253) Mizuno-type high voltage electrolysis


Ludwik Kowalski (9/2/05)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

1) In unit #252 I described experiments of Pierre Crauzon and his colleagues. It was based on their recent, still unpublished paper, and on my correspondence with Pierre. In this unit I want summarize what I known about other experiments of that type.

a) Experiments of Mizuno et al. (1997)
b) Experiments of Little et al. (1998)
c) Experiments of Naudin et al. (2003)

Results of Clauzon (excess energy is about 30% of the input energy) seem to be more or less consistent with what was reported in several Naudin’s experiments.
Results of Little, however, indicated that the excess heat, if any, is less that about 3% of the input energy. Mizuno, on the other hand, originally reported that excess heat was 1000% of the input energy. In fact, the purpose of nine experiments undertaken by Little was to replicate Mizuno’s experiments. All researchers wrote that their results were highly reproducible. That is certainly a strange situation. I also looked at the report that Mizuno presented at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10 in 2003). The main point of that paper was the discovery that the excess heat is only a fraction of excess energy; a significant part of excess energy is chemical -- production of hydrogen fuel. The amount of that fuel turned out to be much higher than what one would expect on the basis Faraday Law of electrolysis.

2) I do not have the original Mizuno paper; it was presented at the ICCF7. But his ICCF10 paper is downloadable from the library at <www.lenr-canr.org>. From that paper I see that two independent methods were used to measure excess heat: flow calorimetry and isoperibolic calorimetry. The first has already been introduced in units # 116 - 119. It is highly reliable when the cell is well isolated (no significant excess heat is lost through the surrounding wall. The second method is also quite simple; its reliability depends on stability of calibration. The calibration consists of placing an immersion heater, of known wattage, into the electrolyte and waiting till the temperature stops rising. That gives the first calibration point, for example, 50 W and 47 C. The the heating power is increased, for example to 100 W, and new stable temperature is measured. That the second calibration point. In that way a relation between the heating rate and equilibrium temperature can be established. The curve is plotted and used in subsequent electrolytic experiments.

3) In my opinion the credibility of results reported by Clauzon would go up if the flow calorimeter were used. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong in calculating the average heating rate from the average rate of evaporation. Simplicity is a great advantage, especially in educational context. Naudin also used that simple method. It is hard to believe that large discrepancies of conclusions are due to systematic errors in measuring excess heat produced at the rates higher that 50 W. Measuring rates at which electric energy is supplied to an electrolytic cell is more tricky. But I do not believe that a discrepancy of several orders of magnitude, between Mizuno and Little, is due to a systematic error in measuring electric energy.

4) So what can possibly cause the discrepancy? That is a very difficult question. As usual, one is inclined to think that an essential success-enhancing ingredient was present in the W cathode used by Mizuno but absent in the cathode used by Little. Ed Storms call the mysterious ingredient NAE (nuclear active environment). He believes that CMNS phenomena will become reproducible everywhere after the nature of the NAE is recognized. But in the experiments #7 and #8 Little used the cathode sent to him by Mizuno. And the results were the same as in other experiments -- the average electric input power and the average thermal power were essentially identical. The controversy remains unresolved.

The only way to make progress, in my opinion, would be to bring Mizuno to the laboratory of Little (to repeat Little’s experiment together) and then to bring Little to the laboratory of Mizuno (to repeat Mizuno’s experiment together). Would they discover an error in at least one experiment? If not then a tentative conclusion will be that the NAE is linked to geography. But that would lead to other contradictions; many successful attempts to generate excess heat were made outside Japan, for example, in China, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Italy, France, Canada and the USA.

Let me finish this unit by mentioning that Naudin’s experiments were reproduced by other researchers, as illustrated at <http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/>. They are not very different from the experiment of Clauzon and his colleagues. What is remarkable is that no expensive platinum was used in many of his devices. Very large amounts of excess heat were reported with cells whose both electrodes were identical, for example both tungsten or both stainless steel. In other words, two knives or two spoons can be used. Two tungsten rods for arc welding, he told me last fall, are excellent electrodes. It is not difficult to find suppliers of such rods by googling. Let us hope that a massive assault (many teachers, students and other qualified people working on the same kind of experiment at the same time) will help to solve the puzzle.