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

  • At one point the Nature paper is very positive, since it shows that there is no fusion reaction, i.e Cold fusion reaction producing heat is not detected.


    So the research should go in the direction of fission (induced fission of stable elements), and this is good. I am still wondering why it is so difficult to except that there is no Cold fusion reaction producing heat ?


    The opposite of fusion is fission, and nothing more, if you follow the logic - Law of excluded middle.


    So, even heat excess in FP electrolysis had the possible explanation of Lithium fission as result of interaction of Lithium nuclei with hydrogen nuclei (protons).


    The same fission reaction was even more clear considered as explanation of heat production in Rossi experiments.


    Besides Lithium similar fission reaction can take place for Boron nuclei colliding with protons.


    And it is also clear that you have to not only supply Lithium (Boron) and Hydrogen, but also stimulate the collision of them. And, the obvious way is to apply electric pulses.

  • Thanks to LLC for the link to the National Geographic and thanks for the further background supplied by McKubre I think the Google effort can be seen in quite a positive light.

    It certainly starts to answer questions about the background and motivation to this and the fact that the Google team has been communicating to some extent with the community.

    Matt Trevithick and the others seem to be genuinely curious about LENR and are willing to spend serious time (years) for the research.

    As others have said we need to encourage them to continue the work. If they can get positive results and push them back at Nature then things will get very interesting.

    Interesting times.

  • As others have said we need to encourage them to continue the work. If they can get positive results and push them back at Nature then things will get very interesting.

    Interesting times.


    While we wait for further developments from team Google, all eyes are now on Duncan's Texas Tech -the Gates funded LENR program. Last rumor (1 year ago) was that they expected to be published in a prestigious journal. Could that be Nature? We have no more intel on this than anyone else, so just speculating; but if so, that could explain why publication is taking so long. Google submitted their paper May 2018, and it just got published.

  • 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.


    Ed Storms does not post here anymore, but IMO he sounds very unimpressed with what they did, and how they went about it. Thanks BTW. Great post, and very informative.

  • IHMO if such a paper were in the pipeline at Nature you might have expected the Nature editors to be more circumspect on their anti-LENR attacks than they were.

    Their words and actions suggest they see a clear horizon with no nasty LENR surprises in store.

  • So the research should go in the direction of fission (induced fission of stable elements), and this is good. I am still wondering why it is so difficult to except that there is no Cold fusion reaction producing heat ?


    This is exactly what the aim of the nature paper is... Divert people from doing the right thing.


    The military of all big countries knows that LENR works and would really like to delay or to make it disappear. The US oil industry expresses the same wishes first selling shell oil and then, may be later, take over the LENR market.


    Thus for all clear minded people, knowing how the political mafia works, it is even more clear know! The establishment fears sudden breakthroughs and the latest actions (clearing wiki!!) are a first sign of their desperation.


    The next possible step they will undertake is producing movie for main stream TV telling people that LENR/cold-fusion is fringe science and a conspiracy...


    The really bad thing about the google LENR project is the "careless" selection of people they did. Or said the other way round. The establishment could staff the project and simply prevent that 10 mio.$ could be used for useful science... The methods we see here in action are well known and exactly performed according the free mason order of action to undermine the "dangerous" parts of society.

  • Jed you asked for the basis of my aghastness.

    The comments below, among others, are the reason for my statement.


    I try to keep in mind that Team Google probably reads what we say here, either directly or indirectly. They are no doubt curious creatures as we all are, and want to know how their hard work is being judged by the LENR community. Maybe even looking for advice on how to proceed, so next time they succeed in finding more than neutrons.

  • I try to keep in mind that Team Google probably reads what we say here, either directly or indirectly. They are no doubt curious creatures as we all are, and want to know how their hard work is being judged by the LENR community. Maybe even looking for advice on how to proceed, so next time they succeed in finding more than neutrons.


    Yes, I was surprised by some of the responses and I was trying to be subtle and general and not mention specific people or quotes but, well you know Jed. ;)


    Jed himself would clearly be a very useful point of contact for anyone wanting to make progress in LENR.


    I think anyone reading these boards should be able to pick out the actually useful information and ignore the emotive stuff. But just in case.

    YAY TEAM GOOGLE :thumbup:


  • I have to repeat again, we should wait next paper from Google team, since they refer to the manuscript in preparation with details about used setups, also with Lithium I guess.


    If they have considered the scheme of Lithium fission induced by collision with protons that will be nice to see how exactly it was done (and no conspiracy behind the Nature publication). If they simply heated mix of Lithium with Nickel without induction it will be not a surprise. Anyway the scheme of induced fission of stable elements like Lithium should be considered as very probable mechanism of heat production for LENR experiments.

  • That campaign has so far failed. It is hard but I think that problem is relatively easy to fix.


    That's good. I am glad to hear it from you, because you would know best.


    But Google has made a start and is enthusiastic to continue.


    That's good too, but I hope they consult with experts, especially Storms and Violante.


    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.


    I strongly agree. That's what I said, too.


    Ed was consulted and participated (after I parted company with team-G). I will leave him to describe the experiences (I was not there) ...


    Ed is not impressed. He says they did not follow his advice. Maybe they will now. They are smart cookies. I hope they are not too smart for their own good.

