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

  • Wonder if we are going to see a flood of papers on CF being submitted to top journals now - anyone with solid data on excess heat production should give it a go.


    These people got in because they are from Google and from big-name universities. Most researchers I know would be rejected out of hand, because they are retired and no longer associated with prestigious institutions. Nature would never publish a paper by Storms, even though he retired from LANL, or Beiting who retired from the Aerospace Corp. Offhand, the only researcher I know who has current credentials is Mike Staker at Loyola U. His university position does not do him any good. He cannot get enough support to pay for minimal experiments. I doubt that Nature or any other journal would look at a submission from him.


    He is one of the best people around, and it is a damn shame he cannot get funding. He and Beiting did a better job than the people from Google. They got positive results. I suspect Nature would reject them for that reason. I have a feeling that if the Google people come back to Nature with positive results, Nature will refuse to publish them. It would refute their hatchet job.


    See:


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


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

  • He and Beiting did a better job than the people from Google. They got positive results.


    At the risk of reducing my not that high popularity here can I suggest that this is a bad metric.


    Getting positive results is only a sign of merit if they are got with great care in a setup that will convince others. The google paper, while lamentably lacking details, does indicate such care. Also they say they are releasing details of their instrumentation, so these details, more than are usually provided from LENR papers, will exist.


    Given an accurate and robust measurement setup, exploring the parameter space can be done, with confidence.


    Without that, you are exploring the systematic or one-off error space.


    THH

  • Re-re-reading the paper. I think the 420 samples are for Ni/H (Rossi hotcat style: they reference G. Levi "indications') .

    "We tested the independent variables of temperature, pressure, sample composition, particle size, surface treatment, and others. ... However, none of the 420 samples we evaluated provided evidence of excess heat". No mention of 'stimulus', though.

    The "in preparation" paper is by PA (Phil) Schauer of BUC (who has co-authored with Berlinguette of this paper)
    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=a_GHTw4AAAAJ&hl=en

    Edit: latest calorimetry paper is https://link.springer.com/arti…1007%2Fs10973-019-08271-z
    We acknowledge Google LLC for financial support and Dr. Edmund Storms for his detailed input on the Seebeck calorimeter design.

  • Getting positive results is only a sign of merit if they are got with great care in a setup that will convince others.


    Uh, huh. Have another look at those papers from Staker and Beiting. They, along with Mel Miles, are the most careful, thorough, painstaking people I have ever met. Did you not notice this?


    Beiting's work was done at the Aerospace Corp. before he retired. This is one of the largest, most lavishly funded and most prestigious research organizations on earth, with 3,600 employees, including 750 PhDs, and $973 million in revenues. (https://aerospace.org/sites/de…eAerospaceCorp-AR2017.pdf) They are exacting, because you have to be in aviation. Otherwise your airplanes crash. They are known for having some of the best instruments and the most experienced materials researchers in the world. They make the Google crowd look like amateurs.

  • Getting positive results is only a sign of merit if they are got with great care in a setup that will convince others. The google paper, while lamentably lacking details, does indicate such care. Also they say they are releasing details of their instrumentation, so these details, more than are usually provided from LENR papers, will exist.


    I do not see any great care in the paper. And details of the instrumentation are not going to show any such care other than building a calorimeter and instrumenting it. The important "care" at producing the effect is not what is hanging on the outside of the cell (speaking first about electrochemistry) but the "care" give in material selection, material treatment, the temperatures, currents, and protocols during electrolysis.


    The important thing to see the effect is what is in the cell and how it is treated not the instrumentation outside the cell. They sound like a bunch of electrical engineers an not electrochemists.

  • I do not see any great care in the paper. And details of the instrumentation are not going to show any such care other than building a calorimeter and instrumenting it. The important "care" at producing the effect is not what is hanging on the outside of the cell (speaking first about electrochemistry) but the "care" give in material selection, material treatment, the temperatures, currents, and protocols during electrolysis.


