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

  • 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.

    That is correct.


    But there is more to it, thanks to Microsoft. It is a can of worms. The spreadsheets are converted from the Japanese version of Excel or from another spreadsheet into the U.S. version of Excel. We usually do this by converting first to CSV (comma delimited format). Unfortunately, the U.S. version of Excel often screws up or throws away the text, so instead of seeing "input power" (入力) I see something like "!$,}" Which I cannot read. You would think Microsoft could read their own text, but no. So I often guess what it should say, and I toss in the heading that I was able to read from previous versions of the spreadsheet. Which is sometimes out of date. I recently discovered that Google does a better job converting Microsoft's own spreadsheets than Microsoft does. So I have been using Google instead, which adds a step and sometimes causes things to vanish.


    Furthermore, the conversion process deletes all of the equations from the cells, and replaces them with the computed values. I sometimes re-enter the equations and generate a column to see if it is the right answer. Mostly, Mizuno or I will hand-write the equations in text, which we sometimes get wrong without noticing.


    Further furthermore, I think Mizuno forgot to update the headings in some cases, and he is applying the wrong text. I am sure the values in the columns are correct, because they are confirmed with other instruments, but the equations he and I hand-wrote at the top may be wrong.


    Given these problems, I should probably not circulate one of these spreadsheets at all until I am sure it is correct and fully up to date, with the equations plugged back into the cells. I will not have an opportunity to do that until after the conference. If I circulate the ones damaged by Microsoft, people such as THH will find all the strange stuff in them and accuse Mizuno or me of doing it wrong. I can tell THH a hundred times that the power was confirmed with a power meter, and the air flow rate was confirmed with two different anemometers, but it makes no impression on him. So it is probably best not to circulate anything for now.

  • 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.

    It will not surprise me if that happens. That would be a severe blow to U.S. industry. It might take years to catch up. But I am sure this secrecy would not last for long. As soon as it becomes generally know the technology exists, and there are cold fusion reactors in use, industrial corporations in the U.S., Japan and the EU will go ape shit. They will do whatever it takes to acquire working reactors and reverse engineer them. They will hire Chinese experts. (Poach them, in business jargon.) The secret cannot be kept for long.


    Catching up will be a struggle. I am not saying it would be easy, or that we should stand by and do nothing while the Chinese get ahead. But if they do, I am confident the rest of the world can catch up, even though they will continue to lead the industry. That is the situation now with things like PV electricity and supercomputers. The U.S. is behind, but it could catch up if it needed to.


    Cold fusion will tremendously enhance military technology. Many different types of technology, from handheld weapons, to ships, to aircraft and spacecraft. If the U.S. has fossil fueled equipment, a small nation equipped with cold fusion powered weaponry a generation from now could destroy the whole U.S. military in a week or two, as quickly as the U.S. destroyed Spanish fleets in the Spanish-American war of 1898. Many people will deny that, but I think the generals and admirals will realize it is true. It does not take much of a technological advantage to win a war. So, I expect the U.S. military will put pressure on the government and industry to catch up if China introduces cold fusion powered equipment.


    The U.S. military is already obsolescent and in danger of being overtaken by others. Many experts realize this. See, for example:

    The U.S. Military: Like the French at Agincourt?

    "America risks a catastrophic defeat if it doesn’t radically change the way it thinks about war."


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/us-military.html


    I have known this since the 1980s, having studied the WWII in the Pacific from U.S. and Japanese sources. It seems clear to me that our aircraft carriers would be sitting ducks in the event of a real war. The Chinese anti-ship missiles could hit them in large numbers long before the human-piloted aircraft from the ships came in range of the missile launching points. Aircraft carriers are even more obsolete than the wooden U.S. navy ships destroyed by the Confederate Merrimack (Virginia) in 1862, or the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

  • THHuxleynew

    Quote

    Jed is perhaps expecting me to be telepathic?

