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

  • 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.

    Sure it is horseshit but it is a damn good horseshit. It works every time. And they did it again. Lenr in conrast does not. And this article from nothing else but omg Google itself is pushing value of a the evidence close to paperback sci-fi novel.

    Something or somebody failed here.

  • Frank Close, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford, UK

    Frank Close tends to go with the status quo...

    as when he states that Planck's formula ..

    ( the origin of quantum mechanics) is unMaxwellian


    I used to believe in the

    'ultraviolet catastrophe too..

    having been taught it once upon a time

    until I read Silvestri's dissertation 1993.

    I'll let Frank know that the times

    have been a changin'

    still are a changin'

    and that LENR is happenin..

    .even in the UK.

  • They didn't succeed to create a single PdD sample with a high loading ratio. Given that they acknowledge that they didn't succeed to get the right conditions and that they make their system and calorimeter available to further explore the parameter space, can the LENR community send them some PD samples that are known to work with deuterium? Should a few show excess heat, all the negative results that they got until now can then be viewed as negative controls. I see this article as a great opportunity for the LENR community to show that reaching the right conditions is key to have the effect.

  • They didn't succeed to create a single PdD sample with a high loading ratio. Given that they acknowledge that they didn't succeed to get the right conditions and that they make their system and calorimeter available to further explore the parameter space, can the LENR community send them some PD samples that are known to work with deuterium? Should a few show excess heat, all the negative results that they got until now can then be viewed as negative controls. I see this article as a great opportunity for the LENR community to show that reaching the right conditions is key to have the effect.


    I completely agree. This is a make-or-break situation for all those that are claiming excess heat. If the calorimetry instruments this team developped are found to be sound, these are the people that need convincing: the gauntlet has been thrown, let's see who picks it up.

  • This is a make-or-break situation for all those that are claiming excess heat.

    Make-or-break situation???

    .

    GoogleX writes a data-poor, selfcongratulatory paper after 4 years of burning through a million or so Google$

    on a steep learning curve and then writes

    "We hope our journey will inspire others to produce and contribute data in this intriguing parameter space"


    More like a commiserations situation.


  • From what I gather, this is only a presentation paper and they have published many other papers referrenced in the footnotes, in particular regarding calorimetry (see footnotes 63-65).


    Moreover, here you have people that seem ready to interact meaningfully with the CF/LENR community, that take this field seriously and that have mainstream credentials. Providing them with evidence produced on their own terms would be a game-changer.

  • here you have people that seem ready to interact meaningfully with the CF/LENR community


    How? by writing -

    to produce and contribute data in this intriguing parameter space"


    what does parameter space even mean? is it a bird ? or a plane?


    why didn't they think of meaningful interaction with the CF/LENR community in 2015 when they first started?

  • They didn't succeed to create a single PdD sample with a high loading ratio. Given that they acknowledge that they didn't succeed to get the right conditions and that they make their system and calorimeter available to further explore the parameter space, can the LENR community send them some PD samples that are known to work with deuterium? Should a few show excess heat, all the negative results that they got until now can then be viewed as negative controls. I see this article as a great opportunity for the LENR community to show that reaching the right conditions is key to have the effect.


    I suspect it would not be considered acceptable by the publisher to just concede that a highly-loaded cold fusion sample works: it would be akin to free publicity to the person who provided it and not much more. It has to be able to be reliably reproduced from scratch within reasonable efforts and described in full detail so that others can replicate the findings.

  • It has to be able to be reliably reproduced from scratch within reasonable efforts and described in full detail

    Michael Staker described in fairly full detail..in the parameter space

    I am sure he'd be willing to assist GoogleX on their palladium hydride learning curve.

    It took him about 4 years.

    Loyola University is not so remote from LLC

  • It sounds like nice work: specifically they have done what it seems sensible to do:

    (1) Identify plausible systems

    (2) Work on apparatus to generate and measure them

    (3) Go for a high level of peer review specifically to identify errors.


    Of the critiques here:

    (1) High loading difficult to obtain. they say they have identified some ways in which high loading can be overestimated. they also seem quite sophisticated in how they measure loading. Finally, they seem pretty well aware of the underlying challenge and parameters that affect it.


    A challenge to anyone who thinks high loading can relatively easily be obtained is to show techniques to do this. They would have to be strange not to check such published claims. My guess is that this resulted in their identifying some ways in which loading measurement can load to over-estimation - as they summarise here.


    (2) Lack of data. It is frustrating that this summary publication does not contain details. But then, I'd expect details to be available in some other form - though other publications or open data. If this does not happen I will side with those who say this work has no merit. I bet however that it will happen.


    (3) They have not followed Storms and other known methods - specifically stimulus. Well, let us wait and see the details.


    (4)

    I suspect it would not be considered acceptable by the publisher to just concede that a highly-loaded cold fusion sample works: it would be akin to free publicity to the person who provided it and not much more. It has to be able to be reliably reproduced from scratch within reasonable efforts and described in full detail so that others can replicate the findings.


