I came across the following CF paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf

I'm usually very wary of all the "excess heat" claims associated with CF
experiments, but this paper caught my eye. There are no claims of excess
heat, but rather neutron emissions; a telltale sign of nuclear reactions
(that is, if the metrology is done right).

I'm not totally convinced, but I do find it to be an interesting departure
from the usual reports of low-grade heat. Nuclear fragments are the only
definitive proof that any sort of nuclear process has occured.

Can other people here comment on the techniques used in the paper and where
the experimenters could have been in error? I can come up with a few
already, but I'd to hear some comments first. (I personally cannot see why
the apparatus used in this experiment should produce nuclear reactions at
all.)

Considering the experiment as described in the paper, I'd tend to
believe that the neutron emissions were little other than experimental
artifacts or noise.

Yes, I know that hope springs eternal...but not in this case.

Harry C.

'Brian/Joseph McDermott' wrote in part:
| Can other people here comment on the techniques used in the paper and
where
| the experimenters could have been in error? I can come up with a few
| already, but I'd to hear some comments first. (I personally cannot see why
| the apparatus used in this experiment should produce nuclear reactions at
| all.)

What I wondered is how the order of 100 KW heat from the coil was dissipated
while keeping the cell below - 196 C, especially with the equipment pictured
(10,000 turns 1.5 mm diameter wire @ -196 C, 100 Amperes) At that point I
gave up.

Phil Weldon

"Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote in message
...
I came across the following CF paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf

I'm usually very wary of all the "excess heat" claims associated with CF
experiments, but this paper caught my eye. There are no claims of excess
heat, but rather neutron emissions; a telltale sign of nuclear reactions
(that is, if the metrology is done right).

I'm not totally convinced, but I do find it to be an interesting departure
from the usual reports of low-grade heat. Nuclear fragments are the only
definitive proof that any sort of nuclear process has occured.

Can other people here comment on the techniques used in the paper and
where the experimenters could have been in error? I can come up with a few
already, but I'd to hear some comments first. (I personally cannot see why
the apparatus used in this experiment should produce nuclear reactions at
all.)

I'm thinking that the neuton counts are merely artifacts from current
fluctuations in the coil. Plus, his neutron counts occur in bursts, even
though this is a CW device. A continuous wave fusion device should put out a
steady stream of neutorns, from what I've observed in the fusor.

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...
'Brian/Joseph McDermott' wrote in part:
| Can other people here comment on the techniques used in the paper and
where
| the experimenters could have been in error? I can come up with a few
| already, but I'd to hear some comments first. (I personally cannot see
why
| the apparatus used in this experiment should produce nuclear reactions
at
| all.)

What I wondered is how the order of 100 KW heat from the coil was
dissipated while keeping the cell below - 196 C, especially with the
equipment pictured (10,000 turns 1.5 mm diameter wire @ -196 C, 100
Amperes) At that point I gave up.

Phil Weldon

"Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote in message
...
I came across the following CF paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf

I'm usually very wary of all the "excess heat" claims associated with CF
experiments, but this paper caught my eye. There are no claims of excess
heat, but rather neutron emissions; a telltale sign of nuclear reactions
(that is, if the metrology is done right).

I'm not totally convinced, but I do find it to be an interesting
departure from the usual reports of low-grade heat. Nuclear fragments are
the only definitive proof that any sort of nuclear process has occured.

Can other people here comment on the techniques used in the paper and
where the experimenters could have been in error? I can come up with a
few already, but I'd to hear some comments first. (I personally cannot
see why the apparatus used in this experiment should produce nuclear
reactions at all.)

'Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote:
| I'm thinking that the neuton counts are merely artifacts from current
| fluctuations in the coil. Plus, his neutron counts occur in bursts, even
| though this is a CW device. A continuous wave fusion device should put out
a
| steady stream of neutorns, from what I've observed in the fusor.

_____

Consideration of 'results' from the 'experiment' is unecessary. The
apparatus described and pictured would melt down from the heat dissipated by
the coil; since that was not reported, I conclude the experiment was not
done.

Description of coil from the paper:
current: 100 Amperes
wire size: 1.5 mm diameter (about 15 B&S guage)
number of turns: 10,000
diameter of cylinder in center: 10 mm

To construct a coil as long as the central cell, using 1.5 mm diameter wire
would require at least 5000 meters of wire.
Copper wire of 1.5 mm diameter has a resistance at - 196 C of ~ 0.002
ohms/meter.
5000 meters X 0.002 ohms/meter = 10 ohms
E = IR; E = 100 Amperes X 10 ohms; E = 1000 volts
Power = IE; Power = 100 Amperes X 1000 volts; Power = 100,000 watts

All of the power would be dissipated in the coil as heat.
Enthalpy of vaporization, N2: ~ 200 J/gram
200,000 J/sec/200 = 1 Kg N2 vaporized per second to maintain coil and test
cell @ 77.35 K


Phil Weldon


"Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote in message
...
I'm thinking that the neuton counts are merely artifacts from current
fluctuations in the coil. Plus, his neutron counts occur in bursts, even
though this is a CW device. A continuous wave fusion device should put out
a steady stream of neutorns, from what I've observed in the fusor.

