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

    • Official Post
    Quote from Director

    Shane,


    Not considering any of Rossi's technology - which he will never allow to be verified one way or the other - the most impressive and perhaps advanced player in this field that's moving towards commercialization is Brilliant Light Power via their utilization of the negative resistance regime to produce a massive rate enhancement of "hydrino" production. I'd go so far as to say that compared to Mizuno's system, Brilliant Light Power's Suncell is literally light years ahead with numerous advantages. For a company the size of Google with billions of dollars to spend, I can't help but think that a project composed of a series of experiments to investigate the potential of the complex space charge or "macro-EVO' that MUST form (this is in mainstream literature) during a negative resistance - to power the circuit while the voltage and current relationship is reversed - should be conducted.


    Matt Trevithick has been part of the LENR community for some years now, and has participated in a number of ICCF's. He is very familiar with who, and what is out there. So certainly he is familiar with BLP. I doubt too many in his position would try and replicate the hydrino. If they did, there is the very real threat of being sued by Mills. You yourself should know that, from when you and gerold.s drew up that experiment, and we got the complaint it was going to make hydrino's if you operated it, and violate their patent.

    Quote from Shane D.

    You yourself should know that, from when you and gerold.sdrew up that experiment, and we got the complaint it was going to make hydrino's if you operated it, and violate their patent.


    That's ridiculous. Anyone is free to replicate from a patent. You do not violate anything unless you sell goods or services using the patented technology.


    I am not saying they didn't complain, but if they did, they are idiots.

    I'm not suggesting he replicate the hydrino at all! I'm suggesting he investigate the negative resistance regime and the resulting complex space charge always must form without even mentioning the hydrino. There is no way that Randall Mills can sue someone for investigating or doing research on an established physical phenomena (the negative resistance regime has been known about for a hundred years ever since it was first utilized in some early radio transmitters). Basically, if you remove the ballast from certain types of light bulbs, the discharge will move past the normal glow discharge regime and into the negative resistance regime (often going to a true arc discharge which allows a huge current to flow which burns out the bulb). Investigating if there are energetic anomalies in this regime cannot be a violation of anyone's patent!


    Once a stable complex space charge is produced in a well tuned, resonant system, the Google team could measure the input, measure all the different forms of output, and perform calculations to figure out if there is an energy anomaly (a positive COP). If one fuel combination doesn't work - my hunch is that many combinations should produce anomalies - they could test another. For example, adjusting the hydrogen/deuterium ratio or changing the percentage of noble gases in the mixture. Beyond this, they could setup up neutron detectors and target plates to detect "strange radiation" being emitted from the reactor. With properly designed antennas, they could even detect the longitudinal scalar waves emitted.


    As long as no comment is officially made about the hydrino and the testing is for research purposes only (no commercial activities), I don't think any legal hypothetical legal challenges would be credible. You can't stop other parties from conducting basic scientific research regardless of the patents you own!

    • Official Post

    Director,


    I am just here to help the conversation move along. Throw your idea in with the others, and you all can fight over who makes it to #1. That reminds me about what Jed said about "why not 2 or 3", and IMO even getting it down to that would be a tremendous help to Team Google. Just have to put yourself in their shoes, and see how daunting it is to have to pick one -just one, of the many experiments out there to try and replicate. Pick wrong and maybe another null, and they of all do not like those kind of results.


    And let us not forget that Team Google found neutrons where none were expected (do I have that right?), and they have that to pursue. So they have to prioritize, and avoid chasing butterflies. As mentioned many times, these experiments take a long time to plan, execute, analyze, submit, and bad decisions in the beginning can lead to a wasted effort.

    Quote from magicsound

    What is the time frame of Google's question? If they don't need an answer tomorrow, I would suggest they wait (90 days?) for results of the several Mizuno replications now apparently under construction. If there are positive results, even if not conclusive, Google would do well to jump in. As Jed rightly points out, the Mizuno material is simple to prepare compared to most others, and the XS claimed is substantial enough to be unambiguous and easy to measure.


    ...Is an excellent point.



    In my opinion, the best experiment to reproduce is one has been consistently studied, with the methodic minutae comprehensively documented.


    The SPAWAR co-depostion experiments seem to fulfill these criteria: There is a decade+ of papers descibing a fairly similar setup*.