    I think there is a misunderstanding of methodology here. If they had one sample (non-replicable) that "worked" they would not be sure whether this was an experimental error or reality. It seems that they are accurately determining loading and excess heat. They cannot easily get high loading. They have not seen excess heat. they are willing to report on single samples of high loading, and therefore I'd be very surprised if they did not also report on single samples of high loading + excess hat. Given their views (and those of most here) if their only isolated non-replicable samples with high excess heat did not have high loading it would be plausible to consider these errors. Would it not?


    (5) As Max says, this is very helpful work. They are taking CF claims seriously and attempting replication. That is exactly what is needed if there is merit to the McKubre results. Their replication of such, with greater transparency and peer review of apparatus, would make everyone sit up and take notice. Equally, their lack of replication is consistent with what skeptics think likely. They are interested in details, and so the issue of loading can be checked - maybe there is some magic they are not doing that makes high loading doable. They are in a position to explore that question and get good answers (I will be very interested in the details about loading).


    THH

  • Michael Staker described in fairly full detail..in the parameter space

    I am sure he'd be willing to assist GoogleX on their palladium hydride learning curve.

    It took him about 4 years.

    Loyola University is not so remote from LLC


    It would be strange for them not to have sought best advice and checked it. We will see, I hope.

  • I think there is a misunderstanding of methodology here. If they had one sample (non-replicable) that "worked" they would not be sure whether this was an experimental error or reality. It seems that they are accurately determining loading and excess heat. They cannot easily get high loading. They have not seen excess heat. they are willing to report on single samples of high loading, and therefore I'd be very surprised if they did not also report on single samples of high loading + excess hat. Given their views (and those of most here) if their only isolated non-replicable samples with high excess heat did not have high loading it would be plausible to consider these errors. Would it not?


    I was collectively replying to the question "can't someone provide them a working sample?". What I'm saying here, regardless of what the authors did for this paper, is that if they had a non-reproducible sample that produced excess heat or showed neutrons, it would basically be the Fleischmann-Pons story again and Nature would probably not want to publish that, even if suitable checks against control samples could be provided.


    Anyway, also according to Storms:

    http://lenrexplained.com/2015/…nding-fpe-is-temperature/


    Quote

    1. The LENR process is not initiated when a sample of Pd is initially loaded to high composition. Additional treatment is required to cause the LENR process to start. Once this additional treatment is successful, LENR will take place over a very wide range of deuterium concentration, even after all D is removed and the sample is again reacted with D.

  • It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.


    Machiavelli

  • I can only copy paste the corrected text I have written at e-catworld.com


    The report is published in the Nature magazine. It means that it should be taken quite seriously and the report should be trusty.

    What it is about ? The quotes from the second link (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01683-9):

    "The researchers pursued the three experimental strands that they deemed sufficiently credible. In one, they tried to load palladium with amounts of deuterium hypothesized to be necessary to trigger fusion. But at high concentrations the team was unable to create stable samples.

    A second strand followed up on 1990s work by US physicists who claimed to have generated anomalous levels of tritium — another heavy hydrogen isotope, created only through nuclear reactions — by bombarding palladium with pulses of hot deuterium ions. Google’s analysis of nuclear signatures showed no tritium production from this experiment.

    A final strand involved heating up metallic powders in a hydrogen-rich environment. Some current proponents of cold fusion claim that the process produces excess and unexplained heat, which they theorize is the result of fusing elements. But across 420 tests, the Google team found no such heat excess."

    So, what should we consider seriously - the classical setup of Cold Fusion is not working in way as it was performed by the Google team.

    And, Who is against this conclusion ???? The answer is - nobody (almost, to be fully correct), who is currently involved in LENR experiments !!!!

    It looks like the scientists from the Google project has just confirmed obvious things and simply waisted Google's money.

    Why they have not tested the setups which are currently used by many LENR experimentalists ? Seriously, why ????

    Where the Lithium in the fuel ? Where is the consideration of Lithium as a source of heat resulting from its fission to alpha particles ?

    Did they exactly repeat the classical Cold fusion experiment, that means, have they used Lithium in a solution ?

    Rossi has said not once (if I remember correctly) that classical electrolysis is not a really working system.

    In my opinion the classical setup was unreliable because at that time nobody had payed attention to the Lithium fission,

    mistakenly the hydrogen fusion reaction was the main focus. And the hydrogen fusion is not working. In this sense Cold Fusion is not working.

    My first reaction was quite serious on this news, but only till the first look on the available details (even without having access to the articles).

    I have spent enough time in science to know about the motivation among the scientists, real one, not idealistic from books, so I can only laugh about Google if they were serious to test the Cold fusion / LENR .

  • It is quite hard to believe, that 400 experiments had the wrong setup, because You say so.

    If there is something into this, and google would have detected it, they would become the emperor of the world. Ok, one can say: Ok, if they found something, they will be quiet about it, until a working prototype is available for presentation ( unlike the Rossi-idiot )... and I do not think, google will loose reliability if they admit doing research on internet fringe hype bullshit-bingo. As far as it looks for me, it will even strengthen their position in: Look, google, that big data monster now tries to "myth bust" some internett myths. Let's follow them.