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

  • I'm not passing on names, but I can say they haven't consulted with any of the leaders in the field, even thos working nearby. Neither have they consulted with any other of the names you would recognise.

  • I'm not passing on names, but I can say they haven't consulted with any of the leaders in the field, even thos working nearby. Neither have they consulted with any other of the names you would recognise.


    Strange...why didn't they do it? Maybe they did not want to be seen with them?

    They should have bought something like this then:


  • Typical - they spend much time and effort on building calorimeters to try to measure fine differences but very little effort on generating the effect. When it works, it is often very obvious with even simple calorimeters - say a mercury thermometer.


    Why were they surprised that it was difficult to load to high levels? Rookie mistake- thinking that they are great and downplaying the hard work of others.


    I do not know who they had on all those trials, I would not doubt it was mostly engineers and few if any electrochemists. Just a quick look at their thin little anodes on just one side would tell you that much less all the connections inside their cells. I wonder how many of them even have taken an electrochemistry class. The magic is in the "chemistry/ materials" not in the equipment around the lab outside the cell. Come on, "get real".

  • LENR has been proven to exist


    except for a few tragic sceptics like THHuxleynew , Ascoli 65


    I'm no longer a skeptic.


    Skepticism, as written in Wikipedia, "is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge". I turned my doubts into negative opinion after having examined the claims made by F&P in early 90ies and by the professors who tested the E-cat in 2011. It's quite easy to prove that these claims are wrong. These early bird evaluations should have been done beforehand also by the Google researchers.


    But I agree on one point, this is tragic.

  • I have no doubt the decision to include the LENR community was carefully considered by Trevithick, when he first conceptualized Google's plan back in 2015. In 2004 he had worked for McKubre's/Hagelstein's "Spindletop Corporation", so it had to be on his mind to just pick up the phone and ask his old teammates for help.


    So why, as it appears, did he not? The benefits of collaboration were no doubt clear, as going it alone would mean "reinventing the wheel". That is never the best option, however with anything LENR, there is a clear political angle that has to be factored in. The LENR field has been so vilified, and it's main characters so marginalized as the "usual suspects", Trevithick may have decided the political baggage they bring to the table, outweighed the benefits their experience, and knowledge brings. Having help from the LENR community may have been the kiss of death for the project, and invalidated their work once word got out.


    There appears to be a cost paid though for their go-it-alone-strategy, as from what some here have mentioned...they made mistakes. On the other hand, their report has been published in Nature, which may legitimize the science for further research. It would have been even better had their paper claimed success in replicating...with thanks for the many contributions by McKubre/Hagelstein, AND be published in nature, but "you can't always get what you want".


    It appears Trevithick is now mending fences, and reaching out to LENR for help, Hopefully, those who are bitter for being snubbed, understand his decision was not a personal one, let bygones be bygones, and offer him whatever assistance they can.

  • LENR has been proven to exist


    except for a few tragic sceptics like THHuxleynew , Ascoli 65


    RobertBryant

    Robert, as the events over Nature have proven, and on some of the other sites I have followed this story on, clearly there are not a few tragic sceptics, there are thousands of them. And millions who don't know and don't care.

    At least THHuxleynew is coming to this site and is open minded about LENR. He is engaging with the community just not on your terms.

    If you cannot cope with THHuxleynew then you have no chance with people like Frank Close.

  • Well I am aghast at how this development has gone down. It certainly shows me something about some in the LENR community and how defensive they are.


    "If only some well-funded organization could put some real money at funding some open minded research into LENR then we could break out of this limbo that LENR is stuck in.”


    “Oh no, they did and we label them “The Enemy”.


    “Time to circle the wagons around and cut off communication”.


    “See you in another 30 years”.


    Today some on here are reminding me of the worst of ECat World.

    Paranoia and conspiracies.


    Now to be fair there are reasons to be defensive, the usual attacks in Nature show that things have not changed much.

    Also Google is not a bunch of saintly philanthropists and there is reason to be careful, and even suspicious.


    However, I have hope that something positive can come out of this. Lets wait and see.

  • It may also be that they did not get input from the US LENR community because those with active programs and results are tied up with other companies. Example- McKubre and Gates. The number of experimenters with experience is a small and dwindling resource.

  • What percentage of "the LENR community" are actual researchers, practitioners, or others with an active involvement in the field? People like Shane talk about what "we" are doing in LENR as though they were in the thick of the effort. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another topic of scientific research that has a fan club that dominates the visible presence of the field. Perhaps this is what the Google-backed research team is struggling to cope with as they become visible. Pretty much uncharted territory.

  • What percentage of "the LENR community" are actual researchers, practitioners, or others with an active involvement in the field?


    That would be the people who publish in the JCMNS. See: https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1495


    Or the people shown in this group photo: https://www.iccf21.com/iccf-21-group-photo


    I do not know what percent they represent.


    The number of experimenters with experience is a small and dwindling resource.


    That is true. You can tell from the age of the people in the group photo above, which you can zoom in on.

  • It would be a good time for other LENR researchers to try submitting to Nature now that the Google team has cleared the way. Why not steal some of their thunder? Atom Ecology and other groups must be sitting on year's worth of experimental data showing excess heat/gammas/neutrons etc which could be quickly summarized in a LENR reply to their work with absent excess heat (along with the reasons they didn't find any). Additionally with some of Wyttenbach's new theory? Maybe work from several different labs?

