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

  • The paper has two major flaws. First, it confuses cold fusion with hot fusion. These are two entirely different and independent nuclear processes having different nuclear products and conditions required to cause the reactions. This confusion shows that the authors know nothing about what is now known about the cold fusion process. Second, they do not cite the sources of known information.

    Yes!!! Exactly. Well said.


    Maybe the authors do know, but the Nature editors do not? I do not know how much editorial control editors have at Nature. It varies from one journal to the other.


    But what does this mean? Does this mean that people supported by Google do not know how to do their home work. Or does this mean a paper about LENR can not be published in Nature unless it is seriously flawed? What does such a flawed paper say about the approach Google is taking toward cold fusion?

    Again, I agree 100%. I have no idea which of these statements applies.


    That is why I'm not hopeful about what Google is doing.

    Me neither, but perhaps things are better than they seem. The paper is uninformative. Maybe they know more than they let on. Or, maybe the paper was written a year ago and they subsequently made progress. It takes a long time to publish a paper in some journals.

  • The anemometer being hooked up all the time is a good idea. Which position of the outlet does it monitor?

    Smack in the middle, I think. BUT as you see in Fig. 4, you could put it anywhere and it would give the same numbers. Anywhere within 3 mm of the edges.


    Since it gives the same answer no matter where you put it, you do not need to worry about the "equal area" problem we discussed earlier. You can move the probe to the recommended equal area spots, or move it in a spiral, or leave it 3 mm from the sides. You will always get the same answers. No doubt there are differences, but this anemometer is not sensitive enough to detect them.


    Recommended locations in a round duct:


    http://blog.dwyer-inst.com/201…-velocity-and-air-volume/


    However, the impression from the papers is that the blower power is being used to calculate, via a semi-empirical formula, the air velocity based on prior testing. So an increase in blower power would be expected to represent an increase in blower speed.

    We had a heated discussion about that here, in which I was probably mistaken. However, even if the blower power is used, why wouldn't Mizuno leave the anemometer in place, to confirm it? Who wouldn't do that? It seems like common sense. Even if he did not, surely it would occur to anyone to pick the thing up and check the air flow rate once a day.


    All of his measurements are confirmed with one or more redundant instruments. For example, the inlet temperature is recorded with only one RTD, but it is the same as ambient temperature, and the lab is festooned with thermometers and thermocouples. So, first thing in the morning, you look at the screen display of inlet temperature, look at one of the thermometers, and confirm everything is hunky dory. The outlet is measured with two RTDs, which are usually within 0.05 deg C of one another. You can confirm they are both right by holding a thermometer in the outlet.


    As I mentioned, several visitors have brought their own instruments to confirm the temperatures and input power. In July one of them brought an anemometer as well.


    There are multiple measurements of input power, something that THH will never acknowledge or understand. He thinks spreadsheet is wrong and nobody noticed, despite all those power meters. Or, maybe he thinks that several different meters, direct and clamp-on, can all mistake 300 W for 50 W going into an ordinary resistance heater. And they all get the same answer! It is a miracle. That kind of hypothesis cannot be defeated. It cannot be falsified, because it is so ridiculous.

  • I don't want to use my real name for various reasons, mainly spam and unnecessary hassles from strangers. Your method is a good suggestion which I will use next time it comes up and maybe elsewhere too.

    To avoid spam, many people establish one-time use "throw away" e-mail addresses. (Not me, but that's what I have heard.)

  • I don’t see how historic calibrations can be used. (Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by historic.) The outlet was previously a different size and the fan operated at a different power. Even the fan was different at one point.

    You cannot use old calibrations for the old calorimeter box, or the older fans. But as I mentioned, with the same fan when the box is closed up again, with the same insulation in place, the calibration constant come out very close every time, and you can use old calibrations, or directly compare old excess heat tests.


    Those fans seemed to wear out often. There were two or three lying on the shelf when I visited. The one he has now is expensive and high quality. I expect that if it stops working, and he replaces it with another of the same model, it will produce the same calibration constant, to within a few percent. In that case you can directly compare the raw data from that blower to an older one.

  • Second, they do not cite the sources of known information.

    Actually, they did list LENR-CANR.org in parenthesis. Good for them! It is not in the References, but . . . baby steps, baby steps. In another 30 years they might acknowledge the effect has been replicated.


    For example I have written two books and 10 reviews over the years that summarize what is known. Based on their comments about cold fusion, the authors apparently have read none of this information.

    I do get that impression.


    Leaving out Ed's books and reviews was a disgrace.

  • Loosely secret. I heard about it from time to time.

    We all had, the secrecy was internal, my BIL is working at Google X for about 3 years now and I had mentioned the Google interest in LENR to see if he could find anything else but he did not and also had a great disbelief Google would even touch such a controversial topic (from his point of view).

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Quote

    Or does this mean a paper about LENR can not be published in Nature unless it is seriously flawed?