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

    https://www.academia.edu/17964…lear_Science_October_2015

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/r…reed-Journal-Articles.pdf


    Their bibliography in the 2nd link above seemingly offers a range of apparently confirmatory results: excess heat, transmutations, particle ejections, and tritium production. They claim that co-deposition is an easy way to produce high H loadings - which makes a lot of sense. And a second benefit of co-dep is that 'known-unknown' variations in electrode grain structure and surface finish are made irrelevent.


    SPAWAR's use of CR-39 to detect particle emissions was no doubt the cheapest way of gathering some data, but beyond spotting some unusual triple-tracks, the material lacks the ability to give a definitve answer as to what is causing the remaing pits, apparently leaving open a range of possibilities that include things such as mechanical damage.


    The last Google-funded efforts developed a novel way of measuring H loading in-situ. Even if nothing comes of it, that IP is still of benefit beyond the experiment. Is it possible that a similar improvement can be made in wet-side close-range particle detectors - replacing the CR-39?


    Failing that, Brillouin, although somehow their cooperation feels unlikley, they seem to enjoy flying below the radar, most of the time. Or they might jump at the chance, who knows. Aren't they all mates already, hanging out down at the Anthropocene Institute?



    * i.e. unlike Mizuno, who (to my understanding) favours investigating as many different methods of producing the effect as he can manage - no bad thing in my book - but it presumably reduces the amount of consistent information and data available for each.

    Quote

    Not considering any of Rossi's technology - which he will never allow to be verified one way or the other - the most impressive and perhaps advanced player in this field that's moving towards commercialization is Brilliant Light Power via their utilization of the negative resistance regime to produce a massive rate enhancement of "hydrino" production. I'd go so far as to say that compared to Mizuno's system, Brilliant Light Power's Suncell is literally light years ahead with numerous advantages. For a company the size of Google with billions of dollars to spend, I can't help but think that a project composed of a series of experiments to investigate the potential of the complex space charge or "macro-EVO' that MUST form (this is in mainstream literature) during a negative resistance - to power the circuit while the voltage and current relationship is reversed - should be conducted.

    How can anyone be so wrong?

    • Official Post

    I know this probably will sound completely far fetched and really odd given the context, but the more and more I have been looking into the reported transmutation results of the vibration technology of Ryushin Omasa I think this should be in the priority list. The technology is simple enough and confirmation of the reported results would probably even be more Earth shattering for physics than a Mizuno replication. Using mechanical vibrations on a water solution (enriched with 5% of heavy water) of calcium, magnesium, copper and cesium salts he reports transmutation that is enhanced when the vibratory fins of the apparatus are palladium plated (double amount of transmutation observed compared to the plain stainless steel vibratory fins). It's Is also reported rapid radiation reduction in tritium enriched water.

    • Official Post

    I think that as much as one could like or dislike some of the more radical ideas about what lies beneath the observations or LENR phenomena, we should try to stick to what is known and not throw in the mix the more controversial and out of the box ideas, I mean within the context of this thread, in which we aim to reach a consensus. We need first to resolve the question of the validity of the phenomena, which as far as the rest of the world is concerned, is still a question mark. After that we can open the debate about if EVOs or other exotic entities are involved or not.

    Who cares what term you use to describe the plasma structures that form during the negative resistance regime. For Google's research, there is no real need to use any specific name. But what's important is that we recognize how this phenomena (whatever it really represents) is a common link that connects an extremely long history of exotic technologies and more contemporary cold fusion systems. If they review the history, the way this phenomena links so many diverse experimental apparatuses together will become apparent to them. I'd go so far to say that it even links to the properties of Ohmasa Gas, because one way of producing these self organizing plasma structures is through cavitation - which is produced by the vibrating fins of his device. The cavitation produces structures in the water that are capable of trapping and containing the plasma vortexes produced, in a similar manner to how they can trap single electrons. When this modified form of water is exposed to the current between electrolysis plates, a unique form of water in a gaseous phase is produced.


