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

  • Ascoli65 wrote:

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

    I also suggest to look at reference:


    6. S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, M.H. Miles, and M. Fleischmann,

    ‘Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition’,

    Thermochim. Acta, Vol. 410, pp. 101-107 (2004).


    The golden rules are also listed in the paragraph 2.5. "Dewar-type calorimetry" of the SPAWAR article published in 2004 (1).



    While you're at it, don't forget to look at:


    K. L. Shanahan

    "Comments on ‘Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition’",

    Thermochim. Acta, Vol. 428, pp. 207-212 (2005).

  • I'll just re-post my last comment #371 especially since the original SPAWAR team can directly advise TG on their protocol if required.



    I agree with oystla , the SPAWAR research is probably the most likely to yield positive results if replicated by TG - and I would suggest TG repeat not just one of their experiments but every experiment they have ever published. With further experiments to chase down interesting leads/anomalies etc. Such a comprehensive study would firmly establish LENR as the energy source to be developed for future generations!:)

  • Dr Richard


    I put a compendium of papers covering the Spawar work in this thread :- THE USEFUL BOOK THREAD


    ETA post#5


    All of which ignore my criticisms, except of course the famous 10 author paper. They say:


    28. J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund

    Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss and L. P. G. Forsley, “A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction

    (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan”, J. Environ. Monit., 12, (2010), 1765-1770.

    http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71632


    In his criticisms of the review article on LENR by Krivit and Marwan, Shanahan has raised a number of

    issues in the areas of calorimetry, heat after death, elemental transmutation, energetic particle detection

    using CR-39, and the temporal correlation between heat and helium-4. These issues are addressed by the

    researchers who conducted the original work discussed in the Krivit and Marwan (K&M) review paper.


    Of course they were addressed...incorrectly,,,as noted in many discussions on this forum and elsewhere.


    End result: No refutations of any of my criticisms (except for Abd noting one error in a paper with which I agreed and clarified, also on this forum).

  • Here is another copy of that paper:


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


    That's not 'another' copy, it is the same one.


    The authors do not think you addressed them adequately, and neither do I. Let the reader decide.


    Of course not. Why would they. They successfully suppressed my response. However, for those who want to see it, they can read my whitepaper, which can be found as ref. #14 here: https://mathscholar.org/2019/0…-a-skeptical-perspective/

  • Whatever experiment they choose to do, there is one essential thing you must always do in a project of this nature. It sounds contradictory, but you must not decide anything, you must not tell anyone what to do, and you must not put anyone in charge. Here is what you do: Bring in a bunch of talented, inspired, hot-shot young scientists, give them whatever instruments they say they need, and let them do whatever they think best. If three of them want to do different experiments, let them do different experiments. There is never any point to arguing or deciding; only an experiment can show the way.


    History is full of examples of this, but history books seldom describe it. You have to read between the lines. Putting someone in charge of fundamental research is usually the kiss of death because -- as I said -- you would have to be omniscient.


    During the development of the transistor, Shockley, who was a world-class jerk and know-it-all, thought he knew best. He tried to prevent Teal's work on zone refining, because he thought was not needed. Teal continued the experiments in secret. If Shockley had had his way, the transistor would have remained a laboratory curiosity, not useful for anything. See: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf Even if Shockley had been a nice person, it would still be a mistake to let him make the decisions. Young people should decide things for themselves. They are always the best qualified, especially when they know nothing. You have to remember: no one knows anything. It wouldn't be fundamental research otherwise. Most of what older people "know" just ain't so. It is negative knowledge. It should be obvious that if anyone had a font of positive, real, working knowledge of cold fusion, they would have a working cold fusion experiment. No one does. Mizuno is probably closest, but I assure you, there is a world of information he does not know. What he does not know will eventually be discovered and it will fill dozens of textbooks and hundreds of patents. It will have to, before cold fusion can be made safe, predictable and commercial. Consider that there are 50,000 patents relating to semiconductor memory chips alone. Think of how many man years of research that represents. It is probably enough effort to build an Egyptian pyramid. That is what it will take to make cold fusion work.