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...
'Brian/Joseph McDermott' wrote in part:
| Can other people here comment on the techniques used in the paper and
where
| the experimenters could have been in error? I can come up with a few
| already, but I'd to hear some comments first. (I personally cannot see
why
| the apparatus used in this experiment should produce nuclear reactions
at
| all.)

What I wondered is how the order of 100 KW heat from the coil was
dissipated while keeping the cell below - 196 C, especially with the
equipment pictured (10,000 turns 1.5 mm diameter wire @ -196 C, 100
Amperes) At that point I gave up.

Phil Weldon

"Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote in message
...
I came across the following CF paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf

I'm usually very wary of all the "excess heat" claims associated with CF
experiments, but this paper caught my eye. There are no claims of excess
heat, but rather neutron emissions; a telltale sign of nuclear reactions
(that is, if the metrology is done right).

I'm not totally convinced, but I do find it to be an interesting
departure from the usual reports of low-grade heat. Nuclear fragments
are the only definitive proof that any sort of nuclear process has
occured.

Can other people here comment on the techniques used in the paper and
where the experimenters could have been in error? I can come up with a
few already, but I'd to hear some comments first. (I personally cannot
see why the apparatus used in this experiment should produce nuclear
reactions at all.)

'Phil Weldon' wrote, in part:
| 200,000 J/sec/200 = 1 Kg N2 vaporized per second to maintain coil and test
| cell @ 77.35 K

_____

Oops,
should be '100,000 J/sec/200 = 0.5 Kg N2 vaporized per second to maintain
coil and test cell @ 77.35 K

Phil Weldon


"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...
..
..
..

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...
'Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote:
| I'm thinking that the neuton counts are merely artifacts from current
| fluctuations in the coil. Plus, his neutron counts occur in bursts, even
| though this is a CW device. A continuous wave fusion device should put
out
a
| steady stream of neutorns, from what I've observed in the fusor.

_____

Consideration of 'results' from the 'experiment' is unecessary. The
apparatus described and pictured would melt down from the heat dissipated
by
the coil; since that was not reported, I conclude the experiment was not
done.

Description of coil from the paper:
current: 100 Amperes
wire size: 1.5 mm diameter (about 15 B&S guage)
number of turns: 10,000
diameter of cylinder in center: 10 mm

To construct a coil as long as the central cell, using 1.5 mm diameter
wire
would require at least 5000 meters of wire.
Copper wire of 1.5 mm diameter has a resistance at - 196 C of ~ 0.002
ohms/meter.
5000 meters X 0.002 ohms/meter = 10 ohms
E = IR; E = 100 Amperes X 10 ohms; E = 1000 volts
Power = IE; Power = 100 Amperes X 1000 volts; Power = 100,000 watts

All of the power would be dissipated in the coil as heat.
Enthalpy of vaporization, N2: ~ 200 J/gram
200,000 J/sec/200 = 1 Kg N2 vaporized per second to maintain coil and test
cell @ 77.35 K


Phil Weldon


There is another data "point". Let assume generously that all 100mm of the
D2
tube was covered by the coil. With 1.5mm wire, it would take 66 turns (not
counting
for wire insulation). To make 10000 turns, it would require about 150 layers
of windings. At 1.5mm per layer, the thickness of the coil will be 225mm,
making
the total coil diameter of 225+225+6 = 456mm, or about half of a meter,
almost one and half foot for those who has problems with mertics. Yet the
paper says that the whole construction was submerged into a 50-mm-diameter
pyrex glass. The ends clearly do not fit.

To fit the coil into a 50-mm pyrex glass 100mm tall, the wire must be 0.15mm
in
diameter, 660turns x 15 layers, about 50 mm total diameter.

Regards,

- aap



"Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote in message
...
I came across the following CF paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf

'alexi' wrote:

| There is another data "point". Let assume generously that all 100mm of the
| D2
| tube was covered by the coil. With 1.5mm wire, it would take 66 turns (not
| counting
| for wire insulation). To make 10000 turns, it would require about 150
layers
| of windings. At 1.5mm per layer, the thickness of the coil will be 225mm,
| making
| the total coil diameter of 225+225+6 = 456mm, or about half of a meter,
| almost one and half foot for those who has problems with mertics. Yet the
| paper says that the whole construction was submerged into a 50-mm-diameter
| pyrex glass. The ends clearly do not fit.
| To fit the coil into a 50-mm pyrex glass 100mm tall, the wire must be
0.15mm
| in
| diameter, 660turns x 15 layers, about 50 mm total diameter.

