The problem with any analysis being touted as the basis for future devices - is pinpointing the full and correct understanding of the operating principle. Unfortunately, the operating principle of this device is not well-described by Ed Storms. It would be a big mistake to apply Storms’ insight on palladium electrolysis to such an extremely different device. In fact that suggestion can be described as counter-productive.
Storms theory was derived from electrolysis experiments at (generally) low power input and output and using (generally) lithium based electrolyte and notably the most reliable level of thermal gain is in the range of watts per gram of palladium. Storms finds that - by far (and we should emphasize “by far”) - the optimal energy for nuclear reactions in electrolysis is well under 10 watts and the drop off is extremely steep thereafter. This fits with the low powered experiments of many others and also a basis in QM. See Storms and Scanlan / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 17–31 FIG 1. The details of Mizuno’s breakthrough are far from electrolysis - devoid of any indication of nuclear fusion even at the kilowatt level. Importantly, high loading of hydrogen is to be avoided instead of being absolutely required. That detail is most telling. Morevoer, the thermal output is 100,000 times higher in terms of watts per gram of palladium – indicating that nickel is the active reactant and palladium serves mainly as a spillover catalyst and not a reactant for gain. Nickel - for the past 30 years is simply not associated with nuclear fusion at all, but is associated very closely with excess heat and EUV or soft x-rays – and in some of the best experiments to have shown up in Fusion the premiere journal. The nature of the reaction involving very low inventory of hydrogen and low loading - and Mizuno’s own recent writings point more to a dense hydrogen modality as framed by Holmlid, Piantelli, Hora, Miley, Winterberg, Mills, Meulenberg etc. etc. instead of and with limited relationship to cold fusion. This of course means that the underlying gain is NOT fusion but still “nuclear” (derived from nuclear mass) so LENR is the correct descriptor. The nucleus is intimately coupled energetically to electrons and the binding energy of the nucleus can be shared and thermalized into heat at an impressive level (as Mizuno has hopefully demonstrated). The gain comes from the strong force via QCD. Any fusion seen will be incidental and insufficient to explain kilowatts of excess heat. IMHO - the lure and lore of “cold fusion” per se will probably take another hit when it is found that the Mizuno breakthrough is not fusion at all - but at the same time, it is indeed nuclear. Jones