    Along the same lines, I agree with Harry Truman's method of advising young people about what to do with their life:


    Ask them what they want to do, and then tell them they should do that.

  • Can JedRothwell explain why it's not, hands down, Mizuno? He wrote up the last experiments. Does he not believe that Mizuno gets a well estimated 3kW out from around 300W in using a whisper of deuterium with a Pd-Ni grid as fuel? If JedRothwell had reservations about this spectacular and potentially world shaking claim, the time to express those was long before now. If there were no such reservations, then that experiment is the one for Google to replicate. Can anything be more obvious?

  • That's not 'another' copy, it is the same one.


    I meant that one copy is filed at the MIT library, and the other is at LENR-CANR.org. You pointed to the MIT library.


    Of course not. Why would they. They successfully suppressed my response.


    I had that sentence mixed up. I meant to say that your criticisms were addressed. I do not think these people suppressed your responses. What do you mean by that? Did they prevent publication? If you wrote responses, but you were not allowed to publish them, I suppose that was the editor's decision, not Marwan et al.'s decision. Regardless of who turned you down, or why, I invite you to write a paper and send it to me. I will upload it to LENR-CANR.org. Say whatever you like.


    I am almost certain Marwan et al. did not reject your paper, and they did nothing to prevent you from publishing a rebuttal, because I have spoken with them. They don't care what you say. They are finished with their analysis. They are right; you are wrong, and any educated person can see that. I cannot imagine why they would object to a rebuttal from you. I wouldn't mind if you or someone else wrote a rebuttal to one of my papers. I would upload it without a second thought. In the unlikely event your critique had any merit, I would revise or correct the paper.


    You can have the last word, and the last-last-word, and as many rebuttals as you like. As I said, feel free to sent me a paper. I couldn't care less how much more you or any other pathological skeptic says, as long as you don't bother me in this forum. It is annoying when THH and others twist my words and claim that four power meters cannot measure the electricity going into a resistance heater, and cannot tell the difference between 300 W and 50 W. It is annoying when you claim there must have been a 30 mph wind in Mizuno's old lab. But such claims are so outlandish, and such obvious nonsense, that I should not be upset by them. On the contrary, I should welcome them, and publish them at LENR-CANR.org, because the more nonsense you write, the more people will see that you are wrong.

  • kirkshanahan


    In your estimation, if you arbitrarily exclude for now fraud and delusion, what sort of error could possibly account for Mizuno's R19 and especially R20 results? These can not be the result of a calibration shift sort of error. The sustained power output and power out to power in ratio are way too large, are they not? (3kW, 10:1) These are not single runs. Purportedly, the lower power experiments (250W out at 5:1) were done over and over including excellent calibration runs using only Joule heating as a power source. You've seen those Mizuno and Rothwell recent papers, right?

  • No. You must always tell them to quantitatively evaluate their errors


    The errors you invoke are imaginary, and contrary to the laws of physics, as Marwan et al. showed. It is not possible to evaluate such things. If people followed your advice, they would be trying to find 30 mph wind in Mizuno's old lab and other outrageous nonsense.

  • kirkshanahan


    In your estimation, if you arbitrarily exclude for now fraud and delusion, what sort of error could possibly account for Mizuno's R19 and especially R20 results? These can not be the result of a calibration shift sort of error. The sustained power output and power out to power in ratio are way too large, are they not? (3kW, 10:1) These are not single runs. Purportedly, the lower power experiments (250W out at 5:1) were done over and over including excellent calibration runs using only Joule heating as a power source. You've seen those Mizuno and Rothwell recent papers, right?


    You did not ask me, but the R20 claims are not a matter for KS calorimetry errors (nor, probably, R19). However Mizuno has a proven record in these experiments of conflating calculated and measured values in his spreadsheets. All that is needed is for the input power to be calculated wrong, or the input current to be calculated wrong, in the R20 active result, because of change in heater not propagated to calculations. These things happen easily. And something similar though less extreme could also explain R19. We cannot tell because the experimental data is not well enough documented to know.

  • Blech. Please don't rehash the water bucket arguments! There are important current claims from Mizuno to talk about.


