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

  • There is evidence of a stitchup right there..


    There are huge issues with not questionning this loaded question.


    Robert - that is a weird comment. in their write-up that is a rhetorical question addressing the mainstream view, as you full know. If your view, as in a religious sect, is that only those who have seen the light are qualified to judge whether that light actually exists....


    You see the problem?

  • Robert - that is a weird comment


    No... it may be weird to you,,

    that's your weirdness not mine..


    It is absolutely unclear whether this is a rhetorical question

    "..Why.. when it has not been proven to exist?’


    To those have read the literature on lenrcanr the premise is wrong


    LENR has been proven to exist


    except for a few tragic sceptics like THHuxleynew , Ascoli 65


    Plenty of proof on lenrcanr ..just read it

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


  • and there are even suggestions that Google is using this paper as an attempt to discourage independent investment into LENR research in order to establish control. Not sure I can believe it but.....


    Why invest in the small guys working kind of secretively in their small laboratory when Google can throw potentially billions on the research and apparently even has a commitment to publish methods and results through regular channels? Those in the LENR field who have been sitting for years on their results might have to reconsider their monetization strategy.

  • Why invest in the small guys working kind of secretively in their small laboratory when Google can throw potentially billions on the research and apparently even has a commitment to publish methods and results through regular channels?


    If this is the best they can do for several million$ pver 4 years, then they better get a better strategy yet.

  • If this is the best they can do for several million$ pver 4 years, then they better get a better strategy yet.

    This is the price to pay for the names like MIT, UBC , Berkeley. As long as orgs such as NRC (National Research Council Canada) are willing to pay why not? Even a little incremental success (like neutrons in this case) increasing legitimacy of the field more strongly compared to brilliant results from amateurs, individuals and enthusiasts.

  • I get Ruby’s point about the articles. It’s a pity. I think Google intent is genuine. I get the impression Nature have used words to subverted the message from its message of potential to reinforce their negative view and meme. But there is the acknowledgement that the work should proceed at least.


    I get the impression iI is a new team probably very talented but there is decades of knowledge to assimilate digest and understand by very talented experts in the field. To learn and repeat that is not going to be easy. They need to talk to those who can.


    I’m a bit surprised they didn’t contact Jed.


    I wonder if the were constrained by NDA until this point?


    Right now they should be picking up the phone and talking to Jed as well as Alan and Russ. Amongst all the others who have seen success.

  • I have no objection to anybody spending money on useful research anywhere they choose to do so. My comment refers only to the fact that Google don't appear to have got much for their $ or the researchers for their misguided offirts.

  • Mainly - I'd love to see details of all this work, and hope they will share. Also hope they are in a position to continue testing the stuff where LENR researchers say "Oh - you should do X then it will work". There will be a lot of that, with a lot of Xs.

    I am not sure that they will receive much help. They did not want help before from the LENR researchers and now it may be like the girl asked for a date after the guy ignores her and asks other out first. She quickly says no and takes it as an insult to be asked only after others turn him down.


    The position of google may be that they are hoping to just slow down competition. We will see if any of them show up to ICCF-22 and truly want to be helped.

  • Ok..

    Alan Smith

    Would you:

    1. Invite Trevithick to you lab

    2. See Trevithick as a competition

    3. Invite anybody but Trevithick

    4. Only if Trevithick is accompanied by certain competition

    5. Never ever invite him or people like him

    6. Only invite after he pays.

    7.Non of the above.

  • posted on ECW http://news.mit.edu/2019/3q-ye…0527#.XOw6HEe8lbU.twitter - totally different tone than Nature's editorials



    JedRothwell "We are not finished – in many ways this is just the beginning – and we want others to join the effort to look into the materials science, electrochemistry, and physics surrounding this topic."


    "However, we’ve also learned that the high deuterium concentrations hypothesized to be necessary for cold fusion to occur are much more difficult to attain than we would have expected"

  • I think this paper is weak tea. The editorials accompanying it are pretty awful. On the other hand, as they say in show business, any publicity is good publicity. People reading Nature may ask themselves:

    Why did they publish a paper along with three editorials attacking it? Why are they so upset about this? The paper describes replications, so why do the editorials say it was never replicated?

  • Wonder if they consulted with Mitchel Swartz or Peter Hagelstein (also at MIT) but did not acknowledge their LENR input for fear of Nature rejection? The thin Pd wires used in their electrochemistry were a mistake, obviously need more electrode mass to allow >0.9 H loading as in F&P/McKubre expts with extended loading times showing excess heat. I still maintain that a critical density/mass of H-Pd is necessary to allow fusion reaction product accumulation to initiate sustained excess heat. Further, in their Ni-powder AlLiH4 expts they don't state how much powder was used but if one assumes say 10g or so as in eg Rossi's work then excess heat production would be very unlikely as again the reactants are well below critical mass (mass required to just sustain a chain reaction between fusion products which would be otherwise radiated away from the reactor core) - which for powder expts could well be in the Kg range (as evidenced by the Thermacore runaway and other data). The 100X expected neutron release due to electron screening lattice effects has been reported before - all this doesn't really add up to some significant breakthrough worth publishing in Nature (maybe took a long time to publish because of this). Maybe they'll soon publish another paper soon with all these issues ironed out and propose LENR/CF as the new CO2-free power source of the future!