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

  • I don’t understand why you are arguing about my sincerity and my intents, now


    Until now, your arguments for doing FP's could have been made by any believer...that is why. Though the motives were different; you thinking it would lead to the final nail in the coffin for the field "when" TG failed, a believer hoping it would lead to their success.


    Yesterday was different, in that you appeared to be attributing to TG things they did not say. I will agree with Alan, and assume it is a language thing, so you can get back to stirring the pot. :)

  • This thread has run it's course, so will be shut down. LF thanks MT for the opportunity, and to all members who contributed their opinions. Best of luck TG; we are counting on you!


    Edit: Re-opened until this Friday. Read my next post.

  • Until now, your arguments for doing FP's could have been made by any believer...that is why.


    I'm sorry for the unwanted misunderstanding. I tried, since my first comment in this thread (1), to make it clear that the scope of my proposal to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" was just to reproduce the "same experimental behavior", not to confirm the F&P results. Subsequently (2), I specified that this behavior depends on the phenomenon of "positive feedback". I never said that TG would have been able to confirm the excess heat claimed by F&P, I only said that the Google experts could have seen how F&P had calculated this excess heat, in order to assess if they did it correctly. I have avoided anticipating my conclusions on this assessment so as not to influence their analysis and not to reopen the debate about bubbles, foam and so on (3). Anyway, everyone here knows what my opinion is on the merits.


    Quote

    Though the motives were different; you thinking it would lead to the final nail in the coffin for the field "when" TG failed, a believer hoping it would lead to their success.


    Actually, I'm not at all interested in a failure of the TG initiative on CF. I suggested the replication of the "1992 boil-off experiment" to maximize their chance to successfully reproduce the exact behavior of a typical and famous CF experiment. I did also recommend them to avoid any negative outcome (4). Obviously to do so, they should choose a suitable goal, in line with their commitment to solve the CF cold case. IMO, they can't pretend to be successful if they start from the assumption that LENR is real and just want to demonstrate its reality.


    Quote

    Yesterday was different, in that you appeared to be attributing to TG things they did not say. I will agree with Alan, and assume it is a language thing,


    Meanwhile, I hope having better explained what I meant.


    Quote

    so you can get back to stirring the pot. :)


    Thanks, and sorry for the pot. :)


    (1) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…?postID=114454#post114454

    (2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…?postID=115173#post115173

    (3) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…?postID=114483#post114483

    (4) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…?postID=117300#post117300

  • This thread has run it's course, so will be shut down. LF thanks MT for the opportunity, and to all members who contributed their opinions. Best of luck TG; we are counting on you!


    The closing date for this thread has now been extended until Friday due to popular demand, and feedback. What you say will be carefully read, so here is your last chance to make your case to TG. Trevithick believes this has been a very worthwhile effort, and is very appreciative of the expressed opinions.


    On Friday I will do a closing statement, close the thread out permanently, so speak your mind while you can.

  • One last post…

    To Team Google:


    Perhaps the most controlled cold fusion experiment I ever saw in my 24 years of following the field is that described by Edmund Storms in his ICCF8 presentation and reanalyzed by myself in my 2002 publication. That was a Fleischmann and Pons electrolysis cell equipped with platinum (Pt) anode and cathode. In 20 voltage sweeps from 0V up to the max reached and back down, Ed obtained apparent excess heat curves that showed a highly systematic behavior. He used a closed cell (i.e. with recombiner) and a mass flow calorimeter that captured ~98.4% of the power input. He did have to somehow get the Pt activated, as usual in F&P CF experiments, and it did deactivate, usually within 3 cycles, although there was at least one case where that went to 4, but he could reactivate the cathode by an apparent anodic strip, recovering the maximum excess heat signal on the immediately following cycle. Unfortunately, I do not know how he activated it initially. I suggest you ask him.


    Of course, the CF legend lore is that Pt is inactive, but a quick look at Ed’s results disproves this. It also disproves the idea that ‘high loading’ is required to get the FPE. Pt has never shown any hydriding activity, even at Gigapascals of pressure in diamond anvil experiments. Thus the effect is clearly a surface effect. However, in 2017 Melvin Miles communicated with me on a possible publication, and in those emails he noted that he and Fleischmann were sitting together at ICCF8 when Ed presented his work, and “immediately” knew Ed was wrong. Of course, that is just predetermining the experiments outcome and not real science. Pt definitely showed the FPE, and since the system is simpler in principle than a Pd cathode, it should be an ideal test vehicle. Talk to Ed to get details.


    Good luck.