    The important thing to see the effect is what is in the cell and how it is treated not the instrumentation outside the cell. They sound like a bunch of electrical engineers an not electrochemists.


    It depends on whether you see elimination of artifacts or production of some effect as the key LENR challenge.


    Even if you see production of some effect as the key challenge - you need to convince others that you have eliminated artifacts.


    In that sense, the google guys have:

    • Got a really good high temp calorimeter
    • Discovered and found workarounds for some errors in how D2 loading can be measured (useful since D2 loading seems important for LENR - if you cannot measure it accurately you are handicapped).


    THH

  • The important thing to see the effect is what is in the cell and how it is treated not the instrumentation outside the cell. They sound like a bunch of electrical engineers an not electrochemists.


    Yes. Electrochemistry and material science are the keys to cold fusion. The people in charge of the experiment should be experts in those areas. The people who make the instruments are important, of course, but their designs should follow the needs of the electrochemists.


    Ah ha. The lead author is an electrochemist, so it's all good:


    https://www.chem.ubc.ca/curtis-berlinguette


    Chiang is a materials scientist. That's good too.


    Mike McKubre said here that he thinks their problems can be fixed, so I am optimistic. He would know if anyone knows.

  • Re-re-reading the paper. I think the 420 samples are for Ni/H (Rossi hotcat style: they reference G. Levi "indications') .


    Yes. That is what the Fig. 3 caption says:


    "b, Plot of coefficient of performance (COP) as a function of the independent variable (shown in coloured text) to evaluate claims of excess heat production by the Ni–H materials system. Each unique experimental condition was typically sampled in quadruplicate. The 3σ limit of detection is presented as a solid grey horizontal line at COP = 1.0825. Dots, 420 individual sample runs; vertical lines, 95% confidence intervals about the average."


    I do not see any details about Pd-D experiments or results. Strange.


    There is a strange disconnect to parts of this paper. They evidently know the literature on cold fusion, yet they ignore it. They say McKubre stresses the importance of high loading. Correct. Then they say:


    "We were able to reproducibly sustain high hydrogen loadings in palladium (x = 0.81 ± 0.02) when we subjected a purpose-built solid-state electrochemical cell to a modest electrochemical driving force of −1 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE) . . ."


    Okay, good, but that's not high enough. That will not produce excess heat. See this graph:


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


    Why is the driving force "modest"? What happens with an immodest driving force? How about a brazen or depraved driving force?


    Is that the highest loading they achieved? I sorta think so, but it is not clear. More to the point, why didn't they tell the reader: "We were able to reproducibly sustain high hydrogen loadings in palladium (x = 0.81 ± 0.02) . . . However, the cold fusion literature shows this is not high enough to produce a reaction, so no excess heat can be expected." If they never reached high enough loading, or they failed to reach other parameters in the McKubre equation, they should have said so: "None of our tests reached high enough levels of loading or current density to produce the effect. Excess heat cannot be expected from the conditions we achieved. Whereas when these conditions were achieved in other laboratories, excess heat was produced [5 or 10 endnotes]."


    That would be an honest report. This paper seems to be trying to give the impression they achieved the necessary conditions but nothing happened, which might make the reader suppose that other labs reporting heat were mistaken. Gee . . . you don't suppose that was the impression they were trying to give, do you?!? My goodness no. (The Nature editors might have been hoping for that . . .)


    Oh, I have such a suspicious mind. Shame on me.



  • It is not logical to assume that fusion is caused by lattice compression of deuterium when the release of that pressure produces excess heat. The basic posit of fusion caused by lattice compression might well be wrong.


    What theory can explain how the release of lattice generated deuterium pressure can cause the LENR reaction be become active?

  • This paper seems to be trying to give the impression they achieved the necessary conditions but nothing happened


    Actually before Nature's peer review it might have said something honest like.


