I have a few observations that are not being discussed here (and I may be missing something) from the slides from the MIT Colloquium.
- *The report for the control experiment with no excess heat also showed the decline of the M/e=4 species and rise of the M/e=2 &3 species*. The two curves look qualitatively the same. - In both experiments (excess heat and control), there appears to be a loss of total mass of gas vs. time - by almost half in mass across the experiment. - Most of the mass loss was lost in the first half of the experiment, then remaining nearly constant - yet the excess heat continued at about the same power. It appears that the excess heat does not correlate well with the loss of total mass of gas. - The excess heat does not correlate with the amount of M/e=4 species. - The gas "quantity" (is this a number of particles "quantity"?) grew across the experiment even though the gas total mass declined. - The excess heat does seem to correlate with Mizuno's total gas quantity curve and the M/e=2 curve which look similar. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Apparently, many of the observers of LENR, especially among those who did > not attend, are unwilling to give due credit to the paradigm shift which > happened earlier this year at the MIT colloquium - in the Clean-Planet > presentation of Yoshino, based on Mizuno's work. This is arguably the most > important experiment with deuterium since 1989. This was like a > hand-grenade > being tossed into the field of LENR and Yoshino's demeanor blew away the > audience. > > This reluctance of others to see the full impact of this amazing result - > despite the fact that Mizuno's experiment appears to be far and away the > most robust experiment ever conducted with deuterium as the active gas > (over > 100 megajoules) is regrettable. The images of the setup should give every > indication of a top-notch, well-funded effort. Nothing comparable is > going-on with deuterium anywhere in 2014, AFAIK. > > What is the next highest energy output for a single run (using deuterium, > not hydrogen) to compare against this 100 megajoules? My suspicion is that > it is at least 500% lower. > > The problem with Yoshino/Mizuno is that it does not fit into prior > expectations of 24 years, not into the explanatory framework of cold > fusion. > In fact, it overturns the apple-carts in a way that many find most > disturbing, especially since it really could be the premier experiment with > deuterium. Yet: > > 1) Deuterium does not convert into helium > 2) Deuterium molecules, in the sense of a mass-4 species, are > essentially gone and replaced with mass-2 species which is not necessarily > H2. > 3) There were indications of mass-3 and of course mass-4 earlier in > the > experiment > > Curiously, there is an hybrid explanation which is "out there" and can > accurately explain this circumstance completely, and can even explain the > past claims of helium in the legion of milliwatt experiments, but it > involves merging CQM and nanomagnetism with LENR. The so-called experts are > balking at any hybrid. > > I doubt that many here on vortex, really grasp how elegant this explanation > is, other than Robin and a few others who have already been trying to > integrate the two cultures. That is because LENR supporters want to freeze > out CQM, and Mills supporters want to freeze out LENR. Most disturbing, > Mizuno himself seems to be immune to accurate explanations, since he cares > mostly about the data (to his credit) but apparently thinks his work is > still a form of fusion (out of habit). > > It is almost a clash of cultures but it is finally coming to a resolution. > > Jones > > > > >