  • Shane D. nothing special to add, i already shared all thoughts.

    However, I want to thank you for your involvement in these valuable exchanges.

    Now to conclude, stop doing your lazy so take your free plane and come to ICCF because Italian wine remains very good :)

  • The so-called boil off is simply the result of the exponential increase in power as temperature is increased. Why not simply measure the effect of temperature, as I and Mizuno have done, instead of causing the electrolyte to boil.


    I think the point was to show that electrochemical cold fusion can be driven to high temperatures. High enough to boil water. Later tests with the reflux calorimeter showed that the effect can be maintained at boiling temperatures.


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


    It also simplifies the calorimetry. Fleischmann liked to delve into the complexities of calorimetry. I was pleased to see him use a relatively "simple" method. He called it "simple."



    Calling the effect feedback, as Fleischmann did, causes confusion. Many exothermic reactions show this kind of behavior.


    It is feedback, isn't it? The idea was to show that this is one of the exothermic reactions that show this behavior.

  • Before this thread closes, here is another recommendation to replicate Holmlid. In our opinion, the work of Holmlid is not recognized enough in the LENR community. What is very exciting with Rydberg Matter of hydrogen and its presumed ultradense phase is that all serious LENR work, including AHE, NAE, strange radiations, you name it..., can be explained by the formation then disintegration of this ultradense phase of matter. As crazy as it may sound at first sight. And still more crazy - fasten your seat belt - is the idea that LENR is linked to dark matter, with LENR a two steps process, first chemical from hydrogen to its ultradense form, read from ordinary matter to dark matter, second nuclear through the disintegration of ultradense hydrogen into pure energy, read from dark matter to dark energy. Yeah no more no less.


    A first replication occurred last year in Scandinavia and the timing is now excellent for the Google group to investigate RM of hydrogen. With the necessary instruments and know-how to better characterize the products of the reaction (that most in LENR don't have).


    It is not an overstatement to say that a replication of Holmlid would not only revolutionize LENR but also represent the biggest scientific discovery of this century. As my mentor winner of the 2017 Nobel said again to me recently, in science one needs crazy scientists for crazy projects.

  • I met with one of the Norront Fusion (Holmlid's creation) last week. I mentioned this- I don't think they see replication as a priority right now. They have world-class backing, a big budget , superb equipment and 14 of the brightest and best on the payroll. They are going places, with or (most likely) without google.

  • JulianBianchi

    In my opinion the simplest way for Team Google to get started with Rydberg matter (RM) studies would be confirming its formation from excited potassium atoms emitted by suitable catalysts heated in a vacuum. For these, there are almost "how to" papers fully describing catalyst synthesis and detection methods, this one being the most recent example I'm aware of (more recent ones by Kotarba and coworkers may exist): https://www.researchgate.net/p…rom_cryptomelane_nanorods


    Sadly, this and similar papers (mainly from Kotarba et al., in addition to Holmlid) are not of direct relevance to excess heat and other LENR and LENR-like effects. However catalysts that easily emit Rydberg matter of alkali atoms (mainly potassium) and that are efficient towards dissociating molecular hydrogen into the atomic form, should also be able to easily produce Rydberg matter of [atomic] hydrogen and ultimately its ultra-dense phase.


    So again it depends on how much committed Team Google would be to understanding a specific author/group's theoretical framework or if instead they mostly want a known working "recipe" to replicate, even if it will take time, which is more or less the issue that Edmund Storms has highlighted earlier on here.


    Specifically, for Holmlid's ultra-dense hydrogen experiments, K-Fe2O3 catalyst treatment/activation is never disclosed in detail, only vaguely hinted in some of the earlier papers on the subject, and so closely replicating his experiments on the subject would be kind of problematic—many have failed before or took a very long time to replicate (mainly, I believe, because K-Fe2O3 catalyst activation was not understood).

  • If Holmlid's work is verified by TG then I'm sure he'll be up for a Nobel prize for the outstanding work he has done - and all cold fusion = muon catalysed fusion. Then NASA can get on with developing a FTL fusion drive for interstellar travel ; be nice if it happens in our lifetime.