  • 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.


    I agree it was a hatchet job. I think we should say there are two different events here:


    1. Publication of a technical paper. A good thing. Promising.

    2. Nature's hatchet job that accompanied that paper. That was inevitable. They wouldn't have published without an attack.


    If there is a follow up paper showing excess heat, this attack will make no difference. If they don't find heat, even if Nature had welcomed the paper it would be a fiasco. Either way, the attack is not likely to change the outcome much.


    An editorial hatchet job was inevitable. Unfortunately, this hatchet job extended to the paper itself, with the choice of words, the lack of references to Storms and Miles, and so on. That violates academic norms. I hope the editors and reviewers insisted on that, and it wasn't the authors' idea. If I had been an author, I would not agree to publish this paper the way it was written. I would tell them they can attack all they want in their editorials, but the paper should follow the rules.



    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.


    Is that the situation? Do you mean in the last experiment described? I have not read the paper carefully enough, or I don't understand it well enough to see what you have in mind. They don't seem to discuss their Pd-D results. I have the impression they did not achieve high loading. As I said, they should have included more hands-on details and less theory.

  • Quote

    (from nat geo )

    In the past, researchers had measured palladium's deuterium content by tracking changes in its electrical resistance. But when the Google team tried the technique, they noticed errors. So they came up with a new measurement technique: shining x-rays through the palladium to directly see how much the loaded metal had swelled.


    So their loading values might be different from the 'traditional' lenr numbers. Higher? Lower? I guess we'll just have to wait for the detailed papers.


    Edit: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b01243 says they got to 0.96 H

  • I try to keep in mind that Team Google probably reads what we say here, either directly or indirectly.


    Ya' think? Okay, I have a message for them:


    ASK VIOLANTE TO SEND YOU SOME CATHODES!!! I hope he still has some, or he can make some.


    It would be nice if Johnson-Matthey could provide some of the ones Fleischmann called "Type A Palladium." I don't know if they have them anymore. You could just take one out of a hydrogen filter. That's what they are used for, according to Uncle Martin. See p. 7:


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

  • Quote

    ACS Paper : Furthermore, we show that the achievable hydrogen concentration is severely limited by electrochemomechanical damage to palladium and/or the substrate and that such damage is minimized by a combination of thin palladium films and compliant substrates.


    Hmmm ... but mightn't it be the cracking at the peak-historic-loading that makes NAE-s?


  • Robert - I imagine they are expecting readers to read what is written carefully? I am not quite sure what is your point here. This seems quite clear to me as below: but please correct me, as I know you will, if I have made a mistake:


    Average energies relate to temperature as kT, and hence electron volts as kT/qe. To use a well-known example, 25meV corresponds to roughly 300K.


    Thus 1000eV ~ 300 * 40 * 1000 K = 12,000,000K.

    2keV particle energy with 1keV screening therefore corresponds to 1keV particle energy.


    True - I have not proven that screening of V is equivalent to +V on particle energy of U but it makes sense as an approximate relation because classically the minimum distance from nucleus depends on (U+V) and therefore tunnelling probability to first order on this as well.


    This paper shows, as has other work, that measurable (using radioactive product measurement, though not excess heat) nuclear fusion rates can be obtained at low particle energies - though hardly LENR as normally considered.


    At these rates the fusion gain no way makes up for the projectile energy needed and thermalised (hence this is "used" energy). However the search for higher cross-sections, perhaps due to a deviation from what is expected at the extreme tail-end of the distribution, is worth doing. As they point out here the low energy tail of the distribution has not properly been explored, nor how it changes with different targets.


    One reason for this, as the authors influenced no doubt by LENR speculation also speculate, is that effects such as plasmoids with very high Q might locally increase shielding much more than expected, and this effect might be highly variable with surface structure and hence optimisable. It is not an impossible idea, and something is needed to explain the relatively high shielding.


    I see this as a known (in the sense that the empirical and theoretical basis is proven) possibility for useful LENR. But in terms of generating power it is still many OOMs away from break-even - further than ITER or smaller hot fusion attemps (MTF etc). Looks like an outside possibility. But, investigating things not fully understood is in my opinion always worth doing (which is why I am an LENR-friendly skeptic).


    PS - if you look at the literature on strongly coupled plasmas quite high screening is expected theoretically - and has been shown experimentally.


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…ly-coupled-plasma-physics


    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…48b647b31dc0ace8e85d3.pdf


    [but later more accurate work, with various experimental errors understood and corrected, exists which I do not have the energy to track down and reference - it has been linked here by me and others somewhere so I'm sure others can help]


  • So their loading values might be different from the 'traditional' lenr numbers. Higher? Lower? I guess we'll just have to wait for the detailed papers.


    Edit: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b01243 says they got to 0.96 H


    Edmund Storms has shown that high-loading is not necessary to maintain the reaction.


    Others have also shown that excess heat is generated upon de-loading.


    The idea that high-loading is *needed* to *start* the reaction is still ambiguous.


    It may be that the high-loading is actually causing the deformations that allow LENR to occur, and that the crammed in nuclei are creating the environment for heat to happen.


    Here is Storms graph, and a graph of George Miley's from

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

    Learn from the Best!