    "We were able to reproducibly sustain high hydrogen loadings in palladium (x = 0.81 ± 0.02) . . . However, the cold fusion literature shows this is not high enough to produce a reaction, so no excess heat can be expected." If they never reached high enough loading, or they failed to reach other parameters in the McKubre equation, they should have said so: "None of our tests reached high enough levels of loading or current density to produce the effect. Excess heat cannot be expected from the conditions we achieved. Whereas when these conditions were achieved in other laboratories, excess heat was produced [5 or 10 endnotes].


    Of course this is speculation. but it is in keeping with the question


    "Why do research when LENR has not been proven"


    which fails to acknowledge the strong evidence for the phenomena of LENR heat without neutrons and for LENR transmutation in the unNAture literature.


    What hasn't been proven is that LENR technology is viable ....which is what this political game is about.

    LENR technology is disruptive to the status quo .





  • 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]

    Thanks THH.

    I have forwarded your theoretical post to Shenkel et al

    they have no explanation for the 1000 Ev 'screening'.


    Plaudits .. for your Boltzmann calculation ... I'm lazy .. I use an online calculator..

    1000 eV =11605000K

    http://www.colby.edu/chemistry/PChem/Hartree.html


  • Congratulations on your online calculator: it was easier for me to use round numbers and no calculator - and I happened to know the 300K vs 25mV approximation from semi physics (actually it is more like 26mV, but that means I would need a calculator).


    Did your point require better than 10% accuracy?


    My answer was approximate - as is yours. For example, for this purpose do you want median or mode of the energy distribution? They differ. Or some other value got from some integral?


    So - as I see it, the values given can be understood, and approximately explained, as I did. And anyway the statements made in the paper were not exact.


    There is a chain of papers discussing the screening issue:


    Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d + d fusion reactions in metallic environments

    K. Czerski, A. Huke, A. Biller, P. Heide, M. Hoeft and G. Ruprecht

    Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics


    Measurements of enhanced electron screening in d+d reactions under UHV conditions

    K Czerski1, A Huke2, L Martin2, N Targosz1, D Blauth3, A Górska1, P Heide2 and H Winter3


    Influence of the target surface contamination on UHV screening energies

    N Targosz-Ślȩczka1, K Czerski1, A Huke2, L Martin2, P Heide2, A I Kiliç1, D Blauth3 and H Winter3


    Screening and resonance enhancements of the 2H(d, p)3H reaction yield in metallic environments

    K. Czerski1,2, D. Weissbach1,2, A. I. Kilic1, G. Ruprecht2, A. Huke2, M. Kaczmarski1, N. Targosz-Ślęczka1 and K. Maass3


    THRESHOLD RESONANCE CONTRIBUTION TO THE THICK TARGET 2H(d, p) 3H REACTION YIELD

    M. Kaczmarski, K. Czerski, D. Weissbach, A.I. Kilic


    ELECTRON SCREENING EFFECT IN NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN METALLIC AND GASEOUS TARGETS

    N. Targosz-Ślęczka, K. Czerski, M. Kaczmarskia, D. Weissbach, A.İ. Kiliç, G. Ruprecht, A. Hukeb, S. Policastroa


    I'm sure Prado-Estevez will be aware of the suggestions here for screening enhancement via a resonance because:

    Prados-Estévez, Francisco M., Arsen V. Subashiev, and Han H. Nee. "Nuclear Fusion by Lattice Confinement." Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 86.7 (2017): 074201.

    references part of this chain.


    The values found experimentally here, at higher impact energies, are not so far from 1000ev (factor of 2). And these results are explainable within known theories (though not as yet fully understood. Czerski has a plausible mechanism).


    So, given different specific targets it seems unsurprising that a 1000eV effective screening can be observed. My point was that you can get high experimental screening values naturally from known theory.

  • So, given different specific targets it seems unsurprising that a 1000eV effective screening can be observed. My point was that you can get high experimental screening values naturally from known theory


    Thanks THH

    More theory for Shenkel et al.

