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

  • 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,

    Perhaps some people are unhappy because Nature lambasted the field with three editorials. Well, of course they did! You have to expect that. Getting upset with them would be like railing at a yellow jacket that stings you. There is no way Nature would have published this paper without lambasting it in the same issue, and without vigorously rewriting the paper to give the impression that cold fusion has never been replicated and it probably does not exist. If you want to see any mention of cold fusion in Nature, Sci. Am., by the DoE, or in Wikipedia, you have accept that 98% of what they say will be lies and bullshit. I am glad to see the 2% facts in this article, such as the discussion of McKubre's work. I am not overjoyed. Most people reading this will dismiss cold fusion as pathological science. The purpose of the article and the editorials is to make cold fusion look bad.

  • Any LENR researcher that has had any positive results is not going to share those sucessful methods and procedures with anybody.

    That is not even slightly true. Most of the researchers I know, such as Beiting or Mizuno, have shared everything. They tell you all about their work in as much detail as you want to know. Unfortunately, people do not look. Storms and Cravens published detailed, step-by-step guides to replicating the original bulk Pd-D experiments, and Fleischmann endorsed their papers. Every time the subject comes up, and every time anyone asks me, I point them to these papers. Unfortunately, I have often found that people trying to do the experiments have not read the literature, or read the papers I recommended, and they have no idea what they are doing. (It is conceivable the people at Google are like this. I don't know. There is not enough detail in the paper for me to judge.)

    See p. 5:

    As I said, I have been trying to arrange replications for years, even offering to pay for them. There are no labs open to replications, and no money to pay for them. That is not the fault of the researchers.

  • We know many of the same people - I can only think of one who is happy 'net positive' about Nature doing a hatchet job on LENR, a hatchet job backed up by several separate opinion pieces in the same volume.

    I meant everyone is happy that Google is sponsoring this research. Happy about this project. Even though it has not produced positive results. I am a little afraid it might never produce positive result and Google will close it down. That would be bad for the field.

    Of course I am not happy that Nature did a hatchet job. But what else would they do? At least in this case there are few accurate statements about cold fusion, such as:

    "Michael McKubre and colleagues at SRI International (California, USA) conducted one of the largest studies of cold fusion. In the early 1990s, they performed dozens of Fleischmann–Pons type electrolysis experiments and claimed to observe excess heat only when the palladium cathode was loaded with hydrogen beyond a threshold of PdHx where x > 0.875 (ref. 39)." [Ref. 39 is Curr. Sci.,]

  • The purpose of the article and the editorials is to make cold fusion look bad.

    As an editor and technical writer let me point out that Nature did an amateur hatchet job. They used loaded and words and cheap tricks, like a second-rate politician stirring up a partisan audience at a rally. I could have written a more convincing take-down of cold fusion, using a stiletto rather than a hatchet. The three editorials are nothing but cheap tricks and blatant lies, piled so high that anyone who knows the facts about cold fusion will dismiss them. They will only convince an ignorant audience. They are "preaching to the choir." Putting aside the editorials, here are few examples of loaded words and cheap tricks in the paper itself:

    "So far, we have found no evidence of anomalous effects claimed by proponents of cold fusion that cannot otherwise be explained prosaically."

    "Proponents" is a loaded word. In a normal paper you would say "researchers." It should be: "So far we have not been able to reproduce the effects described in the peer-reviewed literature." I would describe the reason, which, reading between the lines, I am guessing would be: "We have not been able to reproduce the essential conditions described in the literature, such as high loading."

    Throwing around words like "proponents" is how you write bias into a paper. You invite the reader to jump to false conclusions about the researchers.

    Here is a classic loaded word: ". . . the electrolytic experiments sensationalized in 1989 by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons." F&P did not "sensationalize" anything, but that word "sensationalizes" this paper. It resembles the apophasis rhetorical trick: "far be it from me to suggest that Mr. Smith is a crook." (You just suggested it!)

    I have no idea whether the authors put these loaded words into the paper, or whether the reviewers and editors insisted they be included. Anyway, they violate academic ethics. As an example of cheap tricks, the paper does not mention papers by leading authors such as Melvin Miles, Storms, or any paper by Fleischmann and Pons other than the original. This is highly prejudicial. It is ridiculous that they put Krivit into the footnotes but leave Storms out.

  • I have no idea whether the authors put these loaded words into the paper, or whether the reviewers and editors insisted they be included.