    If Google truly wishes to get to the root phenomena behind LENR, then the best way of doing so is isolating the key plasma construct, making one on a macro-scale, and performing experiments. Our community can manage to pull together Mizuno replications (although the palladium is a little expensive and the reactor body is large it's still relatively simple). Google, on the other hand, would have a couple really smart electrical engineers to design the resonant circuit and power supply that would be needed for the system I've proposed. I'm not saying we don't have smart engineers on this forum and in the LENR community, but producing a stable complex space charge that is maintained during the negative resistance regime will require more skill than a Mizuno replication would require. For example, the power supply and heating apparatus for the Mizuno setup is extremely simple. The power supply my project would require would need to control the current and other parameters of the circuit in a much more precise manner. First, to prevent the current from surging and the discharge going into a true arc discharge and secondly to tune the system into a resonant condition that would maximize the ion acoustic oscillations.


    We've got probably a half dozen teams gearing up to do Mizuno replications but ZERO gearing up to work on the project I'm suggesting. I believe such an investigation of the negative resistance and complex space charge phenomena would be a perfect task for Google - if they would PROMISE to share ALL their results openly when their work is completed.

    Quote from Curbina

    I know this probably will sound completely far fetched and really odd given the context, but the more and more I have been looking into the reported transmutation results of the vibration technology of Ryushin Omasa I think this should be in the priority list. The technology is simple enough and confirmation of the reported results would probably even be more Earth shattering for physics than a Mizuno replication. Using mechanical vibrations on a water solution (enriched with 5% of heavy water) of calcium, magnesium, copper and cesium salts he reports transmutation that is enhanced when the vibratory fins of the apparatus are palladium plated (double amount of transmutation observed compared to the plain stainless steel vibratory fins). It's Is also reported rapid radiation reduction in tritium enriched water.

    If this can help, analyses of the water can be made on the latest generation iCAP TQ ICP-MS instrument that we run in my accredited laboratory located in Switzerland, would it be by Google or any other serious replicator. Just send me a PM.


    That said, if priority should be given to a single experiment, I would also recommend a replication of the Mizuno reactor, in realizing that the experimental conditions are very similar to the ones used by Holmlid to produce Rydberg Matter of hydrogen at the surface of a hot metal.

    Gentlemen from Google!

    Enough to engage in replication. Over the past 30 years, many cold fusion replications have been made. It is necessary to create design offices that will design and test existing devices for the production of heat, and especially electric energy. The number of these offices should be equal to the number of countries with developed nuclear power, so that cold fusion reactors could be planned to replace nuclear power and recycle accumulated nuclear waste.

    Regards,

    Sergei Tcvetkov.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Matt Trevithick has been part of the LENR community for some years now, and has participated in a number of ICCF's. He is very familiar with who, and what is out there. So certainly he is familiar with BLP. I doubt too many in his position would try and replicate the hydrino. If they did, there is the very real threat of being sued by Mills. You yourself should know that, from when you and gerold.s drew up that experiment, and we got the complaint it was going to make hydrino's if you operated it, and violate their patent.

    Hello Shane, please correct me if i am wrong. Replication of an experiment should not violate any patent as long as no financial or economic benefit is gained.

    Furthermore I believe like also mentioned by @Director that the experiment in question is a "lost invention of LENR" like mentioned by Dr. Egely. However it is a "believe".

    Additionally i would recommend to go with the latested experiment of Dr. Mizuno.


    Why?

    1. He seems to be very open and helpful via Jed.

    2. The experiment seems to be quite simple.

    3. Basic steps seem already be explained by Leslie C. Case in a patent (there is link in LENR forum, i just don't have it on hand) which will soon experire (2021)

    Therefore the tech used by Dr. Mizuno could well be open source quite soon.


    Step 1. Do a 3D model of reactor, BOM and routing

    Step 2. Setup of experiment with exact input of Jed and/or Dr. Mizuno


    Such a reactor could easily be combined with a sterling Power generator which could improve milage of an electric vehicle substaintial. Automotive industry will love such a concept.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Shane D.

    I thought the only person at JM who knew how to make it died?


    I don't know about that, but as my late brother in law was precious metals storekeeper and general factotum at the now defunct JM re-smelter in Harlow Essex during the 70's and 80's, I can tell you the following story.


    This kind of work was done in a very antique ceramic-lined crucible of modest size. A pot furnace in the jargon, under a gas blanket (possibly CO2 or Argon). Scrap precious metal destined for this was sent to Harlow in the form of jewellery, machine parts, wire, electrode stubs, odd-size ingots, even medals and coins at times. It was classified by company guys before delivery to Harlow, and then resorted by the master founder before smelting.