    I don't know what he expects. What I asked was if you had ever said that an error mistaking 30W for 300 or whatever it exactly was, that magnitude error, would have been possible given the precautions he cited (several meters, several locations within the circuit, other people's meters and methods as well). It's not that hard to say yes or no. I know you are unhappy about the completeness or lack thereof of documentations but that is not the statement that JedRothwell attributed to. I am trying to establish that Jed has a penchant for gross misquotes, as if he was maybe mindreading his correspondent. I know he's done it with me. Was this an example with you, THH?

  • 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.

    "We" could give you the make, model, weight, serial number, manufacture date, and sexual orientation of every instrument in the lab, but it would not satisfy you. We already employ two extra power meters, and I already gave you the make and model, but that is not enough for you. I could give you a terabyte of detailed data from the meters and a recording oscilloscope, but you would only demand more. We could employ 10 more meters, or 20, or a hundred, but you would say "until we know [some irrelevant] specific I cannot accept this." No level of proof will satisfy you. That is clear, because you dismiss results from McKubre, whose instruments cost about a hundred times more than Mizuno's, and which are about 2 or 3 orders of magnitude better.


    You would never make such absurd demands of another lab in something as simple as measuring power to a resistance heater, or measuring the air flow with two anemometers. These are not real demands. You have no rational basis to question these measurements. This is Kabuki posturing and pretend science. You are not serious, and I will not lift a finger to supply you with any information.

  • What I asked was if you had ever said that an error mistaking 30W for 300 or whatever it exactly was, that magnitude error, would have been possible given the precautions he cited (several meters, several locations within the circuit, other people's meters and methods as well).

    Yes, he did say that. Or he managed to imply it strongly without committing, because anyone can see it is absurd. He just kinda sorta sidles up to such claims, stirs up confusion and doubt, and then denies he said what he just said. He did the same thing by claiming the gas in the reactor might have burned and that caused the heat. He said that again, and again. I pointed out that answer is wrong by a factor of 90,000 or so, but he kept saying it. Morrison often used the same tactic with gas combustion. Say something that is grossly wrong. Keep repeating it until people get tired of correcting you. Then claim victory and say "I have discovered a substantive error in this experiment." THH also did this by "discovering" that drops of condensed water can be driven out of cells by steam pressure, which is not right because:


    It would have no effect on the energy balance.

    It is physically impossible.

    It would be readily visible if it happened, and no has seen it happen.


    Nevertheless, he will tell this is a real error, as soon as he thinks I won't notice, or I will not bother to respond.

    • Official Post

    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.

    I think that not even a demonstration that would impress an idiot is enough.


    Cardone et al showed in 2015 and followed up in 2017 a controlled experiment causing dramatic change of phase, transmutation into more than a dozen previously not present elements (and isotopic changes), and increase of temperature in a mole of mercury submitted to cavitation for a period of 180s. This IMHO is an espectacular result that any idiot should be capable of understanding its huge implications. And yet here we are discussing how to prove to the world that LENR is real.


    Cardone himself seems not worried to make this information more available or discussed outside Italy. Is published in a peer reviewed journal, he and his team are funded by their own government (initial funding of this work came from their defense ministry) and industry, and have a multi year agreement for researching how to scale up the results for industrial adoption. For them, is a national strategic endeavor, and they take pride on putting Italy as leaders in the research and of this new kind of nuclear energy.


    I invited professor Cardone to come to this thread to take part in this debate. He politely declined and told me that without a sound theory pursue of LENR is a waste of time. They have a theory from which they derived improvement in their experiments. He is focused entirely in the scale up to industrial use of this theory and experiments.


    Here I share the 2015 article which is open access and some snapshots of the 2017 article which is not open access.

  • Tell me Seven of Twenty, what would be helpful? You say that complaining about a paper containing false and confused information is not helpful.

    If I understand Seven_of_twenty, he wants us to cry out with joy, fall on our knees, and kiss the rings of editors of Nature because they deigned to publish a paper. We should not complain about the false and confused information. False and confused is all we deserve. It is better than nothing (apparently -- not sure why). And it is all they will give us. So quit your bitching and be thankful! It could have been worse.

  • People such as THH will find all the strange stuff in them and accuse Mizuno or me of doing it wrong


    It is wrong to think in terms of a write-up, or data, being "done wrong".