    GEC is developing a high power space-rated generator in conjunction with NASA under an Umbrella Space Act Agreement [42]. Demonstrating a space-flight ready, 1 kWe, (5 kWt) hybrid fusion-fast-fission reactor would meet several existing NASA needs. Scaled up ,it would allow deep space nuclear ion propulsion and meet manned planetary power requirements. It is fitting that the GEC Hybrid Reactor technology is being adapted for deep space power missions at Plum Brook Station given two decades of nuclear power in space research there. The successful KRUSTY Kilopower Program demonstration [40] using highly enriched uranium showed that space-based nuclear fission power needn’t be a billion dollar program as KRUSTY was built and tested for $20M. But, by removing the need to launch fissile material or plutonium heat sources, the concerns and costs for production, safety and security are drastically reduced using the GEC Hybrid Reactor. Both the KRUSTY demonstration [41] and the GEC Hybrid Reactor [13] pave the way for high power nuclear reactors in space.


    If it is safe enough to launch from Florida, it is safe enough to use in Florida.

  • A representative should not be easily diagnosed as a crackpot or someone with underlying mental issues. The representative should be someone with a respected science or engineering background, but open minded. They should attempt to follow the scientific method. We need to be taken seriously to advance the science.


    ...mental issues ? I wonder, who You had in mind, while typing this ...

    :-P

  • I think it's worth highlighting the work of Imam, Miles & Nagel, on Palladium-Boron cathodes, from the just published proceedings of ICCF-21. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf).


    I don't recall this work being discussed in this thread. Reading it, it looks like a high quality candidate for TG's attention. There are two papers, one on the fabrication of the cathodes, and another on experimental results. It's interesting to note that Imam, Miles & Nagel characterise their Pd-B cathodes as one of two reliably reproducible experiments, the other being co-deposition. They observe that both approaches remove oxygen as a variable in the experiments.


    Certainly, if TG intends to continue their work exploring bulk Pd/D, this work suggests avenues for exploring not just loading, but also materials science challenges. I recall that Dr Storms (I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth) suggested that exploring these problems is one of the keys to moving forward.


    I thought it also of note that, according to Imam and Miles, Pd-B alloys also offer the possibility of better hydrogen purification membranes.



    Quote

    Based on almost 30 years of research, two sources of palladium materials yielding good reproducibility for generation of excess enthalpy effects have been identified: (1) palladium materials prepared by co-deposition method and (2) Pd–B alloys. A common feature for both these methods is that they yield palladium that is relatively free of oxygen as an impurity. A beneficial effect of the added boron is that it minimizes the activity of dissolved oxygen in the pal- ladium by converting it to B2O3 during processing. The low density B2O3 floats to the surface and is removed during the molten phase of the Pd–B alloy preparation. Further, the creation of two FCC phases makes the material harder and less susceptible to cracking. That is attractive for some applications. In particular, it is the likely explanation for reproducible LENR energy generation.



    Quote

    Appendix: Other Applications of Pd–B Alloys

    The alloys produced in this work show the same or better strength than pure palladium with much less thickness. This is advantageous for the creation of hydrogen purification membranes because less palladium would be needed to create a membrane and achieve the same results. This is, sturdy membranes of much less thickness are enabled compared to using palladium alone. Put another way, the increased hardness means that a much smaller amount of expensive palladium may be used to provide a membrane of the same capacity compared to costly palladium alone. This would allow much greater membrane capacity through reduced material costs. How much the thickness of the membrane would be able to be decreased with the present composition would depend upon such factors as the geometrical design, gases to be purified, and the extent of purification desired.

    The hardened Pd material would also be advantageous for use as electrodes in etching, polishing, electrochemical machining, semiconductor wafer manufacture and other electrochemical processes. Palladium cathodes hardened by alloying, as described in this paper, retain their superior electrical characteristics and resist erosion better than pure palladium.



    Quote

    6. Discussion

    The major question is why do these NRL Pd–B cathodes produce the F–P excess heat effect while most other palladium materials do not? One possible answer is that the added boron removes oxygen from the palladium by forming B2O3 during the melting process. The less dense boron oxide then separates from the molten metal. Other clues for oxygen effects are the successful Johnson–Matthey materials specially produced under a blanket of cracked ammonia

    (N2+H2). The hydrogen removes oxygen from the metal during the melting process in the form of H2O vapor. These Johnson–Matthey cathodes also generally produced excess energy in F–P related electrochemical experiments [2,3,11]. A possible third clue is the electrochemical deposition of palladium and deuterium (co-deposition) from D2O + PdCl2 solutions which provides oxygen-free palladium and reproducible excess power effects (if done correctly) [12].