And considering the voltage to push 100 Amperes through your calculated
length is going to be over 3000 volts, the lack of insulation is going to be
a real problem B^)

A google search on the primary 'author' name and received 701 hits; over
half included the words 'fusion'. Is this an elaborate practical joke?
Surely such patently fake 'papers' would be enough to, well, give 'cold
fusion' a bad name? As may be indicated by the 'sponsored link' that shows

"Mizuno in stock
Misuno sale
up to 80% off Liquidation Sale."

I wonder how many 'cold fusion' papers are not only 'junk science' but also
'faked science"?
Though it does seem that 'Mizuno' should have at least gotten the dimensions
right and kept the power dissipation out of the realm of fantasy B^)

Phil Weldon



"alexi" wrote in message
...

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
link.net...
'Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote:
| I'm thinking that the neuton counts are merely artifacts from current
| fluctuations in the coil. Plus, his neutron counts occur in bursts,
even
| though this is a CW device. A continuous wave fusion device should put
out
a
| steady stream of neutorns, from what I've observed in the fusor.

_____

Consideration of 'results' from the 'experiment' is unecessary. The
apparatus described and pictured would melt down from the heat dissipated
by
the coil; since that was not reported, I conclude the experiment was not
done.

Description of coil from the paper:
current: 100 Amperes
wire size: 1.5 mm diameter (about 15 B&S guage)
number of turns: 10,000
diameter of cylinder in center: 10 mm

To construct a coil as long as the central cell, using 1.5 mm diameter
wire
would require at least 5000 meters of wire.
Copper wire of 1.5 mm diameter has a resistance at - 196 C of ~ 0.002
ohms/meter.
5000 meters X 0.002 ohms/meter = 10 ohms
E = IR; E = 100 Amperes X 10 ohms; E = 1000 volts
Power = IE; Power = 100 Amperes X 1000 volts; Power = 100,000 watts

All of the power would be dissipated in the coil as heat.
Enthalpy of vaporization, N2: ~ 200 J/gram
200,000 J/sec/200 = 1 Kg N2 vaporized per second to maintain coil and
test
cell @ 77.35 K


Phil Weldon


There is another data "point". Let assume generously that all 100mm of the
D2
tube was covered by the coil. With 1.5mm wire, it would take 66 turns (not
counting
for wire insulation). To make 10000 turns, it would require about 150
layers
of windings. At 1.5mm per layer, the thickness of the coil will be 225mm,
making
the total coil diameter of 225+225+6 = 456mm, or about half of a meter,
almost one and half foot for those who has problems with mertics. Yet the
paper says that the whole construction was submerged into a 50-mm-diameter
pyrex glass. The ends clearly do not fit.

To fit the coil into a 50-mm pyrex glass 100mm tall, the wire must be
0.15mm
in
diameter, 660turns x 15 layers, about 50 mm total diameter.

Regards,

- aap



"Brian/Joseph McDermott" wrote in message
...
I came across the following CF paper:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTneutronemi.pdf

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
nk.net...
'alexi' wrote:

"Mizuno in stock
Misuno sale
up to 80% off Liquidation Sale."

I wonder how many 'cold fusion' papers are not only 'junk science' but
also
'faked science"?
Though it does seem that 'Mizuno' should have at least gotten the
dimensions
right and kept the power dissipation out of the realm of fantasy B^)

Phil Weldon


Actually, you should not judge something based on Google search engine. You
can
put any garbage in, and it will produce some funny output. For example,
if you try Yahoo search for people, and type in something like
"crap_****_pig",
the engine will respond with:

"Public Records has Current Phone Number and Address for Crap_****_pig -
Records include Age, Date of Birth, Address History and Family Members"

Buyers aware.

- aap

'alexi' wrote, in part:
| Actually, you should not judge something based on Google search engine.

_____

Actually, you CAN use the Google search engine to HELP judge something. It
just requires some knowledge to begin with, and enough experience in
cross-referencing. Out of the Google search on 'Tadahiko Mizuno' comes a
list of 'flags' that warn of junk and faked science (any names associated
with Tadahiko Mizuno, for example.) The same applies to any reference
source; for example, typos occur in "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics",
but that doesn't keep it from being a valuable reference.

Along with the benefits of 'desktop publishing' are negatives; now anyone
can turn out a paper that looks good, but that is just a cover for junk.
But then when you apply a bit of thought and a few facts, just as you did,
the surface gloss turns out to be all there is.

Phil Weldon

"alexi" wrote in message
.. .

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
nk.net...
'alexi' wrote:

"Mizuno in stock
Misuno sale
up to 80% off Liquidation Sale."

I wonder how many 'cold fusion' papers are not only 'junk science' but
also
'faked science"?
Though it does seem that 'Mizuno' should have at least gotten the
dimensions
right and kept the power dissipation out of the realm of fantasy B^)

Phil Weldon


Actually, you should not judge something based on Google search engine.
You
can
put any garbage in, and it will produce some funny output. For example,
if you try Yahoo search for people, and type in something like
"crap_****_pig",
the engine will respond with:

"Public Records has Current Phone Number and Address for Crap_****_pig -
Records include Age, Date of Birth, Address History and Family Members"

Buyers aware.

- aap