating wire.



Mizuno should specify the details associated with the mesh/reactor wall contact 
as well as the details associated with the heating wire contact.



Bob Cook








From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 5:04:26 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

Alberto De Souza 
mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In 
this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: 
one active and one dummy . . .  Finally, thermocouples would monitor the 
temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant 
temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is 
anomalous heat.


Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:


I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in 
the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow 
calorimetry because it is not affected such temperature variations. You do have 
to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal 
about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If 
you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half 
the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.


Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. 
If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just 
outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside 
wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It 
complicates matters.


If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter 
than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing 
heat. An IR camera might reveal that.

RE: [Vo]:Congress up in arms over UFOs

[Chris Zell]

Could be.  It may be like causes for war.  The US starts militating against 
some nation and by sheer coincidence causes for immediate military action 
appear, as if by magic.

From: Terry Blanton 
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Congress up in arms over UFOs

It is as I read somewhere, as long as there are several trillion dollars of oil 
untapped, cold fusion will remain "fringe science".  When we need it, it will 
suddenly become accepted.  Same with AG.

[Vo]:One more indication that the Aladdin effect is non-nuclear

[JonesBeene]

Thanks to Ron Clark for noticing this important detail.

In the Mizuno Table entitled: “Rub surface of  nickel mesh with Pd rod” which 
is from the earlier work going back a few years…

Mizuno  ran some tests with both H2 and D2 to look for differences at various 
pressures - using the nickel mess with the rubbed nano layer of Pd.

In one of the runs at H2 with 4400 Pa pressure, Mizuno saw significant thermal 
gain with plain hydrogen, not deuterium. 

This indicates to me that the operative mechanism for gain is NOT nuclear 
fusion.

In these runs the most energetic single result was actually with plain H2. It 
was not as robust as the later runs with D2 at very low pressure -  which are 
the subject of the new paper -  but it can tell us something very important 
about the operative mechanism (unless there are two different mechanisms).

Basically – this effect in highly unlikely to be based on nuclear fusion. It 
could be bosonic - as H2 as a molecule is a boson but there is no fusion and no 
radioactivity so this mechanism is most likely to be a dense hydrogen effect.

Jones.

[Vo]:Revised Mizuno paper

[Jed Rothwell]

I made some revisions to the Mizuno paper:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf

Biggest changes:

p. 1.

Note: Readers have made valuable suggestions, so we have made some changes
and corrections, mainly on p. 12. We appreciate the suggestions. This is
the June 24, 2019 version.


p. 12.

Three meshes are prepared for one test. . . .

Rubbing is done with a palladium rod, 100 mm long, diameter 5.0 mm, 99.95%
purity. Before rubbing the mesh, weigh it with a precision scale. Then
vigorously rub the entire surface, left and right and up and down. Turn the
mesh over and rub the other side. Weigh the mesh again. Continue until the
weight increases by 15 to 20 mg. The weight of the stack of three meshes
should increase by about 50 mg.

[Vo]:Re: Misuno technology a simple test

[Brian Ahern]

Ask Mizuno to run the system making excess thermal energy and then simply 
change the inlet and outlet air flows. The outlet is currently above the inlet 
and that can be a problem. This may show a dramatic drop in thermal output due 
to buoyancy driven convection.

This easy and can get quick evidence that the calorimetry is not fooling 
everyone.


From: Alberto De Souza 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One 
thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature 
difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are 
already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The 
setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the 
kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 9:05 PM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Alberto De Souza 
mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In 
this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: 
one active and one dummy . . .  Finally, thermocouples would monitor the 
temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant 
temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is 
anomalous heat.


Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:


I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in 
the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow 
calorimetry because it is not affected such temperature variations. You do have 
to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal 
about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If 
you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half 
the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.


Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. 
If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just 
outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside 
wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It 
complicates matters.


If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter 
than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing 
heat. An IR camera might reveal that.