    If it had not been for the water bucket "arguments" as you call them -- and similar experiments -- he would have given up long ago. More to the point, if you do not believe his account of the water bucket, you have no reason to believe his present reports. The method of putting a hot cell into a water bucket and observing all of the water evaporate overnight is better than air flow calorimetry. It is more definitive.


    If you do not believe the water bucket method, you should not criticize Shanahan for rejecting the present experiments. You should not tell him: "these can not be the result of a calibration shift sort of error." You are right about that, but that's even more true of the bucket results. They do not need any calibration, and no conceivable error can account for them. It is not possible for water to evaporate without heat. It is not possible Mizuno and his colleague felt the cell was too hot to touch, and saw the thermocouple registered 100 deg C, yet the cell was actually stone cold. Such proof is much better than air flow calorimetry, and far better than using the reactor for a 3 kW room heater.

  • Jed is trolling again. For ex., I didn't invoke any of my errors in the comment he replied to. I said 'they' should evaluate 'their' errors. If Jed thinks this is incorrect, he is simply proving he knows nothing about how science is done. Likewise, I clearly stated my criticisms were not addressed ("No refutations of any of my criticisms"). I have also posted here many times, and repeat in in my whitepaper for which I gave you all a URL, that (a) the 10 author response uses the strawman argument fallacy to 'address' my calorimetric criticisms, and (b) that the editor of JEM refused to allow me to respond to the 10 author Reply. That is unusual. Likewise unusual is the very publication of the original Marwan and Krivit article in 2009.


    The abstract of that paper says:


    "This paper presents a new look at low-energy nuclear reaction research, a field that has developed

    from one of the most controversial subjects in science, ‘‘cold fusion.’’ Early in the history of this
    controversy, beginning in 1989, a strong polarity existed; many scientists fiercely defended the claim of
    new physical effects as well as a new process in which like-charged atomic nuclei overcome the
    Coulomb barrier at normal temperatures and pressures. Many other scientists considered the
    entire collection of physical observations—along with the hypothesis of a ‘‘cold fusion’’—entirely
    a mistake. Twenty years later, some people who had dismissed the field in its entirety are considering
    the validity of at least some of the reported experimental phenomena. As well, some researchers in
    the field are wondering whether the underlying phenomena may be not a fusion process but
    a neutron capture/absorption process. In 2002, a related tabletop form of thermonuclear fusion
    was discovered in the field of acoustic inertial confinement fusion. We briefly review some of this work,
    as well."


    'Environmental monitoring (EM)' is monitoring the indoor or outdoor environment for problems, like pollution or despeciation or even just "How much of X is in the environment?". Do you see anything in the abstract regarding 'EM'? The scuttlebutt at the time was that the editor attended an ICCF or such and asked for a review paper. Why, when it has nothing to do with 'EM', is still unknown. He certainly did not want to continue the debate I started with my 2010 publication however. He wouldn't let me respond, and wouldn't require the 10 authors to correct their mistake of calling my proposed error 'random' when the title of my first paper was “A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated.” Clearly some favoritism going on there. But that is old news...


    SOT. I recommend you wait for replication on the recent Mizuno stuff. I am. My personal opinion, based on minimal study, is that Para should get a much bigger fan.

  • Jed is trolling again. For ex., I didn't invoke any of my errors in the comment he replied to. I said 'they' should evaluate 'their' errors.


    I had that backward in the first draft of the message. I copied the wrong sentence from your message. Sorry about that. You did say that, but I reversed the meaning by accident.


    They did not make any errors, so there is nothing for them to evaluate. However, as I said, if you would like to write another paper with your own errors in it, I would be happy to upload it.

  • Quote

    My personal opinion, based on minimal study, is that Para should get a much bigger fan.

    I have the proper fans coming. I pulled an axial fan out of a hair dryer just so I could do something while waiting for parts, and to try out the new anemometer. I can’t stand sitting around and waiting. Of course the axial fan turned out to behave quite differently than a centrifugal fan, and surprisingly did not reach laminar flow conditions at pipe D x 10 from the fan, which the literature suggests is plenty of distance for that to occur. In the meantime I will try out the heat equations to see if no excess heat occurs by blowing room temperature air through the pipe.