Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
*However, I will declare a possibility: continued research into PdD *will* resolve the mystery of cold fusion. It could happen accidentally at almost any time, some researcher could stumble across evidence that leads to the solution.* The neutron is transmuted into a proton by pions that are instantiated out of the vacuum by a strong magnetic field. That must be the way that 2D (two protons and two neutrons) becomes 4 protons. On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain > mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to > the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically > rather low. > > > > Secondly, however, the Mizuno reaction releases approximately two protons > for every deuteron, not one as in stripping. > > > > That would imply that the neutron decays, instead of being absorbed in > nickel or something similar which gives about twice the number of gas > molecules as before. > > > > Also – there is a long half-life associated with nickel following neutron > activation. This will be easy to characterize, for Mizuno - if that is what > is happening. > > > > *From:* Eric Walker > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > > > Since Yoshino did include slides showing > the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have > been seen. > > > > I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the > class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic), > where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction. If this is > the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect. It would > be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular > hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium. > > > > Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well > correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and > the control (as noted by Bob). > > > > Eric > > >
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Slide 47 shows a significant difference. > A qualitative increase is seen in M/e=2 species in both the excess heat run and the control on both slides 46 and 47. We only have two trials, so we don't have a sense of what the trend was over a large number of trials. On slide 46 the control run does not go beyond 1000 ks, so we don't know what the curve would look like beyond that for the control. There does appear to be a significant difference in the total volume of gas, however. Presumably this was a pattern that was seen over the course of several control and excess heat runs. I'm hoping a writeup will be provided that will clarify some of these questions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Maybe it is, as the slides have a purpose - but I doubt that it can be the > end-of-story, because even if it is true and the other four ways to > disintegrate the deuteron are absent, O-P does not explain the doubling of > gas molecules. More likely, it could be both partly true and incomplete. > If Yushino's and Muzuno's findings are not artifact, I'm thinking OP might be going on. I don't have a clear sense of whether it would be the primary source of heat. If there is OP, there will also be fast protons, which might cause spallation reactions with nearby deuterons: http://i.imgur.com/cATIdcT.png Note that if this happens, and OP is the main source of the heat, such spallation reactions destroy the fuel. Also, there would be lots of ~ 180 keV (and higher) beta particles from the decay of neutrons and neutron-rich radioisotopes, and possibly gammas from radiative capture. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically rather low. I take it that deuterium stripping is an all-or-nothing thing. Oppenheimer-Phillips may be all-or-nothing - but not the other four methods of deuteron disintegration (aka stripping): photofission, beta decay, spin-flipping and spallation. IOW there are five ways to skin this cat, and most of them were mentioned before the end of 1989 in the context of cold fusion (as an alternative explanation to avoid the big gamma ray of helium fusion). Either the neutron is stripped off and added to the large nucleus, or it is not, in which case you get the equivalent of an inelastic collision. I.e., there are no messy, partial stripping reactions. There is plenty of mess. The proton and neutron in deuterium are comparatively *loosely bound.* In fact, if you flip the spin of only one of the nucleons, not both – then the deuteron falls apart. On paper this could be done magnetically. That is part of the allure of nanomagnetism. Only one other stable isotope in the entire periodic table is as loosely bound as deuterium, and the “tail” of the distribution for stripping or disintegration (inverted tail) is very long. Many reference say that deuterium can beta decay directly (~1.5 MeV), but is so statistically rare that it is seldom mentioned. The real difference from all other nuclei is that the enormous distance between the two nucleons, not to mention the low electric charge. Heisenberg's door is open wide for weak and EM interactions to supply the missing energy (recoverable) to induce a "stimulated" but seemingly "spontaneous" decay of the deuteron. But nanomagnetism is the most alluring prospect. Whether or not this assumption is correct, I'm guessing that this is the angle that Yoshino and Mizuno are pursuing. Maybe it is, as the slides have a purpose - but I doubt that it can be the end-of-story, because even if it is true and the other four ways to disintegrate the deuteron are absent, O-P does not explain the doubling of gas molecules. More likely, it could be both partly true and incomplete. This subject is most interesting in light of the inclusion of those slides – which give one the impression that Yoshino put them into the document to entice readers to come to the big show-and-tell in November. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain > mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to > the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically > rather low. > I take it that deuterium stripping is an all-or-nothing thing. Either the neutron is stripped off and added to the large nucleus, or it is not, in which case you get the equivalent of an inelastic collision. I.e., there are no messy, partial stripping reactions. Whether or not this assumption is correct, I'm guessing that this is the angle that Yoshino and Mizuno are pursuing. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Slide 47 shows a significant difference. Seems fairly well coordinated, actually, since there was stable gas quantity with no heat, and the excess heat came with excess hydrogen. Which slide shows no correlation ?? From: Eric Walker Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically rather low. Secondly, however, the Mizuno reaction releases approximately two protons for every deuteron, not one as in stripping. That would imply that the neutron decays, instead of being absorbed in nickel or something similar which gives about twice the number of gas molecules as before. Also – there is a long half-life associated with nickel following neutron activation. This will be easy to characterize, for Mizuno - if that is what is happening. From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic), where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction. If this is the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect. It would be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium. Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Since Yoshino did include slides showing > the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have > been seen. > I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic), where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction. If this is the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect. It would be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium. Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
To clear up one detail, there is a looming question: “why is this Mizuno device not a more sophisticated version of the Farnsworth Fusor?” It can be acknowledged that there are similarities. The Fusor is a deuterium plasma device which can employ nickel as the electrode (tungsten is usually chosen). However, plasma contact with the electrode is avoided, and there is convergence in a target zone in the Fusor … and the electrode surface area would be about 10^6 times lower while the voltage is much higher. Moreover, the Fusor is hot fusion. And it is thousands of times below breakeven, and produces no significant heat at all. Tritium and helium-3 are created, but hydrogen is not transmuted from deuterium, and gamma rays are emitted. Typically a well constructed Fusor will produce around 10,000 neutrons per second and the average energy released is 3.5 MeV per fusion event. This is about 50,000 times below breakeven. In contrast, Mizuno’s version essentially is converting deuterium into hydrogen at thermal levels which are 100,000 times greater than a Fusor, yet with no gamma radiation. The neutron production is unknown. _ Final note: Mizuno saw 108 MJ of gain over 30 days at COP of 1.9 - his net output was about 8 MJ per day, on average. For Roulette et al, the next best result in the history of deuterium LENR, there was 294 MJ is net output over 152 days at COP of 1.5, or about 2 MJ per day but with less actual net gain than Mizuno (less than 108 MJ of gain due to the lower COP). Therefore, the Mizuno experiment is about 4 times more robust in net energy than the best prior result in LENR for which adequate data exists but over 600% more robust, based on net gain. The next step for this ground-breaking experiment is the analysis, and then the implications – which will be controversial. That is why there has been scarcely a peep from many “experts” on this paradigm shift in LENR. They do not like the implications and especially not Storms, who essentially ignored this in his recent book. In fact, the results overturn several pillars of entrenched thinking which are lingering from the “cold fusion era”; but some of the conclusions may hinge on the final radiation results, which were not presented at MIT but were summarized by Yoshino to others there. Here are some main talking points. 1) It took 24 years of trying to greatly improve Pd-D results, yet the main reasons for the vast improvement are simple and two-fold. Switch from palladium to nickel wire as the cathode and run the experiment as a plasma. 