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

  • It is quite hard to believe, that 400 experiments had the wrong setup

    Its easy to believe that no xs heat was detected

    Ask Dominguez et al ...they spent plenty of $ and time( 3+ years) on LENR

    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DominguezDanomalousr.pdf

    Many experiments, over 24 months, with consistent results


    Power in= Powerout


    except a few with rhodium had excess

    but only a few

    and they still don't know why .. and now the USNavy gives no more $

    1. Colin Watters May 27, 2019 at 6:20 PM

      Dear Mr Rossi, I refer readers to an article in Nature that reports on a two year research program into cold fusion and LENR financed by Google…

      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01675-9

      It seems they found no evidence it exists, no excess heat despite over 400 experiments. Perhaps you could show them how to do it? It seems your patents, videos and theory articles aren’t sufficient.

    2. Andrea Rossi May 27, 2019 at 6:56 PM

      Colin Watters:

      I am not aware of the work described and never had anything to do with it. By the way: 400 experiments is a ridiculous number. I alone made more than 10 thousands. I supposed that all those big guns made at least ten times the experiments I made: I am alone, albeit with a magnificent Team, they are so many and prestigious…

      Warm Regards,

      A.R

  • Comment from E-Cat World.



    • Avatar Gerard McEkan hour ago

      If I would have been really interested in positive results, then I would have asked LENR experimenters (like Mike McKubre), who have reported positive results, to join the teams. Then at least they would not have started from the beginning and would have been able to create the conditions needed for LENR to take place. Those experimenters have 20-30 years of experience and have done 1000+, maybe 10,000 tests. That would have been a better starting point.

  • no excess heat but they detected neutrons "We developed an apparatus to bombard palladium targets with pulsed plasmas of deuterium ions that is capable of producing more flux than the ion beams more commonly used for nuclear astrophysical studies of fusion reactions at low energies25,30,32,33,35,66,67 (Fig.4). Our initial experiments68 consisted of a palladium wire (cathode) sur-rounded by a stainless steel cage (anode) housed in a vacuum chamber containing deuterium gas (D2) at about 1torr. Pulses of electricity (20-µs pulse width, 50-Hz repetition rate, 1-A peak ion current) ionized the D2 and drove D+ ions into the palladium wire. External 3He-based pro-portional counters and organic scintillators coupled to photo multiplier tubes were used to detect neutrons; an internal silicon diode was used to detect protons.Early results from these ongoing studies have confirmed that we can produce and detect neutrons"

  • A challenge to anyone who thinks high loading can relatively easily be obtained is to show techniques to do this.

    Nobody thinks that. I have never heard anyone ever say that. On the contrary, to find samples that load to sufficiently high levels, when you pre-test ~100 you are lucky to find 4 or 5. You may not find any. It takes about a year to test 100 samples. After a year, if you have not found a good cathode, the experiment has not begun. You are not to the point where you can begin to look for heat or tritium. That is why cold fusion experiments take so long and take so much work and money. Pre-testing is faster than a full cold fusion experiment. If you go ahead and do a full test on a sample that does not load, and you look for heat or tritium, you are wasting your time.


    Occasionally, cathodes that do load still do not produce heat. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/word…loads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg


    The pre-testing methods are described by Storms, Cravens and Fleischmann, and they are common knowledge among electrochemists. See, for example:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf


    I do not know whether the people at Google did these tests. (The display of the paper I have is too small for me to read.) If they did not, they were fishing in a dry hole. When you do the experiment wrong, it makes no difference how much money you spend or how many cathodes you test. As Ed says, it is like looking for a semiconductor by testing random pieces of gravel from your driveway.


    Some of those people are well acquainted with McKubre and others in the field, so they darn well should have known how to pre-test.

  • It’s also here:


    https://m.phys.org/news/2019-0…sit-cold-case-fusion.html


    It could generate interest I think. Good to be prepared.


    It could be the best opportunity in a very long time to get the effect it self proven and more widely accepted over the fence.


    LENR proof could be a whole set of things exothermic, endothermic, transmutation etc. gamma and neutrons mesons and muons etc but I hope something exothermic could be proven to them.


    Maybe it’s time to build bridges.


    I hope they contact people who can help.

  • I strongly believe that what matters is not so much that they have not found any evidence of excess heat, but that they seem to have designed a calorimetry set-up that they believe is sound, and that they could not easily dismiss if it were to show excess heat. If one were to engage them on their own terms and show excess heat, it would be much harder for them to ignore the results.

  • (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.

    No, this is not "exactly what is needed." This tells you nothing about McKubre's results, or any other positive results. They said the cathodes did not achieve high loading, so this has no bearing on McKubre's results, except for the ones to the left of his loading graph that never worked. It proves nothing. It does not disprove anything either. This is not a test of cold fusion. It is an attempted test that failed to begin, for the same reason 95 out 100 other tests never begin. Anyone who has read the literature could have told you that in 1994.


    It is not their fault, but to suggest that this is "exactly what is needed" is ridiculous. It is like saying the best test of an airplane would be to catapult a washing machine into the air to see how well it flies. A washing machine lobbed into the air in no way resembles an airplane, and it tells you nothing about how airplanes work. Doing a test on a cold fusion cathode that you know will not work does not tell you anything about cold fusion that we did not already know.


    As I said, I am having trouble reading the paper. It is too small. So I don't know what they did. Someone here mentioned 400 samples. If I tested 400 samples and I did not find a single one that loads, it would not surprise me. That's only a little worse than you might expect. It would take about 4 years to test that many samples, but you could not draw any conclusions because you would know that you have done a single test of cold fusion, yet.


