From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com The Mizuno and Rossi effects may only be second cousins, since D is used in one and H in the other. thought to be the ash in Mizuno’s and transmutation of Ni plus a little He the ash in Rossi’s.
From: Adrian Ashfield Considering the Conservation of Miracles law, I wonder what the chances are that this is a kissing cousin to Rossi's E-Cat QX. That he gets a higher COP due to the higher temperature he uses. Well, no scientist knows if Rossi has valid gain or not – but indeed, there is one striking similarity between the two which has not been emphasized adequately. The interesting parallel between Mizuno’s latest design and the so-called hot-cat is that the reactor itself (in both cases) is heated externally via resistance heaters (inefficient) - but at the same time, excess heat is claimed to be measured far above the level of the input heat. That feature is counter-intuitive. Mizuno uses a steel reactor held at much lower temperature and in a partial vacuum. Rossi (Parkhomov) uses ceramic but with embedded external heaters but provides no real calorimetry to bolster his claim. Mizuno notably adds high voltage internal electrodes (500 volts) but it is not clear if his design is really “glow discharge” or instead is “hot gas” like the hot-cat, or is a bit of both. A characterization of “hot gas” would mean no real plasma, but instead hot hydrogen (or deuterium) in gas phase which is activated by a high temperature trigger and presumably enters into rapid cycling of absorption/desorption. Since there is no consistent low pressure ionized gas and no partial vacuum in any Rossi design it cannot be labeled as glow-discharge or even plasma-state. The similarity between the two derives from both having external resistance heating - which requires most of the electrical input - and both claiming that despite large power being used by the external heaters, there is net thermal gain. This claim cannot be substantiated by “thermometry” as Rossi would like to do. Mizuno is able to make an arguably valid scientific argument for thermal gain by having an identical control reactor operating at identical parameters (except for the palladium surface coat). That kind of control makes his setup much more expensive to build – but importantly, much more convincing to believe. Rossi offers no such duplicate control nor calorimetry, and Parkomov cannot repeat his former claim for gain, while at least 6 other similar hot-cat replications have failed to show any meaningful gain. In scientific terms, therefore, Rossi’s claim depends completely on his personal honesty. The big knock on Mizuno is that IH partially funded his work - and perhaps that is the key to the design similarity. Yet in court papers, IH states under oath that they witnessed no thermal gain - and apparently they visited Mizuno’s Lab in Japan months prior to the improvements mentioned at the end of the Mizuno paper. Was this simply bad timing? Bottom line - when your own funder will not step up, then there’s the existential “to be or not to be” problem… ….and “there’s the rub” so to speak. (apologies to WS)
