Independent Confirmation of Mizuno Cold Fusion Result Could Conclusively Prove the Reality of Excess Heat

The 20th cold fusion created by Japanese researcher Mizuno has produced results which seem clearly beyond error levels.

There is eleven degrees of celsius of excess heat. The unit is taking 50 watts in and producing 300 watts.

There are independent replication efforts. Zhang is showing some excess power which is currently at about the 9-watt level. Zhang has a better Seeback calorimeter. They hope replications are in the 9-20 watt excess level where Mizuno was at last year.

Once there are a few independent replication efforts at levels that are clearly beyond error rates, then this could finally conclusive prove the reality of excess heat.

The Mizuno palladium mesh is being sent for detailed material analysis.

Jed Rothwell is collaborating and sharing the recipe. However, they do not know all aspects of why things are working. There was a lot of trial and error. Cold Fusion is like exploration of cooking a souffle.

SOURCES- ICCF22 – Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel – J. Rothwell & T. Mizuno
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

62 thoughts on “Independent Confirmation of Mizuno Cold Fusion Result Could Conclusively Prove the Reality of Excess Heat”

  1. We haven’t mastered it. All we are doing is throwing out sparks. When fusion engines are driving our star ships to the stars then I will say we have mastered it.

    Reply
  2. Working under a DARPA fellowship (&security clearance) …requiring super-clean apparatus n hi-vac conditions, I recall first our team being super sensitive to surface contaminants and using stringent prep protocols. Then after laughing after reading the first descriptions of cold fusion setups…. But theoretically falling in line after doing calculations.

    Reply
  3. I ‘donno’…that prep recipe kinda sounds like introducing a redox active surface that would mask any micro-fusion process. Example, what’s with rinsing with tap water…when a precise experiment would employ de-ionized, triply distilled water handled in nickel/platinum vessels n tanks, etc. What about Pi readings on the water prior to use, surface analysis of the metal substrate, use of graphene surface instead of a metal…lots of control-variable considerations. Sorry…and I do believe in cold fusion…just not testable under these conditions.

    Reply
  4. I hope they do find if it is real or not. If it is real then we need to do a full court press to create theoretical models and develop the technology. I don’t have high hopes it is real, but it would be a game changer if it is.

    Reply
  5. If a patent does not contain enough information to allow “replication by one skilled in the art” then it would have great trouble standing up to a solid legal challenge.

    If you actually have IP over free(ish) energy, you will have a huge legal effort being directed against you. Anything other than a solid, clear and above board patent with all the is dotted and the ts crossed will probably fail.

    Reply
  6. There are 4 huge advantages to a (working, replicable, reliable) cold fusion over Pu-238

    1. You can turn it on and off. Your Pu-238 is sitting there pumping out waves of heat 24/7. Very inconvenient for most applications.
    2. So far we haven’t detected any radioactive waste, any dangerous radiation at all. This is a strong argument against cold fusion, but if it’s true it would make it much, MUCH easier to convince the Road and Traffic Authority to give me a roadworthy certificate for my cold fusion powered car.
    3. Plutonium production is heavily linked to nuclear weapon production. Yes, Pu-238 is not Pu-239… how good are you at explaining that to people who are terrified of vaccines, think the Earth is flat and that a man can become a woman by wishing real hard?
    4. Water is a LOT cheaper than plutonium.
    Reply
  7. This was a long time ago. If you can find old archives of sci.cold-fusion.moderated on the news group, before the web. I think his name was Professor Stephen Bishop from BYU, who was their main critic. He asked one of the two what their sample rate was. “They replied once per second, more than adequate.” OR something like that. Several people at different universities were trying to duplicate the experiment. Earlier discussions on the group talked about how the anode or cathode would build up a corrosion layer, then after a while he would see a huge current spike, that lasted about 150 us, when it blew through the corrosion. Without sampling every 50 us at least, this kind of data would be lost. It has to be part of the current integration to make any useful measurement. Without that data, they would easily fall into the mistaken belief that more power was coming out than going in. They quietly disappeared from the news soon after. I imagine someone explained their folly to them. I quit reading about it after that, since I was totally disgustipated with the whole thing at that point.

    Reply
  8. Water quality and composition can have significant impacts on the results of molecular biology experiments. That’s why everyone buys sterile bottle water for lab work now.

    Reply
  9. e-catworld covers a wide range of developments in LENR / Cold Fusion / alt-energy, much more than Rossi, who in fact seldom appears in posts/comments. It occasionally covers what I consider outright dubious phenomena and inventions. However, the conversations are virtually all civil, and there is much intelligent discussion of potential new and speculative physics, such as Brian alludes to in his post here. And it consistently reports on the forefront of LENR/Cold Fusion.

    Reply
  10. We haven’t got this locked down at this stage. We don’t completely know what’s happening.

    And the replication reported in the article above does not achieve anything like the same results.

    A nightmare result would be something, somewhere in the water supply changes, replication stops working, and we stick with coal for a generation longer than we need to (to the tune of many, many, deaths and illnesses).

