Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

Quote from THHuxleynew

Many here, I thought, think that classic open or closed cell FPHE D/Pd experiments are well enough understood that excess heat can be reliably found by someone of skill. I'd suggest that that "success reliable" recipe be communicated to google. They can they replicate it, ...

Yes, exactly, this is what is (almost?) unanimously believed in the CF/LENR community, so this is what should be replicated by Team Google.

However, you should keep in mind a fundamental difference between open and closed cells. For open cells, we have videos that show the intimate source of the presumed excess heat, ie the sparking glow Pd cathode, and "the dramatic heat effect of the cold fusion reaction on the water fuel". This visible effect can be replicated and unquestionably demonstrated by the Google's researchers. On the contrary, closed cells are sort of magical black boxes equipped with instruments which produce numbers, you should trust into.

Quote from Shane D.

I have never read you being so wrong, on so many counts Jed. All I can say is that you are letting your ego get in the way.

About what? The fact that we cannot discuss Mizuno's experiment until it is replicated? What is there to discuss? Or about my opinion that secret research is useless?

If you mean the latter, what do you think of the Google research project? How do you know anything about it? Maybe you have inside knowledge. I do not, so I cannot judge whether they did a good job or not. The only thing I know about them is they did not consult with the people I listed. Plus, I gather from the paper they did not achieve high loading, so their Fleischmann-Pons results are not significant.

My ego has nothing to do with this. I play no role in this, except presenting Mizuno's results.

The upthread question about who is the LENR community is a good one. Does it make sense that Google wants to fund research based on the opinion of self-appointed fans of LENR? Is the community they are talking about anybody who takes an interest in the topic? If I was in charge of a research team and they directed their efforts based on a poll of "fans", they would be looking for new jobs.

In a previous life, I crossed paths with a program manager at a major US government research funding agency who had, shall we say, an Axil/Director-type outlook on science. That person created some quite unique programs over the course of time, often having to browbeat researchers into working on them. Most serious scientists are not willing to spend their time on wild goose chases just because there is some money available. One never heard about the programs that this manager created because they didn’t exactly change the world. But perhaps Google wants to throw the same dice. Strange things can happen...

Quote from Shane D.

those believers

I hope GoogleX benefits humanity

The positivist belief in technology is appealing.

I grew up with it..but I have my doubts about it sixty or so years

My belief relates to something less fallible than GoogleX

Quote from rubycarat

[I wish I could have persuaded Mizuno to report this months earlier. There might have been enough time for replications. I. . .]

But we do have his claim that he heated his room in Sapporo with the unit, and it felt as warm as a 3kW heater. Obivously non-quantitative, but is he out of his mind? or lying?

I do not see what your statement has to do with mine. I knew about this last year. I was trying to persuade Mizuno to publish it. He wanted to work on in more. That's what academic scientists often do. They work for years before publishing. No one has accused him of lying or being out of his mind (except Mitchell Swartz, who I suppose is jealous).

Quote

They work for years before publishing. No one has accused him of lying or being out of his mind (except Mitchell Swartz, who I suppose is jealous).

You suggest Mizuno may be doing more work. With a power out of approximately 3kW and a power in of 300W, why in God's name does this need more work?

Lying or out of his mind definitely has to be ruled out. It would have helped a lot if his reactor had worked when tested by IH or if he had invited reliable people from IH to witness his tests. I am very troubled by the claim he gave/rented/sold 12 reactors to others. Without confirmation by the recipients, it seems weird. Which others? Are they well known? If not, why not? What have they done with them? It would be just peachy to have one or more discussing their experiences with the reactors here, wouldn't it? Can anyone arrange it? If not, why not? The work is supposedly not proprietary and if there is a language barrier, the indefatigable JedRothwell can translate the best report(s). The issue of those 12 reactors is something that Ruby's investigative talents should be put to work on.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

With a power out of approximately 3kW and a power in of 300W, why in God's name

Perhap's not in God's name

but a battery powered LENR reactor with a 100:1 COP would be very useful in offgrid areas

where solar cells can be used to recharge the batteries.

Quote from Shane D.

Go ahead RB, get your point across. Google has failed before in other areas, so.....

Personally, I see it as a sign they are willing to try new things. If they fail, they learn from their mistakes, and do it better next time. Great example of that, is their next attempt at replicating LENR. First time around, TG got results they wished they had not gotten. Instead of being discouraged, closing up shop and moving on, they are trying again. This time asking for our help, which is a very smart move. That is how leaders do it. Failure is just another step on the road to success.

Show me a company afraid to stick their necks out pursuing new ideas, and I will show you a company destined for failure. And Google *is* sticking their necks out with LENR, and it is embarrassing to me those believers not appreciative of that.

Steve Jobs quotes

• The worst thing that could happen might turn out to be the best thing that could happen.

• Stay hungry. Stay foolish.

1. Takahashi's group

2. Forsley/Mosier-Boss

3. Staker

4. Storms

5. Celani

6. Letts / Craven

7. Vitaly A. Kirkinskiy

8. Fralick

9. Lipinski

Is this a fair list so far? Are there any reasonably simple criteria that can be used to disqualify experiments? The list needs to be winnowed and the experiments weighed against each other.

Some thoughts:

• What are the potential materials science difficulties with these experiments? Do they disqualify the experiment or can they be obviated?

• Are the original researchers available and willing to advise on the experiment? If not, does this disqualify the experiment?

• How well documented is the experiment?

• What is the history of prior replications of the experiment?

• How quickly can the experiment be done? Are faster experiments, which allow for more iteration, adjustment and variation preferable?

• Does the experiment just show excess heat, or other products too? How much excess heat is reasonably expected? Does an experiment that throws off other products, in addition to heat, offer more avenues to success for Google?

etc.

Quote from Shane D.

If you read Ruby's whole comment, where she goes on to say:

"Obivously non-quantitative, but is he out of his mind? or lying? I would not say that at all. Some people I believe, and some I do not. I believe what Mizuno says. and I hope it is true"

It is clear she is very supportive, and hopeful of Mizuno's work. We all are. Everyone wants this to be the big breakthrough. Many are reserving judgement however, until more data is available, but that is what science is all about.

People can make quite surprising mistakes, even when neither liars nor insane.

That human fact is often forgotten by people who put lone scientists up on a pedestal imagining they cannot have normal human failings.

Modern science does not forget this, which is why surprising results from a single source are never believed till replicated elsewhere.

Quote from THHuxleynew

People can make quite surprising mistakes, even when neither liars nor insane.

THHuxleynew wrote:

That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\

less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps

Unfortumately THHnew does not know how to work out reflected heat.

A proper calculation involves both the emissivity of the reactor wall and the emissivity of the aluminium foil

and gives much more reradiation than 10% .... ~ 30%