  • "If only some well-funded organization could put some real money at funding some open minded research into LENR then we could break out of this limbo that LENR is stuck in.”


    “Oh no, they did and we label them “The Enemy”.


    Who said that? Who are you talking about? Nobody I know considers Google the enemy. The people doing this research are not enemies. Nature magazine and its editorials are terrible, but at least they published this paper. I have to give them credit for that.

  • The public effect of this paper is clear negative.


    In contrast to public, for LENR community this paper proves nothing about LENR reality. The main LENR effect important for everybody is heat and the heat excess at high level only was demonstrated by Rossi. But, in the paper there are no details about the Rossi type experiments, only one resulting Fig.3, no description of experimental setups. These details should come in next publication (manuscript in preparation). We should wait this publication.


    "Each unique experimental condition was typically sampled in quadruplicate. ... Dots, 420 individual sample runs"(Fig.3)

    "However, none of the 420 samples we evaluated provided evidence of excess heat;"


    Are 420 individual sample runs the same as 420 samples ?

  • Jed, its not an actual quote from any person, nor will you find it in any of your scientific papers.:P

    Its a caricature of some the tone of some of the responses on this forum.

    Sorry if it went over your head. Don't take it too seriously.


    But the community cleary does not look upon Google coming into the scene with unalloyed joy.

    Clearly there are worries and doubts about these developments, which are justified to some extent.

    Certainly if someone were to give Google the keys they have the resources to take the whole kingdom.


    So what to do....


    Well first lets not p1ss them off.

    Second; not just what can the community do for Google but what can Google do for the community. It would be good to see if they turn up to ICC, who hands out the invites?

  • Robert, as the events over Nature have proven, and on some of the other sites I have followed this story on, clearly there are not a few tragic sceptics, there are thousands of them.


    Yup. That is certain. You can tell from the comments about cold fusion in the mass media, and in Wikipedia, and elsewhere. Not only are there thousands of pathological skeptics, but unfortunately many of them are decision makers at places like the DoE.


    Fortunately, there are also many "latent supporters" who are open minded toward cold fusion, and who favor doing research. They will not risk their jobs saying so, but they are out there. I can tell from the traffic at LENR-CANR.org, as I explained here:


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


    See the discussion starting on p. 5.


    I cannot tell the absolute numbers of people opposed, in favor, or uninterested in cold fusion. I don't see why the absolute numbers matter. If we can get a few powerful supporters, it will not matter what the rest of the human race thinks. We only need a few supporters. Actually, Bill Gates or the people at Google would be enough, if they would loosen the purse strings a little more. More research done by more groups should be funded. Whoever funds it should not put all of their eggs in one basket, supporting only one group. They should foster competition between groups.

  • Its a caricature of some the tone of some of the responses on this forum.

    Sorry if it went over your head. Don't take it too seriously.


    A caricature of who? Who in this forum has expressed any opposition or trepidation about Google's involvement?



    But the community cleary does not look upon Google coming into the scene with unalloyed joy.


    I don't see any sign of what you say. Everyone I know is happy about this. Moderately happy, because after all, this group has failed to replicate, the paper is kind of weak tea as I said, and Google is not throwing money at the other experiments that deserve it. It is a step forward. A good thing so far. But it has not contributed anything to the science yet. If they continue without success, the project might close down without contributing anything.



    Clearly there are worries and doubts about these developments, which are justified to some extent.


    Since they have not got it to work, of course there are doubts! A failed replication does not help advance the field.



    Certainly if someone were to give Google the keys they have the resources to take the whole kingdom.


    In my opinion, that's not possible. That would be like dominating the semiconductor industry. There are more than 50,000 patents for memory chips alone. No one can dominate anything as large as semiconductors, or AI, or self-driving cars -- or cold fusion in the future. In the 1960s and 70s, IBM dominated the computer business because the technology only worked on a large scale with expensive equipment. After the technology changed, IBM lost its commanding position, and its overwhelming market share, and ability to set standards.

  • I'll try and apply to them for some research funding then - to build an International Cold Fusion Experimental Reactor with a 25 Kg reactor core - probably just tell me to eff off and stop taking the piss but nothing ventured nothing gained!

  • Second; not just what can the community do for Google but what can Google do for the community. It would be good to see if they turn up to ICC, who hands out the invites?

    invites? just sign up to go and send you $$.

    https://iscmns.org/iccf22/


    presenting.... now that is a separate question. I don't think the call for abstracts has yet occurred. But it did seem that this year the focus was to be on nuclear signals. I know that Mat. T. has been at several of them and we talked in the past. However he nor anyone from Google asked about the experimental set ups. Also Carl P. took several researchers out at ICCF for a beer and supper.

  • But an electron screening potential of ~1000 eV is

    not consistent with established theories of electron screening,

    Alan - forgive me but it needs just one expert figure to give good advice - so I do not feel such complaints are any way conclusive.


    To follow Robert and to mention the positive of the paper is: 1001eV (classically called electron screening pot.) is the predicted resonance of the proton magnetic moment that has since today been measured by two groups (B.Iglev, & Lipinski(s) ). This is one more (number 3!) pointer to new physics.


    The problem with today's mainstream journals publishing is the fact, that all people with connection = (willing friends are proof readers, editing stuff..) can publish any stuff with no merits at all. At the time I left ETH 1% of the papers did contain useful information today it's below 1/1000. For most of this nonsense you have to pay if you are not a member of the science imperium. Thus simple, independent people can no longer afford scientific work.