    My comments about the spreadsheets are not that they are "done wrong" but that they are not documented in a way that would allow full confidence in exactly what they mean. And that is not a subjective impression, biut because of specific mistakes that everyone (Jed included) has made in that interpretation.


    I see write-ups as being more or less complete, clear, and detailed. The more completeness, clarity, and detail the better. Peer review would normally detect such lacks and ask for them, to improve teh result, but peer review is not perfect, and this write-up is unusual in documenting something which, if it is as it appears, constitutes a major revolution in technology and physics.

  • He did the same thing by claiming the gas in the reactor might have burned and that caused the heat. He said that again, and again. I pointed out that answer is wrong by a factor of 90,000 or so, but he kept saying it.


    Jed - you would find my behaviour less confusing if you paid more attention to it. In this case, as soon as you made clear that there was no possibility of new deuterium entering the reactor, because it was sealed throughout the main part of the experiment, I thought the issue of deuterium burning was irrelevant. However it took you a long time to clarify that.


    THH

  • Storms

    (sorry, long)

    Quote

    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.


    OK, so I don't know other than the impressed idiot demonstration you cited. I am not an expert but I am reasonably well versed in scientific method. I have struggled with writing scientific papers including about calorimetry and it is admittedly very difficult to make things clear for people within the field, much less outside of it. For what it's worth to you, and this is really mainly for you because the others know my views on this and are tired of hearing it, here's what I think. Papers about demonstrations of excess heat until now are confusing to non-specialists and often employ what I consider to be uncertain methods. For example, Jed and I go round and round about point temperature measurements (ie. isoperibolic calorimeters) really being calorimeters. I don't like those and I think they can mislead and this idea is not original with me. Many scientists raise doubts about systems in which the excess heat is small compared to the input heat and conditions in the control blank may not be precisely identical to those in the experimental reactor or cell. The issues I've seen raised about tritium is leaks. I have no way to judge these critiques but they have come from people who work with hydrogen isotopes. The problem with CR-39 tracks is that apparently they can appear due to events not involving radiation or neutrons. Again, I am quoting some stuff I read long ago. I am no expert on it. Many papers I read in the field (not yours) are poorly put together with incomprehensible charts and graphs and difficult to read very detailed descriptions of things that do not support heat production.


    The other issue is all the claimants who were so enthusiastic and either had little or nothing or fell by the wayside. Example: George Miley a number of years ago proposed a space fusion reactor to generate power for long duration or very distant missions. He said it was based on a device then on his work bench which made 700W continuous power for extended periods with (I forget which) either very little or no power input. When it came time to show it, he couldn't and made lame excuses about errors by an assistant. Maybe you missed it. How long has Swartz been working on minute amounts of claimed excess power. And he still is. Where is the expected progress? What has Brillouin done to get their claims replicated (SRI has a vested interest and doesn't count). I could get you many more examples by reviewing the forums. To outsiders, LENR has been a very disappointing field.


    I can not believe that everyone in a position of influence and with money to spend is unfairly prejudiced and biased against LENR research. There is no motive for this. If LENR proves out, power companies, auto companies and energy/petroleum companies will be among the first to buy in. Look for example at how eagerly Elfork's CEO was to support Rossi when his garbage first gained prominence. Sure there have been some unfair and awful decisions in the past. That does not mean everyone is a lost cause.


    So yes, after all the equivocation and weak results where noise can be invoked and leaks can be invoked and Shanahan's calibration shifts can be considered, etc. etc.-- all of those have made non-enthusiasts skeptical. IMO, that is pretty much as it should be given that theoretical support has been weak (I know you differ). Indeed, what is now needed is a spectacular and obvious- exactly like what Mizuno claims. If it's true of course.