    I don't think this cynical view is productive. Nature uses the usual criteria and review processes to determine which papers are published. These days, there are so many places to publish, while it's nice to get exposure from Nature or Science or similar, it's no longer as important as it used to be. What matters now is more the quality of the research, the clarity of the report, and the ability of others to replicate.


    Quote

    That is why I'm not hopeful about what Google is doing.

    Well, you can't on the one hand, complain that nothing is being done, and on the other hand, complain that Google, a well funded company with much to gain from success, is doing it. One of their people has apparently been in touch with Shane D. here for opinions. One can hope there was a take away message for him and for Google from the interaction. It's much more legitimate and appropriate funding and attention than the field has had for decades, IMHO. Google, I am sure, is not looking to shoot themselves in the foot about any type of fusion. Why would they be?

  • THHuxleynew

    quoting JedRothwell

    Quote

    There are multiple measurements of input power, something that THH will never acknowledge or understand. He thinks spreadsheet is wrong and nobody noticed, despite all those power meters. Or, maybe he thinks that several different meters, direct and clamp-on, can all mistake 300 W for 50 W going into an ordinary resistance heater. And they all get the same answer! It is a miracle. That kind of hypothesis cannot be defeated. It cannot be falsified, because it is so ridiculous

    Really THH? You think that? Or did Jed, as he often does, just make it up? Because if you really do think it, hey man, you're a whackjob! But you don't, do you?

  • Really THH? You think that? Or did Jed, as he often does, just make it up?

    Who knows what he really thinks? What he says is that we cannot trust the spreadsheets. He says that again, and again, and again. I pointed you to an example of where he says that.


    What I said to him -- and to you -- is that we can trust the spreadsheets because they are backed up to three different power meters. Plus the power meters that visitors have brought in over the years. If you and THH don't buy that, okay. Fine. Maybe you should explain to the readers here how all those meters could be wrong. THH will never explain this or any of his other crackpot assertions.

  • I don't think this cynical view is productive. Nature uses the usual criteria and review processes to determine which papers are published.

    This is not the usual criteria, or the usual review process. Nature failed to meet those standards.


    The cold fusion effect has been replicated hundreds of times, and there are hundreds of papers published in other mainstream, peer-reviewed journals describing these replications. But the Nature google paper did not list any of them, and it gave the impression the effect has not been replicated. The Nature editorials said this explicitly. This is not "usual." If they had done this with any other subject, their readers would have been outraged, and they would have written hundreds of letters in protest. Imagine Nature published a paper on Martian geology, along with three editorials, and they said:


    "No rocket has ever reached Mars, and we have no photographs or other close-up observations of the planet, so this is mere speculation . . ."


    That would be a grotesque distortion. It would be outrageous nonsense. What they wrote about cold fusion was every bit as outrageous as this.



    Well, you can't on the one hand, complain that nothing is being done, and on the other hand, complain that Google, a well funded company with much to gain from success, is doing it.

    No one said that. Storms is not saying "nothing is being done." He said that Google is (probably) doing the wrong thing. He also said that Texas Tech and Gates are probably doing the right thing. Unfortunately, they are keeping their results secret.

  • Tell me Seven of Twenty, what would be helpful? You say that complaining about a paper containing false and confused information is not helpful. Apparently, writing papers and reviews containing correct information is also not helpful because this information is ignored by the big boys. Even teaching skeptics is clearly not helpful because the information seems to have no effect on their beliefs. Apparently, only a demonstration so convincing is required that even an idiot would be impressed. Demonstrations that are sufficient in normal science are clearly not sufficient to change minds about LENR. For example, I have demonstrated the reality of LENR many times by measuring excess energy as well as tritium production. All of this work is ignored. So, I have to think I'm wasting my time.


    People involved in this discussion group say they want to help the claim be accepted. I have no idea how they might do this. The people who have the ability to change beliefs are not listening to us or not talking. In view of the Rossi experience, I predict that when a laboratory figures out how to make the effect work at high rate, they will tell no one. If the laboratory were in China, for example, they will use the information to make their energy cheaper while gaining economic advantage on everyone else. All the skeptics will ignore what is happening because they believe such an event is impossible. We can only hope a laboratory in the US solves the problem first, but again this will be done in secret. In other words, you and I will have no clue about what is actually happening and the economic consequence this will have. Therefore, our little discussion here is completely and totally irrelevant.

  • Quote
    There are multiple measurements of input power, something that THH will never acknowledge or understand. He thinks spreadsheet is wrong and nobody noticed, despite all those power meters. Or, maybe he thinks that several different meters, direct and clamp-on, can all mistake 300 W for 50 W going into an ordinary resistance heater. And they all get the same answer! It is a miracle. That kind of hypothesis cannot be defeated. It cannot be falsified, because it is so ridiculous

    SOT: Really THH? You think that? Or did Jed, as he often does, just make it up? Because if you really do think it, hey man, you're a whackjob! But you don't, do you?


