https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg118125.html
replication of Mizuno's experiment by H. Zhang:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangHreproducti.pdf
Excess heat started at ~4 W and has now reached 9.6 W. Be careful when
comparing this to the original experiment, because the mass of nickel mesh
is smaller.
The calorimetry is MUCH better than Mizuno's. It is splendid.
Mizuno expressed some reservations about these results because the heat
peters out after 2 or 3 hours. He thinks this might be caused by "impure
gas in the reactants or slight differences in nickel." I do not think this
is a problem because:
1. Zhang ran several times with a mesh that produced no heat (p. 18).
2. I think the total heat release is too large to be explained as impure
gas.
3. The reaction is getting stronger between the second and third runs,
from 4 W 20 kJ up to 9.7 W 47 kJ. If this were caused by gas coming out of
the nickel mesh, I suppose it would fade away. He does not open the cell or
change the mesh between runs.
4. Zhang replaced the deuterium gas with argon. That killed the
reaction. I hope he did not clobber it permanently! Yesterday he told me he
went back to deuterium, but it is still dead.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
This is not exactly a “replication” at least in qualitative terms - in
> that the gain relative to the input power is tiny.
>
The gain relative to input is irrelevant, and meaningless. You can change
it to any value you like, by improving the insulation around the cell. It
is not a "gain" in any technical sense, because there is no mechanism that
converts input into output. With the bulk Pd-D electrochemical technique,
you need input power to maintain high loading. Bulk Pd-D can produce heat
after death, but to maintain a long lasting reaction you have to leave
electrolysis running. So in that sense there is a sort of gain. The input
power does play a role in the reaction.
The ratio in this case is about the same as it was in most of Mizuno's
tests reported in ICCF21, which I would not describe as "tiny."
The only meaningful number is the absolute value of the output power. It is
9.6 W, which is larger than most cold fusion experiments. See:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/StormsPeakheat124tests.jpg
https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618
> Based on Mizuno’s claimed results, many observers were looking a
> replication characterized by long periods of ~300 watt excess as opposed to
> short periods at very low COP
>
That would be a miracle, not a replication. It is not possible for someone
to recapitulate the last several years of Mizuno's work in a few months. I
am delighted that Zhang has apparently recapitulated the work to a level
beyond the ICCF21 paper. That was a 12 W reaction, but the mass of mesh was
larger. Taking that into account, Zhang's present experiment is working
about as well as Mizuno's new mesh in the R20 reactor, which is producing
~30 W.
At this stage in the development of the experiment, we know virtually
nothing about the meshes. Mizuno does not even have an SEM anymore. The
earthquake broke his SEM. There is no way we can describe this experiment
in enough detail to allow an easier replication than this. The experiment
appears to be inherently easier to replicate than others. If it were not,
the crude, hit-or-miss method of burnishing the Pd on the Ni would never
work. It has to be robust. It is *easier*, but it sure isn't easy!
----------------------------------------------------
Previously, I wrote that Zhang's tests tend to "peter out" after about 3
hours. I said they stop producing heat. That is incorrect. The spreadsheet
shows the heat did not peter out completely. At the end of Test 1 the
reactor was still producing 0.2 W. At the end of Test 2 it was producing
0.4 W, and at the end of the graph for Test 3, it was producing 1.8 W.
No comments:
Post a Comment