    Another possible important factors for Pd–B cathodes is that the added boron produces a material of much greater mechanical strength than pure palladium [1,6]. There is very little volumetric expansion when Pd–B cathodes are loaded with deuterium. This suggests that Pd–B materials are less likely to crack during the loading process. Another feature is that these Pd–B materials load similarly to palladium cathodes, but the escape of deuterium (de-loading) when the current is removed is at least ten times slower than for pure palladium cathodes based on gravimetric studies. A possible explanation for such large differences in the rate of deuterium loading and de-loading for these Pd–B materials is that Pd–B may load electrochemically across the grains, but when the electrochemical current is removed, most of the deuterium escapes along grain boundaries which may be clogged with the boron atoms. With no applied current, there is no electrochemical potential to drive deuterium into other grains. When the cell current is first turned off for pure palladium cathodes, the escape of deuterium gas is much too rapid to be explained by the simple diffusion of deuterium from palladium grains at the electrode surface. It seems likely that the Pd–B materials are somehow much more restrictive than pure palladium cathodes in allowing deuterium to escape via the grain boundaries.


    I think it's also notable that this Pd-B work forms the basis of LEAP (see ICCF-22 outline below). Given that their approach seems to be quite similar to TG's, perhaps an alliance between TG and LEAP could be beneficial to both parties. This doesn't seem like such a stretch, given that Carl Page is involved with LEAP.


  • I would just ask Google Research to check for possible experimental setups what role do the constantly found traces of carbon play. So when checking different recipes also always check with carbon powder in different grain size. I still have the suspicion that unintentional contamination by carbon plays a major part in the fact that experiments sometimes work, and often fail with (supposedly) the same structure, just because carbon impurities are missing.

  • I don’t think that I can add anything else so I will insist in the importance of looking at anomalies beyond excess heat:


    Transmutations induced by cavitation: this is something comparatively simpler to reproduce and test than excess heat. Experiments reporting significant anomalies in solid metals, liquid metals, plain water, and metallic salt solutions have been performed by Cardone et al since 2004, Stringham and Clayton (one of recently published papers from the ICCF 21 is from them with an interesting experimental set up), and Ryushin Ohmasa in his currently rejected patent application (rejected not for lack of proof but by lack or theoretical support and because he already got a patent for a similar vibrating apparatus for his electrolyzer set up).


    Perhaps I can add something: by looking at the classics and with a cautious attitude one can achieve great things. But by looking at the outliers and renegades, and having a bold attitude, one can truly change the world.

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

  • All that is needed is one replicable experiment that proves LENR...

    To the best extent of my current knowledge no one has even attempted to replicate Cardone, Stringham and Claytor, or Ohmasa. Cardone et al, however, have stated that their work started as replication or confirmation of Russian experimental works that found of anomalies in cavitation experiments.


    I myself am, in this very moment (admittedly very slowly given my personal constraints of time and resources as owner and main engineer of a small irrigation engineering and contracting company, in a small city of a wannabe developed but still third world country), gearing to replicate work based on cavitation, with the aim of partially replicating or at least creating an analogue to Ohmasa’s transmutations, but with a first stepping stone of replication of Lu et al transmutation of K into Ca in the presence of hydrides with ultrasonic stirring.


    This based on my pure curiosity and pursue of the truth. Why would a company that created a whole industry out of previously inexistant services not dare explore this new area? For them the cost is peanuts, and they stand to win the world if they find this to be truth.

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

  • All that is needed is one replicable experiment that proves LENR...


    This will lead the Team Google to a failure, the umpteenth in the history of CF. The claimed success rate for LENR experiments is so low, that it is indistinguishable from the probability of committing a major error, combined with a low level of care in checking the correctness of the results.


    A further negative outcome would have no value for anyone. If TG wants to successfully replicate something, they should aim at reproducing the "positive feedback" phenomenon, considered by F&P and all other CF researchers and supporters as of crucial importance for the whole field (1): "The development of “positive feedback” is of crucial importance to the social significance of the topic because it shows that elevated levels of energy production should be feasible at least at temperatures adequate for the generation of “low grade heat” (say at temperatures up to the boiling points of the electrolytes)."


    IMO, Google managers should first choose which role they want to play in the drama. If they want to become another player in the LENR arena, pursuing their own intuition to obtain excess energy from a hypothetical nuclear reaction at low temperature, they have all the resources to inaugurate the third act of the CF saga, after the first two acts entitled to F&P and the Ecat. In this case, I wish them good luck.


    If instead, as arguable from the title of their article in Nature, they want to fulfill the commitment toward the scientific community to revisit (and hence solve) the CF case, then the only way to do it is to replicate and re-evaluate the most famous and representative experiments. In this case, I strongly suggest to start with the "1992 boil-off experiment".


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancoldfusion.pdf