    And that has absolutely happened before.

    eg. Scurvy was a killer for centuries. The cure (vitamin C) was discovered, and implemented, and then lost again, by a combination of overly optimistic reading of experimental results combined with an unknown variable creeping in.

    They found drinking lime juice stopped scurvy. Hurray! The British navy (RN) made a rule that you had to load up barrels of lime juice and make all the sailors drink a dose every day. Nobody knew why it worked, but it did.

    Then some military thing happened and the RN no longer had a large source of limes from Spain. But they had heaps of limes in the West Indies so that was fine. (They did not know that West Indian limes are actually quite different from Spanish ones. The trees and fruit look much the same, but the WI limes have only a fraction of the Vit C.

    Then, longer sea voyages meant they stored the juice for longer (destroys Vit C), copper lined barrels and cups (destroys vit C) and even boiling it to stop spoiling (destroys vit C).

    Drink that and you still get scurvy.

    Reply
  11. What utter clowns..! A clever high school kid can set up proper electric monitoring on a budget of a few hundred USD. And they call themselves scientists…

    Reply
  12. I was thinking along similar lines. If you run a heat pump (AKA ‘refrigerator’) “in reverse” so to say (not wanting to cool things down, but heat them up!), you easily can realize COPs of 3. Its what household and commercial refrigerators do.  

    But in turn, with that ol’ devil Thermodynamics haunting the lab, and in particular Carnot thermodynamic efficiency of heat-engines to turn heat into power, well … until the COP kicks above 10 or so, and until the heat output is higher than +11° K over ambient, there is a lack of usefulness about the discovery that is sobering. 

    This is NOT to say that research on it isn’t further warranted. It is. Of course it is. But it certainly doesn’t appear to hold the kind of mind-blowing promise that the discovery of ‘easy fission’ did.  

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  13. In so saying, Mark … you reveal something about how Science itself works. Without pretension, the scientific method is simple, succinct and rigorous.  

    Observation
    → Hypothesis
    → → Testing
    → → → Confirmation, but… imperfect theory coverage
    → → → → retesting, etc…
    → → → → → Publishing and critique
    → → → → → → Independent (in-) validation
    → → → → → → → Theory revisions, cycle and repeat

    It was OBSERVED ‘way back when, that a furry thermos jar having palladium foil, deuterated water and some ions … generated what seemed to be an unusually large amount of heat relative to the power sent to the cell by Pons and Fleishman. The results implied something other than a hidden or unknown chemical energy route to explain the anomaly. Hence the term “cold fusion” was coined.

    So… then there was Rossi, and his cunningly disingenuous experiments, claiming rather large energy production using household plumbing fixtures and magic unicorn horn powder. Everyone in the ‘serious cold-fusion’ field flocked to reproduce HIS results.

    See?  
    Scientific method was being followed, even thus.  

    But so far the only thing that has been discovered is that the results from one experimenter almost never can be reproduced by another using independently crafted experimental apparatus. 

    So, that’s why we do it.

    Scientific method.
    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  14. Actually, I think LOL might be referring to the 4th image, 3rd graph – but what you say applies to that one as well – the power is flat, the curve at the very bottom of the chart is the excess power.

    Reply
  15. What you say might be true – but until someone with different tap water fails to duplicate the results, I don’t see a reason to focus on possible ‘magic ingredients’ in the water?

    Reply
  16. There really isn’t enough detail to say. There is a LOT of fairly suspicious hand waving about ‘heat captured in air’ and so on, to have my bbb-bb-b-bûllsnot-meter shooting upward. As DocPat sez… way more precision is needed and verification from an independent (and hopefully more systematic) testing facility is required.  Thanks for remembering. GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  17. I have concerns about a “Detailed Recipe” that contains the ingredient “Tap Water”

    Which tap? What time of day? Which day? Can we please have an absolutely exhaustive, down to the picomolar level analysis of that tap water?

    As any good chef, barista or beer and whisky maker can tell you, the EXACT water can have a huge effect on the outcome. To the point where even a crude chemical analysis such as taste can spot significant differences.

    There are many cases throughout history where a subtle change in the contamination of an “off the shelf” ingredient has made or broken a process. Even the US Nuclear Weapon program stopped being able to make Thermonuclear weapons for a while because they rebuilt a facility for making a polymer foam and the new facility was cleaner and missing the “magic ingredient” they didn’t even know about because it was a trace element contaminant.

    Reply
  18. Heat capacity does vary, such as with temperature. And heat loss also varies with temperature thus affecting the relationship between power and temp.

    But yes, for something sitting under fairly constant conditions and changing temp by only 11 deg then yes it would be constant by the precision given in the graph.

    Reply
  19. The first discovered nuclear reaction* was not warm enough to feel with your bare hands. But once the basic physics was worked out then all sorts of things became possible.