    Jed is perhaps expecting me to be telepathic? He has hinted at many measurements made (in addition to the work described in the paper and documented on the spreadsheets Jed has). He has never been precise about what was measured, or how, or when and by whom, or with what results. I can understand his view "lots of things have been measured in lots of ways and all check out" but it is really not good enough for me without more specificity.


    In fact I have several times here pointed out that even one careful write-up of such third party checking would add both information and credibility to the Mizuno paper. But we do not at the moment have it, and it seems R20, with its undeniable results, is no more. R19 however, if still intact, has large enough results that it is still very interesting.


    As for spreadsheets wrong: I've pointed out (as Jed must surely agree) that some of the spreadsheet columns have been misleading (not wrong, but equally therefore not to be relied upon). Examples: Power in measurement (different for cal and active tests). Air velocity measurement (not air velocity measurement, but calculation from fan power).

  • As for spreadsheets wrong: I've pointed out (as Jed must surely agree) that some of the spreadsheet columns have been misleading (not wrong, but equally therefore not to be relied upon). Examples: Power in measurement (different for cal and active tests). Air velocity measurement (not air velocity measurement, but calculation from fan power).


    The spreadsheets were for internal use (to derive results and charts for publication), and were never intended to be shown to anyone. The column headings were perfectly fine for that purpose.

  • Apparently, only a demonstration so convincing is required that even an idiot would be impressed. Demonstrations that are sufficient in normal science are clearly not sufficient to change minds about LENR. For example, I have demonstrated the reality of LENR many times by measuring excess energy as well as tritium production. All of this work is ignored. So, I have to think I'm wasting my time.


    People involved in this discussion group say they want to help the claim be accepted. I have no idea how they might do this.


    Ed, both R19 and R20 results, as shown in the paper, would convince skeptics. However in both cases a bit more work is needed than has yet been done. The very encouraging thing about R19 and R20 was that these reactors appeared to be working for a long time and thus could easily be checked by others. I'm still hoping for this (from R19). The latest incarnation of R20 is showing (absolute from air flow calorimetry) +19% continuous power excess on 100W. That would be enough with an accurate control, or with more accurate calorimetry. I'm sure there are any number of people interested in helping Mizuno to demonstrate that. But it needs more work than the previous much higher results.


    I was actually going to start a thread on why R19 results get such a rough ride. The problem is that they come without context, or internal checkability. Even without external checking, one thing that Mizuno could do which would enormously help in understanding the phenomenon he documents would be accurate determination of input power versus corresponding reactor temperature and output power over a complete range: 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 W input (for example).


    The shape of that graph would give very strong information about whether say a 20% apparent heat excess was some exothermic temperature-dependent reactor, or calorimetry error.


    I often talk here about cross-checks to validate experiments. When the underlying theory is so new that it cannot make quantitative predictions, or even predict the parametric dependence of results, you don't get any automatic cross-checks, and then skeptics ask for every little thing to be checked, and then checked by an external party if it is surprising.


    In this case, LENR obeying an Arrhenius curve - as you have suggested is expected - is much easier to cross-check - and hence get strong evidence for - than LENR observed as variable and sporadic excess heat indications. Now, I realise that LENR not obeying an Arrhenius curve is possible, there are many mechanisms, but the less the results cross-check themselves the more skeptics like me will ask for additional checking.


    THH


  • The spreadsheets were for internal use (to derive results and charts for publication), and were never intended to be shown to anyone. The column headings were perfectly fine for that purpose.


    Alan: Jed misread one of them. I understand that for Mizuno they were fine, but without all the details accurate it is more difficult to be sure what the results mean or bound possible error in them. I realise that no misrepresentation was intended.

  • What I said to him -- and to you -- is that we can trust the spreadsheets because they are backed up to three different power meters. Plus the power meters that visitors have brought in over the years. If you and THH don't buy that, okay. Fine. Maybe you should explain to the readers here how all those meters could be wrong. THH will never explain this or any of his other crackpot assertions.


    Jed, the problem I have is that while you honestly believe that, and may be correct, others will reckon that you could be making a mistake. Given replication, that will not matter. As a one off unreplicable Black Swan every detail needs to be carefully checked, and I would trust no-one to do this whose reasons for believing there was no mistake are as vague as your statements so far. That is why scientific papers contains details rather than assertions from scientists that they have done lots of unspecified stuff and based on that they believe things.


    One example: what does "trust" the spreadsheets mean? Your answer to that has changed, in two respects - the two cases (2016 input power column, 2019? air velocity column) where differences between what was on the sheets and what you assumed was on it have been proven here. I'm not saying those differences break the conclusions by themselves, they do not. But they are an example of how mistakes can be made.

  • Precision is needed in all variables.


    Thus: power was measured at PSU output. An anenometer was used to measure velocity. Neither is enough unless we know which specific tests had those additional measurements - preferably one test which had all the additional measurements. And then there is the question of whether this applies to calibration, or control, or both, if we want the calibration results to have any use.


    Generally, we check things and then assume they stay the same. Jed has been admirable in saying that he would not do this. But he has not been precise in showing how he has not done it.