2) The SEM image after activation shows no evidence of Storms’ active “cracks”. The Ni surface is suggestive of micron-sized spheres, possibly formed by adsorption of hydrogen, which result is highly suggestive of Rossi’s description of his nickel surface. i.e. “sphericules”. 3) This experiment is devastating to Storm’s theory in several ways. There is no helium in the ash. 4) This experiment is problematic for Mills recent demo, since Mizuno tried heavy water vapor and found it did not work in the presence of a Mills catalyst (nickel) 5) The nickel is said to be in the form of a “mesh” but in fact, consists of 200 meters of .2 mm nickel wire which is arranged in a mesh-like blob, reminiscent of a ladies hairdo from the sixties. 6) While H2 shows irregular gain, D2 is more active and D2O in not active. 7) The experiment was monitored for radiation, yet the information was omitted. This information is critical to understanding. Yoshino told Ahern that no gamma radiation was seen. Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. 8) Given the long history between Jed Rothwell and Mizuno, it is hoped that Jed and vortex will be the first to see this very important information which may indicate the presence of neutrons. 9) If there are significant neutrons, this indicates that the Oppenheim Phillips effect could be part of the gain, yet since H2 was also gainful, neutrons probably indicate that two different gainful effects have been seen possibly more than two. 10) Neutrons have been the desired goal (to find) since 1989. In short, this could be the final fulfillment of everything which PF wanted to demonstrate but never could – reliable excess heat and neutrons. 11) Too bad PF did not think of the simple expedient of going to nickel wire in a plasma. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
The LENR reaction always happens in a plasma that has been produced by electrical discharge, but when water is present, the plasma is quenched and it cools quickly. This removes the SPP solition before it can properly develop to the proper strength. On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Final note: Mizuno saw 108 MJ of gain over > 30 days at COP of 1.9 - his net output was about 8 MJ per day, on average. > For Roulette et al, the next best result in the history of deuterium LENR, > there was 294 MJ is net output over 152 days at COP of 1.5, or about 2 MJ > per day but with less actual net gain than Mizuno (less than 108 MJ of gain > due to the lower COP). > > Therefore, the Mizuno experiment is about 4 > times more robust in net energy than the best prior result in LENR for > which > adequate data exists but over 600% more robust, based on net gain. > > The next step for this ground-breaking experiment is the analysis, and then > the implications – which will be controversial. That is why there has been > scarcely a peep from many “experts” on this paradigm shift in LENR. They do > not like the implications and especially not Storms, who essentially > ignored > this in his recent book. > > In fact, the results overturn several pillars of entrenched thinking which > are lingering from the “cold fusion era”; but some of the conclusions may > hinge on the final radiation results, which were not presented at MIT but > were summarized by Yoshino to others there. > > Here are some main talking points. > 1) It took 24 years of trying to greatly improve Pd-D results, yet the > main reasons for the vast improvement are simple and two-fold. Switch from > palladium to nickel wire as the cathode and run the experiment as a plasma. > 2) The SEM image after activation shows no evidence of Storms’ active > “cracks”. The Ni surface is suggestive of micron-sized spheres, possibly > formed by adsorption of hydrogen, which result is highly suggestive of > Rossi’s description of his nickel surface. i.e. “sphericules”. > 3) This experiment is devastating to Storm’s theory in several ways. > There is no helium in the ash. > 4) This experiment is problematic for Mills recent demo, since Mizuno > tried heavy water vapor and found it did not work in the presence of a > Mills > catalyst (nickel) > 5) The nickel is said to be in the form of a “mesh” but in fact, > consists of 200 meters of .2 mm nickel wire which is arranged in a > mesh-like > blob, reminiscent of a ladies hairdo from the sixties. > 6) While H2 shows irregular gain, D2 is more active and D2O in not > active. > 7) The experiment was monitored for radiation, yet the information was > omitted. This information is critical to understanding. Yoshino told Ahern > that no gamma radiation was seen. Since Yoshino did include slides showing > the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have > been seen. > 8) Given the long history between Jed Rothwell and Mizuno, it is hoped > that Jed and vortex will be the first to see this very important > information > which may indicate the presence of neutrons. > 9) If there are significant neutrons, this indicates that the > Oppenheim > Phillips effect could be part of the gain, yet since H2 was also gainful, > neutrons probably indicate that two different gainful effects have been > seen > possibly more than two. > 10) Neutrons have been the desired goal (to find) since 