    *Decay of Uranium

    Reply
  20. I agree with you Rossi is a fraud. I disagree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Who’s to say that this is any more extraordinary than any other scientific advance? And even if it was an extraordinary claim, why would it require more evidence than any other pursuit?

    And why are you so concerned about wthat other people do with their money? It’s a lot more valuable investing in something that would have great benefits to society even if it has a small chance of working than it is investing in something that has a high chance of working but marginal or no benefit to society.

    Reply
  21. I would love to find cold fusion right, who would not? I am just a tiny bit skeptical. You don’t have to be as old as me to know: “If it sounds too good to be true…..”
    Fusion is hard.

    Reply
  22. At least their open about the materials and manufacturing. Everybody else wants to patent up their recipe and keeps it hidden, which restricts replication…

    Reply
  23. Well, sure, the problem is just that, so far as we understand the laws of physics, under the conditions of a “cold fusion” cell the rate of fusion reactions would be ten or twenty orders of magnitude too low to detect.

    Granted, that’s not the same a “zero”, except for practical purposes.

    It’s not an “obsession”; Findings in science are “proven” by failures to falsify them. If cold fusion were real, it would be a seriously major finding, indicating an equally major shake up in our understanding of physics was on the horizon. So a lot of efforts were made, not to falsify, but to duplicate the findings, under more stringent conditions that would rule out various sources of error. Because anybody who could duplicate them would have a head start on figuring out what was wrong, and coming up with a theory that fixed the problem.

    What was the alternative? Ignoring the claims, basically. Would you have liked that better?

    Reply
  24. I never understood the obsession about proving cold fusion wrong. Within any volume of Deuterium there is a very small probability of a fusion reaction. Anything that can be done to increase that probability would yield energy. I have thought that a catalyst that could bring two deuterium atoms close enough together could do it. Or maybe a defect in a crystal that would subject deuterium atoms to strong electrostatic forces could do it.

    It is never that useful to say something is impossible. It is more fun to figure out how it could be done.

    Reply
  25. If he will let me have one, I will go off grid and pay him US $ 0.50 / kWh. Alternatively I would also be prepared to deposit the sales price of a 3 kW unit into an interest bearing trust account of a lawyer. And he could be paid out after 6 months if it works.

    Reply
  26. Hopefully they sample the current more often than once a second. That is the bogus reason Pons and Fleischmann got increased power out. Aliased Data. They missed the 150us current spikes when the corrosion broke through on the anode on the input power.

    Reply
  27. Rossi was proved beyond doubt to be a scam.

    You enemies of science (also Kimhi above, talking about nonsense like “scientific dogma”) complain all you want, but it’s exactly the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that prevents all sorts of scams or and waste in things with little change of working.

    Look how many perpetual motion machines are claimed to work EVERY YEAR…

    Reply
  28. 11 degrees celcius, not 11 watts. That’s the rise in temperature due to excess power. The excess power itself is supposedly 250 watts. Enough to run 2-3 laptops.

    Reply
  29. Probably because the conversion between them is a constant value. Something along the lines of “heat = heat capacity * temperature difference”. Heat capacity is constant for constant mass.

    Reply
  30. That’s why they’ve taken to calling it LENR instead of cold fusion. They don’t necessarily think it’s actual fusion. Widom-Larsen theory for example proposes a complicated reaction involving the weak force. How plausible it is, I have no idea.

    Reply
  31. Beyond of the huge implications of being able to validate cold fusion, every time that the scientific dogma proves to be wrong is a triumph for humanity.

    Reply
  32. I agree, if it actually works at all, it’s going to lead to some interesting advances in physics.

    IF.

    To be honest I would have found Pons and Fleischmann more believable if their hair had been falling out from radiation poisoning, as really should have been the case if they’d had remotely that level of nuclear reactions going on in a beaker in front of them. I’ve always found the lack of ionizing radiation more unbelievable than some form of catalytic fusion; No matter how you cause the fusion reaction to happen, it’s happening at an atomic level, and should proceed in the normal fashion at that level regardless of any extended matter structure around it, so where’s the radiation?

    The lack of radiation is just absurdly convenient.

    Reply
  33. *If confirmed* it means we’re about to learn something new and really interesting about the universe.

    The first steam and internal combustion engines were only a few percent efficient. A few decades later, they became the foundation of the world’s energy system.

    Reply
  34. Would be good for cold environments I guess.
    One particularly good use would be operating in cold space environments. Specifically Titan or Lunar craters where solar is impractical. Would potentially be a much cheaper, civilian version of an RTG although probably less practical.

    Reply
  35. Sure, the interesting thing is why? What mechanism is triggering that excess heat, and if discovered, we could possibly improve the results. Would it be practical as an energy source? At its current state, no, but with the proper research, who knows what practical application can it have? Scientific curiosities can still yield great results.

    Reply
  36. So *if confirmed* it is in practice like a heat pump with a COP of 6.
    If it can’t operate at a few hundred °C it won’t be a practical energy source for anything but low grade heat. Not much more than a scientific curiosity.

    Reply

Leave a Comment