    It takes 4 years because it has to be done manually. It could be done with machines, in which case it would take a week. Google has the money to make those machines. Similar machines have been used in materials research in what you might call robotic Edisonian searches. I spoke with the people who wrote this paper. They know a lot about that kind of equipment. I believe such machines cost anywhere from $100 to $300 million. I think the machines would have to be changed to measure some parameters they do not usually measure, but I suppose the engineers could do that for a few million dollars more.

  • Regarding "loading" in general, it is more tricky than you might think. It is not like you get a single indisputable loading percent that tells you everything you need to know.


    There are several ways to measure loading, such the 4-wire method, and what is called orphaned oxygen in the head space of a closed cell. "Orphaned" means the hydrogen goes into solution in the metal, and the oxygen is left behind. If the hydrogen is not in solution, but somehow ended up in voids, you may think you have high loading but you don't.


    If you could measure the same sample with these methods, you would come up with different numbers. I don't know how different they are. I am guessing . . . 2 to 5%?? I think that depends on the sample, the loading level, and the method. That's not to say some methods are "wrong." It means they are measuring different physical parameters and to some extent they are interpreting them to estimate how much hydrogen has been absorbed into the metal. There are other pertinent questions a method may not help with, such as how deeply the hydrogen went, or how well it is distributed. You might have high loading in one part of the cathode, and low loading elsewhere.


    Perhaps these factors explain why in rare cases the loading is high but there is still no excess heat. Either that, or some other parameter in the McKubre equation is not met.


  • I know that a lot of resentment toward mainstream science has built up over the years, but this does not seem to be the kind of attitude that will make LENR achieve respectability and be studied as it should be. The authors of that paper are at least open to the possibility that LENR is real, which is better than what has been said for the last 30 years.


    There is a natural tendancy to sulk in your corner and refuse to make a step towards them and the mainstream. I do not think it is a wise choice and I hope LENR researchers will not take that path. I hope they will write papers answering the deficiencies of the Nature paper, make suggestions and try to tweak their own experiments to make them acceptable to standards that would make denying their results difficult (which is what Brillouin is trying to do with their new mass-flow calorimetry set-up).

  • 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.


    In science believing is not an argument, as well as the number of experiments. If you are in the world of logic and experimental data looking for new physical phenomena to be investigated, then you should design LENR experiment as replication of not FP electrolysis one, but do what Rossi has been doing. For a simple reason, because there is a report about Lithium fission as main source of LENR heat excess in Rossi' type experiments. This heat excess is much higher than in any replication of classical FP experiment. Why this was ignored by Google team, and they one more time performed the FP experiment, which was unsuccessfully replicated many times? I would like to hear the logic behind this design of Google experiments ignoring the Rossi' type experiments.

  • I think Brillouin may be in the best position to sneak through this window of opportunity. Is there a way to help get these authors and Godes in contact?


    Well Carl Page is both on the Advisory Board of Brillouin and Larry Page's brother, for one. Plus I would be surprised if Tanzella/McKubre, who are also on Brillouin's Advisory Board, did not pick up the article. And I know from Firshein Brillouin is in contact with a number of "interested but skeptic" academics.


    So I think they are already in contact, and Brillouin's work on a revised calorimetry set-up could be related to all this.

  • In science believing is not an argument, as well as the number of experiments. If you are in the world of logic and experimental data looking for new physical phenomena to be investigated, then you should design LENR experiment as replication of not FP electrolysis one, but do what Rossi has been doing. For a simple reason, because there is a report about Lithium fission as main source of LENR heat excess in Rossi' type experiments. This heat excess is much higher than in any replication of classical FP experiment. Why this was ignored by Google team, and they one more time performed the FP experiment, which was unsuccessfully replicated many times? I would like to hear the logic behind this design of Google experiments ignoring the Rossi' type experiments.


    It does not seem like they ignored Rossi-type experiments:




    [...]



  • Thank you for the quotes! Ok, they replicated Rossi-type experiments, I am not correct.

    Have you read the whole article having that last quote? I am asking because what I see in the quote is the statement about no heat excess with reference on manuscript in preparation. If the conclusion about no heat excess in Cold Fusion is based only on the manuscript in preparation the Nature publication is strange. Could you confirm that there is no more data besides from this quote in the whole Nature article, or articles ?

  • Yes! Only together can we find new energy. I suggest everyone to look at geology. It can show the right way to search for new energy. All settled on excess heat and this is not correct, 30 years of experiments and no result. Electricity can be obtained by rotating plasma-ball lightning. Bringing steam to the turbine blades is a relic of the past thinking!

  • Have you read the whole article having that last quote? I am asking because what I see in the quote is the statement about no heat excess with reference on manuscript in preparation. If the conclusion about no heat excess in Cold Fusion is based only on the manuscript in preparation the Nature publication is strange. Could you confirm that there is no more data besides from this quote in the whole Nature article, or articles ?


    I have only quickly skimmed through it, but this other paragraph further below in the text suggests that so far they have not seen "convincing evidence" of excess heat in any of their calorimetric experiments under extreme conditions (i.e. Rossi replication attempts):



    As for what was then the point of their paper, they conclude it with this:



    In short, they're saying that even though they might have not found a new energy source yet, they still made interesting findings that could be useful in other fields. I think this paper was a good occasion for them to present their efforts and possibly set themselves as unbiased testers in case they will be able to fully describe and prove excess heat or nuclear anomalies later on.