1989. In short, > this could be the final fulfillment of everything which PF wanted to > demonstrate but never could – reliable excess heat and neutrons. > 11) Too bad PF did not think of the simple expedient of going to nickel > wire in a plasma. > > Jones > > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Final note: Mizuno saw 108 MJ of gain over 30 days at COP of 1.9 - his net output was about 8 MJ per day, on average. For Roulette et al, the next best result in the history of deuterium LENR, there was 294 MJ is net output over 152 days at COP of 1.5, or about 2 MJ per day but with less actual net gain than Mizuno (less than 108 MJ of gain due to the lower COP). Therefore, the Mizuno experiment is about 4 times more robust in net energy than the best prior result in LENR for which adequate data exists but over 600% more robust, based on net gain. The next step for this ground-breaking experiment is the analysis, and then the implications – which will be controversial. That is why there has been scarcely a peep from many “experts” on this paradigm shift in LENR. They do not like the implications and especially not Storms, who essentially ignored this in his recent book. In fact, the results overturn several pillars of entrenched thinking which are lingering from the “cold fusion era”; but some of the conclusions may hinge on the final radiation results, which were not presented at MIT but were summarized by Yoshino to others there. Here are some main talking points. 1) It took 24 years of trying to greatly improve Pd-D results, yet the main reasons for the vast improvement are simple and two-fold. Switch from palladium to nickel wire as the cathode and run the experiment as a plasma. 2) The SEM image after activation shows no evidence of Storms’ active “cracks”. The Ni surface is suggestive of micron-sized spheres, possibly formed by adsorption of hydrogen, which result is highly suggestive of Rossi’s description of his nickel surface. i.e. “sphericules”. 3) This experiment is devastating to Storm’s theory in several ways. There is no helium in the ash. 4) This experiment is problematic for Mills recent demo, since Mizuno tried heavy water vapor and found it did not work in the presence of a Mills catalyst (nickel) 5) The nickel is said to be in the form of a “mesh” but in fact, consists of 200 meters of .2 mm nickel wire which is arranged in a mesh-like blob, reminiscent of a ladies hairdo from the sixties. 6) While H2 shows irregular gain, D2 is more active and D2O in not active. 7) The experiment was monitored for radiation, yet the information was omitted. This information is critical to understanding. Yoshino told Ahern that no gamma radiation was seen. Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. 8) Given the long history between Jed Rothwell and Mizuno, it is hoped that Jed and vortex will be the first to see this very important information which may indicate the presence of neutrons. 9) If there are significant neutrons, this indicates that the Oppenheim Phillips effect could be part of the gain, yet since H2 was also gainful, neutrons probably indicate that two different gainful effects have been seen possibly more than two. 10) Neutrons have been the desired goal (to find) since 1989. In short, this could be the final fulfillment of everything which PF wanted to demonstrate but never could – reliable excess heat and neutrons. 11) Too bad PF did not think of the simple expedient of going to nickel wire in a plasma. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Jones, >From what I have read, you are correct that some QMS RGA instruments can read negative ions (such as potentially f/D-), but it must have a dual mode ionizer front end. In normal mode the ionizer has fast electrons that will not produce significant negative ions, and in fact the high speed electrons will typically disassociate molecules. To measure negative ions, the front end must be configurable for low speed electrons that will not cause impact ionization and will allow electron attachment. So there is easy and intentional discrimination between normal positive ion mode and optional negative ion mode of the front end. We don't know if Mizuno's RGA has the negative ion capability, but it most certainly has positive ion mode as its main (and perhaps only) mode. What was reported was highly likely the positive ion readout. We should probably presume the positive ion mode and also molecular fragmentation. Thanks for stimulating me to take a closer look at QMS. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > The quadrapole mass spec RGA will have a front end ionizer to extract an > ionized sample for measurement. I think this front end is likely to only > extract positive ions and there will be no f/D+ because there is no such > thing. > > > > AFAIK - Mass specs can be run in positive mode or negative mode. > > > > If an f/D- exists, I don't think it would be measured by the RGA. So, > M/e=2 would have to be D+ or H2+. > > > > We need to know if they were running in positive mode before we can go > that far. You could be right, but we do not have enough information. > > > > Robin may weigh in on redundant deuterons. To be honest, I had always > marginalized the possibility of “deuterino deuteride” before Yoshino/Mizuno. > > > > The great allure of it, is that it explains things in a way that is hard > to do otherwise. This is how Physics, or Fizzix, if you are in doubt - > ended up with the “neutrino”. It was invented many years before it was > found, simply to answer questions. Later it was actually found. Sometimes > you can work backward from known results. > > > > There is no doubt that lots of people thought the neutrino was a stretch. > A few still do. Nevertheless it is a case in point for using the best data > fit and then working backwards from that by the process of elimination. > > > > Jones > > >