    Quote

    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,

    Right. The Rossi experience and all the people he bamboozled who should have known better is a case in point. Rossi, to those of us who look at the issue skeptically, was an obvious fraud, liar and con man almost from the start. The evidence was that his demonstrations were inadequate (no calibration or blank runs) and he consistently and in a nasty aggressive way, refused to accept advice about this. The final straw was when he claimed to have a megawatt reactor and it turned out that it was obviously powered by a large Diesel generator and how it was measured was never revealed. An obviously phony "customer representative" alleged to be a NATO colonel (whatever that is) was part of the charade. Yet years after the various Rossi fiacos and obvious lies, he received a million and a half dollars for a prototype that could not have worked and could not have been competently tested. And then he got another $10 million for more sleight of hand and cheating, being as it was that he was his own customer! Even after that, many LENR enthusiasts still believed that Rossi had something. Some still do. And along the way, no less a star than McCubre attended at length to the man, long after his deception was obvious to skeptics.

    None of this inspired confidence nor should it have.


    Quote

    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.

    That can't happen in an internet world unless they maintain a Manhattan Project level of secrecy and even that project was, of course, leaked.


    Quote

    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.

    Respectfully totally disagree. Anyway considerations of it are very premature since as far as we know, nobody has done this and proven it. And Mizuno proves it doesn't have to be secret. I don't think it has much chance of happening that way given interest supposedly by Bill Gates, for sure by Carl Page and also Sidney Kimmel. I am very hopeful that if the effect is real, it will accepted as soon as a strong and consistent, clearly out of noise and error, demonstration is done. Jed thinks it has happened hundreds of times but that's Jed. It's not Gates and Page and Kimmel. When and if it is, you and the other pioneers will be acknowledged and vindicated pretty quickly IMO.

  • Quote

    If I understand Seven_of_twenty, he wants us to cry out with joy, fall on our knees, and kiss the rings of editors of Nature because they deigned to publish a paper. We should not complain about the false and confused information. False and confused is all we deserve. It is better than nothing (apparently -- not sure why). And it is all they will give us. So quit your bitching and be thankful! It could have been worse.

    There you go again

    -Ronald Regan


    Why don't you write them a polite and thoughtful letter? Signed maybe by you, Storms and McKubre. Maybe they'll publish it. Stranger things have happened.

    • Official Post

    Therefore, our little discussion here is completely and totally irrelevant.


    This is certainly true from a scientific point of view, but LENR does not suffer from a lack of scientific discussion, but a lack of social acceptance, which leads to labeling the research in LENR area as snake oil. An open discussion here and objective reporting by journalists, bloggers and Twitterer helps, in combination with reliable scientific data, in the long run to increase the acceptance of LENR in all areas and ultimately helps to make a breakthrough!

    • Official Post


    This is certainly true from a scientific point of view, but LENR does not suffer from a lack of scientific discussion, but a lack of social acceptance, which leads to labeling the research in LENR area as snake oil. An open discussion here and objective reporting by journalists, bloggers and Twitterer helps, in combination with reliable scientific data, in the long run to increase the acceptance of LENR in all areas and ultimately helps to make a breakthrough!

    That would be a Public Relations campaign. You can see in this video, that in Italy there’s no much of a problem to talk openly about ”Nuove transformazzione della materia”


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Why don't you write them a polite and thoughtful letter? Signed maybe by you, Storms and McKubre. Maybe they'll publish it. Stranger things have happened.

    Reasons why not:


    I have nothing polite to say to them.


    The chances they would publish are about as good as my chances of winning the Mega Millions Lottery. Granted they might print a letter from Storms saying: "You know what? You were right all along. Cold fusion does not exist."

  • Quote

    A leak out would reduce the tritium. A leak in would only admit the level of tritium observed in some experiments if the air around the cell had a level of tritium so high, the alarms would go off and the building would be permanently abandoned.

    You could be right about that. I once looked up the issues with the tritium claims. I am too busy right now to do it again. Maybe someone remembers where that is.


    Nothing polite to say? Shooting yourself in the foot again?

    • Official Post

    Reasons why not:


    I have nothing polite to say to them.


    The chances they would publish are about as good as my chances of winning the Mega Millions Lottery. Granted they might print a letter from Storms saying: "You know what? You were right all along. Cold fusion does not exist."

    Well, JedRothwell, not that I love Nature’s editorial policies but in their defense they at least once published a very controversial letter from Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/306420a0