    Key players know that we are close to decode LENR physics. In such a moment they will use all possible ways to keep some interested people out of the field.

    This already happened close to day one when one MIT prof intentionally reported failed to replicate F&P, while he behind the scene did herald for a military contract to further develop F&P work...

    Thus, it's all political and that's a good sign, that we are again very close!

  • JedRothwell you and Ruby are right. I was initially hopeful about this. I’m normally an optimist or at least try to be and I wanted it to be good. But the language is not what you expect from respectful paper in a professional journal. You are right to mention it.

    I’m astonished they claim to repeat experiments but did not even think to contact you and others.

    If people want to do good they need to do better. At least they should talk to the people who can help before publishing something like this.

    We’ve had 30 years of negativity and even hostility towards the subject it’s enough! The last thing we need is an article that propagates another 30 years of the same attitudes. For goodness sake.

    It’s not about positive or negative results it’s about attitudes and words about a field that deserves study and clarity without negative bias. Saying something deserves study but dressing the words with negative nuances to appeal to a base is cheep behavior in my opinion.

    I’m with you in this one Jed I’m saddened and very disappointed.

    I’m sorry to see this. I hope for better.

  • JedRothwellyou and Ruby are right. I was initially hopeful about this. I’m normally an optimist or at least try to be and I wanted it to be good.

    Don't be too upset! I think there is a lot to be happy about. It is good news that Google is supporting the field. The Nature hatchet job is only a small part of the story. As I said, anyone who reads the article carefully will ask questions such as "if McKubre did all those studies, why do the editorials here say it was never replicated?"

    As I said, I worry that they will not succeed, and Google will pull the funding. That would be bad for the field. I don't think that will happen in the near future. That is not my impression from the Chiang interview:…0527#.XOw6HEe8lbU.twitter

    I’m astonished they claim to repeat experiments but did not even think to contact you and others.

    Maybe they did contact others. I don't know who they talked to. I saw some of the authors of this paper talking to McKubre. McKubre and Trevithick are friends.

    They wouldn't contect me. I am not a researcher. They would just read the papers at LENR-CANR. They might ask for a paper that is listed in the bibliography but not uploaded, but aside from that they would have no reason to contact me. That's the beauty of the internet. I can sit all day doing nothing, yet I send out 1,120 papers.

  • . On the other hand, their report has been published in Nature

    Its a data poor report...with political slant to make it publishable in Nature.

    but I am encouraged by the statement

    "Known fusion processes, at rates high enough to be quantified in current experiments, require particle energies greater than

    about 2keV in the centre-of- mass frame, corresponding to temperatures greater than 20 million kelvin

    This adds context to the authors' 1000 eV 'screening' finding which replicates

    other researchers' findings from decades ago.

    1000 eV is equivalent to 11 million kelvin

    Perhaps they will explain this point further after peer review of their Arxiv paper

    and perhaps even speculate upon whether 1000 eV is screening ... or not.

    In my view LENR as Low energy nuclear reactions is a misnomer and the sooner

    the "LENR community" loses that misconception...the better.

  • Are you speculating? Or do you know this for a fact? That's a serious question.

    I assume your question is about LENR theory. The other point I will not answer in this forum as it is fact too.

    The answer is very simple: If we mix our LENR fuel(s) we know which gamma radiation we will see. This is all forbidden if you follow SM physics.

    The new SO(4) model tells us the internal structure of the electron, proton, neutron and some of the possible resonances have been published and of course measured. The proton internal force equation is a challenge but close to be ready.

    Most assumption we made the last two years could be confirmed by experiments with radiation measurements! We know the differences of H/D LENR and what products are produced.

    In my view we can explain "everything" we see in LENR and if we could find the right equipment, people and lab, it would be a short path to success.

  • JedRothwellThey would be wise to talk to someone who has an overview of that huge number of papers. At least to help guide them through it. As an Editor Jed You are probably one the best qualified of anyone for that.

    Ed is the best. But I do know the experimental literature. Not the theory papers. I can't make head or tail of them.

    Actually, if someone asks for a guide to the literature I refer them Hagelstein's review. It is dated but good. The links to the papers are here, at the bottom of the screen:

  • Thanks for the link to National Geographic,LCC.

    I wonder how much the GoogleX sliver in TAE 's $600 million reactor is?

    "So far, Trevithick says, Google has spent $10 million on the effort since 2015, and funding persists through the end of 2019.