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
From: Bob Higgins The quadrapole mass spec RGA will have a front end ionizer to extract an ionized sample for measurement. I think this front end is likely to only extract positive ions and there will be no f/D+ because there is no such thing. AFAIK - Mass specs can be run in positive mode or negative mode. If an f/D- exists, I don't think it would be measured by the RGA. So, M/e=2 would have to be D+ or H2+. We need to know if they were running in positive mode before we can go that far. You could be right, but we do not have enough information. Robin may weigh in on redundant deuterons. To be honest, I had always marginalized the possibility of “deuterino deuteride” before Yoshino/Mizuno. The great allure of it, is that it explains things in a way that is hard to do otherwise. This is how Physics, or Fizzix, if you are in doubt - ended up with the “neutrino”. It was invented many years before it was found, simply to answer questions. Later it was actually found. Sometimes you can work backward from known results. There is no doubt that lots of people thought the neutrino was a stretch. A few still do. Nevertheless it is a case in point for using the best data fit and then working backwards from that by the process of elimination. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
IMHO, the transmutation of D into H is a minor endothermic side reaction that uses energy from the primary nickel hydrogen reaction which is gainful on the average. Hydrogen serves as a plasmonic dielectric and is not always the primary source involved in the production of energy. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > >> Mizuno/Yoshino was basically a 75 watt gain experiment that saw gain from >> start to end, and ended after 30 days due to fuel depletion. >> > > I doubt the fuel was depleted. I realize you say the mass 4 species are > gone, but that does not mean they are used up in the reaction. They might > be absorbed by the metal preferentially, or leaked out. Helium leaks more > easily than just about any other gas. It would take an incredibly small > amount of fuel for it to be depleted after only 100 MJ. I doubt anyone > could measure out such a tiny amount of hydrogen (or deuterium), and even > if they did the inside of the cell would be a high vacuum -- which this one > is not. It is 10 to 80 Pa. > > Deuterium fusion yields 345 million megajoules per kilogram, so 100 MJ > would be approximately 0.29 milligrams of deuterium. I do not think you can > add this much and no more deuterium gas into a cell. I realize the energy > from a mixture of hydrogen and deuterium may be different but it is still > milligrams. > > > >> Average power gain was apparently a factor of 70-75 times more than >> Roulette, but it ran for far less time, so net gain was less. >> > > By "gain" do you mean the output to input ratio? Mizuno's is no better > than Roulette's. They both measured heat after death, with an infinite > ratio. > > > >> If Roulette (run 3 and run 4) had been considered to be the “hero” >> results for LENR cold fusion prior to the MIT presentation of Yoshino, >> there is no doubt that it does not compare favorably now. >> > > Yes, there as has been some progress since 1996. > > > >> BTW helium is not mentioned in Roulette and was not found in Mizuno. >> > > I do not know whether they measured helium in France. Those cells may not > have been sufficiently gas tight to contain it. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Jones Beene wrote: > Mizuno/Yoshino was basically a 75 watt gain experiment that saw gain from > start to end, and ended after 30 days due to fuel depletion. > I doubt the fuel was depleted. I realize you say the mass 4 species are gone, but that does not mean they are used up in the reaction. They might be absorbed by the metal preferentially, or leaked out. Helium leaks more easily than just about any other gas. It would take an incredibly small amount of fuel for it to be depleted after only 100 MJ. I doubt anyone could measure out such a tiny amount of hydrogen (or deuterium), and even if they did the inside of the cell would be a high vacuum -- which this one is not. It is 10 to 80 Pa. Deuterium fusion yields 345 million megajoules per kilogram, so 100 MJ would be approximately 0.29 milligrams of deuterium. I do not think you can add this much and no more deuterium gas into a cell. I realize the energy from a mixture of hydrogen and deuterium may be different but it is still milligrams. > Average power gain was apparently a factor of 70-75 times more than > Roulette, but it ran for far less