We need a LENR Lab Rat

  • What is needed is a "lab rat" protocol for a simple (ideally inexpensive) experiment that has a good signal-to-noise ratio, e.g., two or more orders of magnitude above the noise floor. With that, any group that seeks to reproduce the purported effect can do so, characterize its error, investigate its mechanism through repeated trials, and test and confirm or refute various mundane hypotheses.


    A room-sized calorimeter is an interesting idea. But if such a device is required to establish a result, it won't be convincing to very many people because all sorts of possible artifact will need to be ruled out, including going back to the room-sized calorimeter.

    • Official Post

    What is needed is a "lab rat" protocol for a simple (ideally inexpensive) experiment that has a good signal-to-noise ratio, e.g., two or more orders of magnitude above the noise floor. With that, any group that seeks to reproduce the purported effect can do so, characterize its error, investigate its mechanism through repeated trials, and test and confirm or refute various mundane hypotheses.


    That is the whole rationale of the Model T reactor we are developing. You just wrote my business plan. :thumbup:

  • Eric Walker wrote:
    What is needed is a "lab rat" protocol for a simple (ideally inexpensive) experiment that has a good signal-to-noise ratio, e.g., two or more orders of magnitude above the noise floor. With that, any group that seeks to reproduce the purported effect can do so, characterize its error, investigate its mechanism through repeated trials, and test and confirm or refute various mundane hypotheses.



    That is the whole rationale of the Model T reactor we are developing. You just wrote my business plan.

    I had a somewhat similar plan by the end of 2009, and put together a SPAWAR neutron replication kit. One student bought it and ran it, there was an accident with the radiation detectors and so ... we got some experience, it wasn't expensive, etc. Then I came to the conclusion that single-effect experiments were intrinsically weak. So you get a handful of neutrons. So what? What caused them? No clue, really, though, hopefully, they are spatially correlated with the cathode. So I did intend to look for light and sound, and I might still do it.


    As to Alan's effort, this equipment is designed for a particular exploration. Is it known to produce results of interest that are then worth replicating?


    What is clear is that people, if they communicate about the work, will learn. To my mind, it is just as valuable to learn what doesn't work as to learn what does work. Sometimes it is even more valuable, if you then move on to what works.


    Testing and understanding the possible artifacts in these high-temperature experiments is valuable. Finding XE? Science says, "try to prove yourself wrong. Try hard."

    • Official Post

    @'Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax 'As to Alan's effort, this equipment is designed for a particular exploration. Is it known to produce results of interest that are then worth replicating?'


    The equipment is designed not so much for a particular system replication, like only Ni/H work, but can be used for looking for XSH in any 'dry' system that requires temperatures of between 200 and 1200/1300C to trigger it. And the '2 at once' (control and test) ability and ease with which ports can be calibrated to provide closely matched internal heat. It also enables very fast screening of multiple candidate 'fuel' mixes using any temperature or pressure profile the experimenter wishes- in certain knowledge that both test and control systems see very closely correlated environments. Data-logging is also cheap and easy to do with our tailor made loggers. The system can also be expanded to more than 2 ports- attached is a photo of a 4-port system we are developing for an academic client. This has undergone upgrade and test-driven refinement in the few weeks since I took the photograph


    Have we seen results of interest using the Model T? Yes I have, many. All negative for my own tests anyway - so as you say, we have found plenty of things that don't work. This 'Edisonian' approach works best with more than one replicator, and we are slowly building a small group of users who are happy to share results. The trouble is that most of our modest systems sales go to very surprising destinations- they disappear into corporate or academic hands and we hear little more except for requests for chemicals or spare parts. There are many more talkers than doers, so despite www.lookingforheat.com being the world's one and only dedicated LENR supply shop and offering what we consider to be first-class customer service in terms of delivery times and accessibility I would live very modestly indeed if I depended on it for my daily bread. There are 100+ talkers for every doer in this field.


    But that apart, we have designed and built a versatile platform to handle small-volume 'dry 'LENR experiments that, because of the comparative temperature approach used, pretty much does away with any need for calorimetry as a first step, and caters for the interest in replicable experiments globally.


    Personally I regard this kind of LENR experimentation as being not just a new 'dark corner' of physics but a whole new field of endeavour akin to the early development of wireless communications, when kitchen-table experimenters by the thousand were building crystal detector and 1-valve radios. We have the diodes, and the valves, all we lack is more broadcast info to pick up.