Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!

  • I get mixed signals from the Nature article. Team Google clearly found no LENR, but IMO they seem excited, and want to continue on with the research? They even invoke a "call to action"...directed at the scientific establishment I assume:


    "A reasonable criticism of our effort may be ‘Why pursue cold fusion when it has not been proven to exist?’. One response is that evaluating cold fusion led our programme to study materials and phenomena that we otherwise might not have considered. We set out looking for cold fusion, and instead benefited contemporary research topics in unexpected ways.

    A more direct response to this question, and the underlying motivation of our effort, is that our society is in urgent need of a clean energy breakthrough. Finding breakthroughs requires risk taking, and we contend that revisiting cold fusion is a risk worth taking.We hope our journey will inspire others to produce and contribute data in this intriguing parameter space. This is not an all-or-nothing endeavour.

    Even if we do not find a transformative energy source, this exploration of matter far from equilibrium is likely to have a substantial impact on future energy technologies78,79. It is our perspective that the search for a reference experiment for cold fusion remains a worthy pursuit because the quest to understand and control unusual states of matter is both interesting and important"


    This may have been that rumored "big announcement", we have been hearing about. Not quite what I had in mind though! :) Amazing to me that they started this collaboration in 2015, and kept it secret until now.


    I expect we will hear much more about this in the coming days/weeks. If any member has any inside info, let us hear about it. No longer any reason keeping it a secret.

  • They are seeking feeedback from the LENR community about their calorimetry:


    "We concede that we might not have tested all of the experimental conditions required to initiate excess heat as claimed, and sowe have made our calorimeter design and analytical tools publicly available for those seeking to evaluate this parameter space further"

  • They're certainly giving mixed signals, the sort of excitement that maybe they have more exciting info than they are prepared to report. Let's face it would Nature have published a clearly positive result, given the previous history of CF?

  • (Moving here, a better place)


    The article seems behind a paywall (any preprint?), and the preview is impossible to read for me(is it?)


    another press article associated

    https://news.ubc.ca/2019/05/27…cold-case-of-cold-fusion/


    few Arxive article in relation with that team showing their competences before that article.


    the team have worked already in cutting edge problems about hydrides, nanotech, calorimetry...


    Dynamic optical properties of metal hydrides

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07589

    "The authors are grateful for financial support from Google LLC and thank Matt Trevithick,

    David Fork, and Ross Koningstein for contributions to this collaboration"


    Apparatus for Operando X-ray Diffraction of Fuel Electrodes in High Temperature Solid State Electrochemical Cells

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01551

    co-author "Yet-Ming Chiang" and "The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Charles Settens for assistance with apparatus

    design, Dr. James Hunter for assistance with apparatus design and fabrication, and Dr. David

    Fork, Dr. Ross Koningstein, and Matt Trevithick
    for helpful discussions. "


    Producing High Concentrations of Hydrogen in Palladium via Electrochemical Insertion from Aqueous and Solid Electrolytes

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01555

    "The authors also thank Dr. David Fork, Dr. Ross Koningstein, and Matthew Trevithick for helpful discussions about data analysis and interpretation"


    also from those authors

    An operando calorimeter for high temperature electrochemical cells

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.02596


    System identification calorimetry

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04518


    Alignment-dependent decay rate of an atomic dipole near an optical nanofiber

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.08741

    Materials processing with intense pulsed ion beams and masked targets

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10278


    Inductive-detection electron-spin resonance spectroscopy with 65spins/√ Hz sensitivity

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09287

  • Shane,

    i would like to understand Google consistency ? because it seems they failed a P&F like's replication therefore in the same time patented something close to Axil's understanding which was talking about plasmons polaritrons ?

    30 years separates these 2 stages of understanding !

  • Shane,

    i would like to understand Google consistency ? because it seems they failed a P&F like's replication therefore in the same time patented something close to Axil's understanding which was talking about plasmons polaritrons ?

    30 years separates these 2 stages of understanding !


    There does appear to be more to this story. That is why we need our members with more info to step forward and speak. Now is not the time to keep a secret.


    As to using the word "fail" in the title of this thread; I did not mean to imply they are failures in replicating FP's, but that their efforts did not result in seeing any LENR. Bad choice of wording on my part. They are not failures, and are being very open about their methods and equipment. Even going so far as to ask the LENR community to help them do it better next time. Hopefully they get that help.


    I was particularly impressed with their appeal to mainstream science to support further research. That helps ease the stigma for others already doing the science. Overall, for what their results were, I was impressed with the way they handled this. It is very promising to have them join in to help unravel this LENR mystery.

  • Here is something hilarious about the Nature webpage for this paper. Look at Reference 1. They just couldn't help themselves!


    1.

    Fleischmann, M. & Pons, S. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem. Interfacial Electrochem. 261, 301–308 (1989). Article that introduced the possibility of room-temperature fusion during electrolysis with a palladium cathode in a LiOD/D 2 O electrolyte solution, publicly revealed at a press conference at the University of Utah on 23 March 1989.

  • The tone of the comments here are pessimistic https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01683-9

    Such horseshit. Such unadulterated, tired, utter nonsense. Quote:


    "Frank Close, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the scientific mainstream has shunned the topic for good reason: no one has managed to independently reproduce the finding."


    See? People believe that. Seven_of_twenty believes it. Close and Mr. Seven will never, ever read the literature. They'll just go on repeating these lies.