time, so net gain was less. > By "gain" do you mean the output to input ratio? Mizuno's is no better than Roulette's. They both measured heat after death, with an infinite ratio. > If Roulette (run 3 and run 4) had been considered to be the “hero” results > for LENR cold fusion prior to the MIT presentation of Yoshino, there is no > doubt that it does not compare favorably now. > Yes, there as has been some progress since 1996. > BTW helium is not mentioned in Roulette and was not found in Mizuno. > I do not know whether they measured helium in France. Those cells may not have been sufficiently gas tight to contain it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: 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. > > These are good points. Note especially your bolded point, about the M/e=2 species increasing in both the excess heat run and the control. Either the control is not a control, or the increase in M/e=2 species is unrelated to the effect being observed. Note also that the maximum reactor temperature shown on slide 30 within the first 10k seconds was 70 C (not very hot). The experiment (including this particular trial?) lasted for a month, so perhaps the temperature increased beyond this later on. This detail is not necessarily indicative of artifact, but it's interesting from a commercialization perspective. Here is the link I have to the slides: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf Was a carefully edited writeup of the same experiment made available at some point? I do not think one can conclude much from conference slides. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Jones, Your explanation below seems really a stretch, but it certainly is a mystery. The quadrapole mass spec RGA will have a front end ionizer to extract an ionized sample for measurement. I think this front end is likely to only extract positive ions and there will be no f/D+ because there is no such thing. If an f/D- exists, I don't think it would be measured by the RGA. So, M/e=2 would have to be D+ or H2+. Even in the lower pressure of his experiment, there is likely to be little free monatomic D+ except that created by the front end ionizer of the RGA. This would make a D+ M/e=2 reading inversely related to the M/e=4 reading for D2+. Something about the experiment could be causing the RGA front end to become more effective in producing D+ in ionization of the D2 gas species as the experiment goes on. Perhaps this could be cleaning the oxide off of the RGA front end, making it more effective at breaking the D2 apart. If this were to happen, the measured M/e=4 would decline and the M/e=2 would increase at twice the rate - this would have nothing to do with the relative abundance of the species in the bulk of the apparatus. This is a simpler explanation than the one you propose. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > 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*. > > > This is consistent with the basic fractional deuterium reaction, in a > modified Millsean understanding, where the first redundant state is energy > neutral. There is no excess heat because, and unlike Mills theory, the > first stage ionization and redundancy is itself endothermic, and borrows > from the output. After the first step there is net gain, but it takes time > to build up a population of fractional D (designated as f/D or f/D- if in > the hydride state, which is stable and shows up as M/e=2. This stable ion > is what Mills might call deuterino deuteride. It is the correlate of > hydrino hydride – a stable negative ion. > > Of course, it is more complicated than that, since there needs to be some > hydrogen retained in the nickel (to give M/e=3 by exchange reaction) but > with as many runs as Mizuno made in the testing – and with both H2 and D2, > I do not believe he can completely clean the system of one species or the > other for every run. > > Jones >
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
From: Bob Higgins 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. This is consistent with the basic fractional deuterium reaction, in a modified Millsean understanding, where the first redundant state is energy neutral. There is no excess heat because, and unlike Mills theory, the first stage ionization and redundancy is itself endothermic, and borrows from the output. After the first step there is net gain, but it takes time to build up a population of fractional D (designated as f/D or f/D- if in the hydride state, which is stable and shows up as M/e=2. This stable ion is what Mills might call deuterino deuteride. It is the correlate of hydrino hydride – a stable negative ion. Of course, it is more complicated than that, since there needs to be some hydrogen retained in the nickel (to give M/e=3 by exchange reaction) but with as many runs as Mizuno made in the testing – and with both H2 and D2, I do not believe he can completely clean the system of one species or the other for every run. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
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 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 > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