    You may surprise them with your unsurprising.

    You DON"T get 1000 ev values naturally from known theory ..this is just typical THH Blah.

  • Maybe screening does not occur.


    Well that would be really surprising, given all that electronic charge floating around. The question, for explaining these cross-sections at low energies, is how much screening (or other factors, like Czerski's idea).


    It is open - if you look at the recent papers - but open in a "we have a plausible idea just it is not yet proven" sort of way.


    Anyway the google guys intend to obtain better experimental data. Good on them.

  • Well that would be really surprising, given all that electronic charge floating around

    THH, Got any precise calculations on how much electronic charge is floating around?


    Sorry.. the correct name is Schenkel, not Shenkel ..

    https://www.google.com.au/url?…Vaw09xt9L2sjep87pUskc1UZA

    Dr Thomas Schenkel who writes

    "

    But an electron screening potential of ~1000 eV is not consistent with established theories of electron screening,

    which reproduce measured values from gas phase experiments of ~27 eV [1, 5-11]. "


    Dr Schenkel may not have read all the publications that THH has obviously read in depth

    so that he may be surprised at your unsurprising speculation.


    If you can back this speculation with precision modelling of 1000eV. you could unsurprise him ... and me.



    Investigation of light ion fusion reactions with plasma discharges

    Authors:T. Schenkel, A. Persaud, H. Wang, P. A. Seidl, R. MacFadyen, C. Nelson, W. L. Waldron, J.-L. Vay, G. Deblonde, B. Wen, Y.-M. Chiang, B. P. MacLeod, Q. Ji

  • More to the point, why didn't they tell the reader: "We were able to reproducibly sustain high hydrogen loadings in palladium (x = 0.81 ± 0.02) . . . However, the cold fusion literature shows this is not high enough to produce a reaction, so no excess heat can be expected."

    Otherwise Nature wouldn't have published their report. Sometimes it's better not to say things in a straightforward way especially when a scientist seeks to publish negative results. For the sake of goods. I used that trick in the past, in total I submitted three papers to Nature, only one got published, by far it was the worst of all, but it was written in a way to trigger discussions and to open doors to further work. The editors of Nature love this because all the subsequent work will then cite this work and increase Nature's impact factor.


    See the good thing out of it. Now that that paper is out, Nature can't come back. Also, and maybe more importantly, the editors of Nature will not lose their face if a subsequent article showing some positive results is submitted to them. As mmckubre rightly said, the Google group has done a great job in taking Nature's damnation off the back of the LENR community. What an achievement.


    Now it's not up to the Google group to contact Violante and others to get some working samples, as you suggested above. Rather it's up to the LENR community to take the lead. I would even say that you, as a long term writer in the field, can take the lead and contact the likes of Violante, Storms, McKubre, etc.. to join forces in order to maximize the chances that some potentially working samples will ultimately be sent to them with the right conditions be achieved. IMHO electrolytic loading of Pd isn't the simplest nor the most effective way to reach the effect however it is historically the way that has been followed by the old guard and the one the Google group is ready to test. Let's be pragmatic here: a next article saying that "In our previous work, we didn't succeed to reach the right conditions which are extremely difficult to obtain. Here we show excess heat and nuclear byproducts after having succeeded to reach other conditions in the parameter space. It is possible that all negative experiments were negative because of the difficulty to reach the right conditions" has a high chance to be accepted by Nature should the wording again be "diplomatic".

  • Well said JulianBianchi . When this story matures a little while longer, I was thinking of starting another, more specific thread directed at Team Google. It would be the LENR communities response to their request for advice on how they could do better.


    As I said earlier, they are reading what we say, both directly and indirectly, but this will be a more official, formal response. Hopefully more focused on the science, and less on the emotion, than this original thread where opinions are being formulated.


  • It will be even more interesting if they will perform next the discharge experiments with plasma containing not deuterium but Hydrogen and Lithium, and the Lithium on cathode.