I would add a small window to both reactors to observe differential EM spectra. Also provide for yhe addition of He to both reactors to change the teat transfer coeff. and the observed spectra emanating from different radial zones around the Ni mesh in order to correlate excess heat with a specific photon energy or band of energies.
Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 ________________________________ From: Alberto De Souza <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 4:19:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21 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 (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure during the experiments. 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. Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter. On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:54 PM Jed Rothwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: JonesBeene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The most striking thing to me from this presentation is that Mizuno was using the nickel mesh coated with palladium early on with modest success - but did not see the big breakthrough until going to a lower pressure regime (and allowing the reactor itself to heat up.) Correct. He did not see this. He discovered improvements in this order: 1. Let the reactor heat up 2. Lower the pressure somewhat 3. Put the heater inside the reactor 4. Lower pressure a great deal, down to 300 Pa He discovered these things partly by trial and error, but also by looking closely for trends in the data. I might have anticipated #1, but #4 came as a shock to me. I spent a couple of days recreating his graphs and noodling with the data looking at this. I might have done #3 just to improve the COP by using less power to heat up the cell. As I said before, that has no scientific significance. I do not know if Mizuno anticipated it might have a dramatic effect. That also surprised me, but I saw there are plausible explanations for it, such as IR stimulation, so it was not that shocking. Not like the low pressure. This demonstrates how important it is to look at small effects, and to pursue them relentlessly. Fleischmann said that when you see a small effect, "the easiest thing in the world is to dismiss it" as experimental error. The lesson here is: if you think it might be real, and not an artifact, go after it. Try to find ways to increase the size of it and make it more repeatable. PS – again it is looking more and more like the low gas pressure could be the most important new parameter for success. Yup.