From: Eric Walker 1) Deuterium does not convert into helium Never since the advent of Bacon and the scientific method did a single experiment or set of experiments overturn a whole body of previous experimental results. Wait a minute, Eric. That is not what is being suggested at all. The suggestion is that the bulk of past experiments (most of them) can be reinterpreted to fit into the new experimental results. There is an elegant way to do this. It is a very important distinction to make, since nothing is being overturned – merely reinterpreted. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Final note: To compare apples to apples, Mizuno saw 108 MJ of gain over 30 days at COP of 1.8 so the net energy was about 240 MJ, or about 8 per day, on average. For Roulette, the 294 MJ is net energy over 152 days at COP of 1.5, or about 2 MJ per day. Therefore, the Mizuno experiment is about 4 times more robust on an average day. I will correct prior estimate of this being 500% better (than the best prior result), down to 400%. From: Jed Rothwell As far as I know, the record for Pd-D is 294 MJ, Roulette et al.: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: 1) Deuterium does not convert into helium > Never since the advent of Bacon and the scientific method did a single experiment or set of experiments overturn a whole body of previous *experimental* results. When there's a new result, there's a need for a more sophisticated and encompassing explanation, not the shelving or ignoring of previous experiments (e.g., explaining them away as measurement error). The real challenge continues to be for those who ignore the entire breadth of experimental evidence and focus on a handful of experiments that suit their prior theory. It is ok to toss out individual experiments as being bad (for there are many bad LENR experiments). One is also free to throw out whole clusters of experiments over a period of years that show a common finding (e.g., 4He development), but good luck with that. It seems that Mizuno's experiment, if correct, shows one part of a large parameter space, where under certain conditions in an NiD/H gas system will evolve significant energy and spit out low-mass species. I think few who have done their homework would find this result revolutionary, in light of a range of similar and strange results over the years. It is encouraging, however, that Mizuno and Yoshino seems to be getting significant excess heat. Let's hope that others can reproduce this eventually. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
From: Jed Rothwell As far as I know, the record for Pd-D is 294 MJ, Roulette et al.: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf Good information to contrast here, Jed. Roulette was basically seven excellent experiments, of low power input, of which 5 failed with little or no gain, and which ran for a long time – up to152 days… and the one with big net gain did not see any excess energy for the first 60 days. Fig. 7 of that paper shows that the average gain at about one watt, which is confusing as it should be more. Mizuno/Yoshino was basically a 75 watt gain experiment that saw gain from start to end, and ended after 30 days due to fuel depletion. Average power gain was apparently a factor of 70-75 times more than Roulette, but it ran for far less time, so net gain was less. If Roulette (run 3 and run 4) had been considered to be the “hero” results for LENR cold fusion prior to the MIT presentation of Yoshino, there is no doubt that it does not compare favorably now. BTW helium is not mentioned in Roulette and was not found in Mizuno. Roulette #3 had a COP of 1.5 and amazingly ran for two months before showing any gain. Together with the other failed runs, there is little indication of a route to commercialization. In contrast, Mizuno shows a clear path, and in fact Yoshino showed pictures of two significant reactor upgrades already being fabricated in Japan. There is great anticipation that the multi-kW unit of Clean Power could be in testing now. This would be the kind of information which should get people excited, since it fits in with both Mills and Rossi, and with three positive paths, we can be much more optimistic. Actually, if it were a horse race, I’d put Mizuno at the top of that trifecta since he is the only one with real data. In conclusion, future historians may differ – but when we are talking about deuterium LENR, it appears to this non-historian, that everything from 1989-2014, prior to MIT could be considered to be of a different era than everything after 2014. The Yoshino presentation could have been that much of a paradigm shift. Time will tell, but where is the excitement level which should accompany such a dramatic change in technology ? Sadly, it is missing. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Jones Beene wrote: > 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. > As far as I know, the record for Pd-D is 294 MJ, Roulette et al.: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf There are several others between 20 and 100 MJ. The power has been lower than Mizuno's. Mizuno's own previous record for Pd-D was 114 MJ, including ~85 MJ in the runaway heat-after-death event. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
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 <>