    Trevithick stresses that cold fusion represents just one sliver of Google's energy research,

    which includes working with the traditional fusion company TAE Technologies."…-beat-solar/#7fa50e6d629e

  • Everybody gets poor return i.e. ITER. In this case bunch of young scientist got paid

    ITER pays quite a few young scientists.. and older ones too

    Over 2000 authors for one paper...

    how many might have read the Nature article?

    Overview of the JET preparation for Deuterium-Tritium Operation withthe ITER Like-Wall

    Authors. "

    E. Joffrin, S. Abduallev, M. Abhangi, P. Abreu

    etc etc for 300 lines until

    W. Zwingmann, I. Zychor,…1088/1741-4326/ab2276/pdf

  • I am in transit (in the land of Oz - Robert will recognize where Oz is) but just glanced at this thread. So much error and I am only on p8. I could type for an hour but do not have time ATM. I find myself much more sympathetic with THH's views and approach than before.

    For Alan, I was consulted by Google in 2015 but have not been involved technically since the loading campaign in this article began. That campaign has so far failed. It is hard but I think that problem is relatively easy to fix. Other things also need to be achieved to see FPHE. It is science. It is slow. But Google has made a start and is enthusiastic to continue. They have taken a huge monkey off our back; Nature's damnation. A follow up article with heat or nuclear product would shake the world.

    Ed was consulted and participated (after I parted company with team-G). I will leave him to describe the experiences (I was not there) ... but horses were definitely lead to (heavy) water.

    Dennis Cravens was contacted by Trevithick before this "official" Google activity (Matt, Fran & I visited Cloudcroft and Dennis very graciously briefed us ... both Dennis' actually). It lead to this publication. That was ~10 years before team-G was formed but Matt very much is aware of Dennis Cravens and his ideas and his value. He is one of our best and recognized as such.

    So it is not correct that no senior members of the community were consulted or their ideas considered. It was very important for team-G to create separation from "us" ("the deplorables"). Had they not done so there would have been no Nature publication. This exercise has opened the door to publication there and elsewhere, opened minds to constructive bi-directional collaboration and represents (in my view) a re-birth of sorts. It has brought young scientists in good institutions into the field. I suggest we celebrate and find ways to make it work for us. I cannot imagine a more potent ally than Google. Well, perhaps I can, but not many. And I cannot imagine a worse doom than having our average age grow one year older with each passing year.

  • separation from "us" ("the deplorables"). Had they not done so there would have been no Nature publication

    Kia ora Mikaere. Ka whawhai tonuu matou.

    Even without the deplorables Nature

    still politicised the publication.

    That's not cricket, as they say in the UK

    Anyone game for a few letters to the editor?

    Jed... you can check mine?

    .. Nature need to pull its head in.. As we say in NZ

    One plus of the $10million GoogleX effort is the 1000 eV screening result

    with neutron emission/palladium target

    This supports the 2005 610 eV screening result from the Russian work(also deplorable?)

    with proton emission/titanium target.

    Neither the 2005 or 2019 authors have a theoretical explanation.

    It is beyond present Coulomb centric theory,

    Perhaps someone could come up with an explanation..

    which links up LENR ... but without the neutron emission.

  • mmckubre Thanks for the clarification - which is kind of counter to the impression I got from comments made elsewhere. Personally, I thought the paper a hatchet job, loaded with weasel words, as do many others. And the three opinion editorials also give the impression that the subtext of the whole thing is 'move along there, nothing to see. But as you know at least one of those involved in the work I'll take your word that they are of good intent.

    This leads on to what I see as the key problem. They set out to investigate cold fusion, not by faithfully replicating experiments that were known to work, but by using methods that many people in the field (the contemptibles if you like) could have told them would not work. So they achieved null results due to bad methods, which are presented in the paper as if they were negatives obtained using established methods. Not following the recipe book can lead to bad soup, and in this case it has done so. So the end result is that we have a prestigious journal publishing work based on what are ingenue attempts at experiments with only a superficial grasp of what is required. All the information is out there in JCMNS and LENR-CANR but they never applied any of the key methods described there to the task in hand

    I think your suggestion that this article indicates that Nature will now publish more on the topic is optimistic in the extreme, but as an optimist myself I would like to think so too. I also hope that Matt Trevithick ventures more of G-x's capital on the science 'done properly', but if these guys really want to get a result, they have started from the wrong place in the wrong direction in the wrong vehicle without looking at the maps. One more schoolboy error and it would start to look deliberate. I just hope you and others can sort them out as to proper methods and material preparation before they publish too much more.