Here is a report from lenr-forum: "There has been another successful replication [of the Pd Ni-mesh experiment] by a third party Japanese publicly traded company. They are working on the final report now, and when done it will be posted here on the forum. Not sure what reactor, but results were 644W input/764W output."
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6013-mizuno-reports-increased-excess-heat/?postID=173464#post173464 This is good news. Mizuno and I have done all we can to support verification and replication of this experiment. This effort has not worked out as well as we hoped, but it has not failed either. There is a range of different ways to verify or replicate an experiment: Verification during a visit to Mizuno's lab. Independent observers brought in their own instruments and confirmed the temperature and airflow measurements. This was helpful! Verification in another lab. Mizuno helped others in Sapporo build a calorimeter, and he loaned them a reactor. They confirmed excess heat. Mizuno has to be there in person and do hands-on work to accomplish this, so it can only be done in Sapporo, especially with the pandemic. Verification in another lab where they build their own calorimeter and use a cell loaned to them by Mizuno. This is the latest report. A partial replication in which Mizuno and I provide samples of mesh and other materials for replications. Unfortunately, as far as I know, these efforts failed. Apparently there is something about the reactor itself which is essential to success. Either that or the mesh is contaminated during shipping, or there is some similar problem. I have no idea what the problem might be. Independent replication by people who only read the descriptions we published, and did not receive any materials from us. There have been two reports of this, one in India and one in China. Power levels have been much lower than the best experiment by Mizuno. Replication with a different kind of calorimeter, in China. Even better. Using a different kind of calorimeter ensures there is no systematic error in calorimetry. Independent replication with high power. This has not yet been accomplished. I would like to emphasize that it is far more important to confirm there is excess power than to replicate the high magnitude power. Heat that is high enough to measure with confidence is *far better* than nothing. Higher power would be icing on the cake. I would rather see ten low power replications than one high power replication. (Low, but not so low that it is close to the margin of error.) Independent replication with improvements. This would be the best outcome. It has not yet been accomplished.