    There was no XRF and only very simple chemical testing at this point, most of it was done by eye. Palladium looks like platinum and silver, and their various mixes including 'white gold', While these guys were very skilled, mistakes could be made. In fact at one point JM lost a 1 ton pallet of platinum which had been incorrectly labelled as silver and thus overlooked at stock-taking. This possibly happened more than the one time I was told about.


    Anyway, all the bits of what everybody hoped was pure-ish palladium were thrown into the pot, fired and left generally overnight to settle down. Various chemical fluxes were added to remove some contaminants. (I don't know the exact nature of this, it was part of the foundry master's art.) The next day the pot was tapped. The bottom fraction was often set aside for re-smelting, the middle section was classified as 'high-purity, two 9's' and the top fraction as 'low purity '95''. I don't know what other assay methods may have been used post smelt to determine the analytical purity of the metal, but basically that's how it was done on the foundry floor. Not a precise science, but highly dependent on the skill and knowledge of the grunts on the foundry staff.

    Dear Google staff,


    First of all, thanks to LenrForum staff for their facilitator task :)

    Again to Google now, I want to tell you how I'm always impressed by how fast works your system :)


    Unfortunately, your softwares skills don't make you universally competent..


    In order to know where you want to go you must make an uncompromising analysis of Lenr situation, first.

    Why we are here ?

    Because 1989's Pons&Fleischman great results.

    By their results they were happily financed by Toyota, yet despite their experience, they found nothing more with this investment.


    Today 75% of LENR papers speak only about P&F experiment's like without any more technical originality.


    We know that LENRs are related to abnormal electrons behaviors, for example.

    P&F once encountered a big event with a cubic 1cm3 cathode, who worked on the cathode''s shape, currently ?

    Nobody !

    Most of the field's top researchers got their skills from books written by others.

    We need rebels not followers who suck money.


    Lenr field needs guys capable to write own books as the great Steve Jobs made during his life !


    You have to attack things by 2 sides.


    By working on Lenr field, we become aware about large deficiencies of "modern" physics.

    By first side you should hear/help some rebels as Jurg Wyttenbach or Simon Brink for example.


    By other side, you know that Neil's walked on moon helped mostly by massive amount of what you know..

    You can do that !


    I suggest you should help teams you should choose for their relative "originality"(new ideas).

    Mizuno''s current way remains in relation with Pd/D as P&F why we only are here today ?

    Too much money spent by ICCF old friends to write for most of them empty papers.


    Most of Lenr money available for research went to US teams using your more efficient economic system, for sure.

    Unfortunately success was also relative !


    Many relevant teams, Indian, Russian, European, Japanese and many more would need your listening.

    the small streams making the big rivers.


    To return to your question, what is the more relevant experiment currently ?

    For what ? To prove Lenr behavior or to see a quick investment reply ? It 's not the same.


    At the beginning, was P&F way by Pd/D2 then also by gas.

    Almost in paralell, Piantelli and others found NI/H way.

    It remains the basis.


    Already Piantelli then Rossi's discovered great temperature gradient and IR's significance.

    Today, by chance it's rediscovered by Dr Mizuno.

    Currently it's the way we have to follow.


    However, it should give some Kw not the recipe.


    To understand that, you should be closer to NASA's Fralick's works ( D2 diffusion+ temperature gradient), French Kervran's nitrogen transmutations, japanese Oshawa's potassium transmutations.

    All of these works have the same origin. I won't share more technical detail because as everyone I'm looking for coins.


    To be back on Mizuno's way for sure next step will be thin film to be reliable for business.

    About plasma , of course it will be the main way to be powerfull ( rocket engines) therefore Lenr plasma have really no relation with the current one as ITER, for example.

    Be curious, let's see Oshawa way :)


    Good Luck guys !


    DF

    • Official Post

    From Cydonia ideas I would support a line of replication

    • The Fralick89 D2/PdAg Permeation, replicated by Liu2004,Biberian2005, Nasa GRC2008, Fralick 2012...
    • Anyway, first Mizuno meshes, and if something works at high temperature with high COP, build a heat engine, and make it self sufficient.

    One great principle would be to try to obtain the same material from the initial team that succeeded. Key is metallurgy, not nuclear physics. The rest is engineers work. My hint is to hire guys from microelectronics...

    • Official Post
    Quote from AlainCo

    Anyway, first Mizuno meshes, and if something works at high temperature with high COP, build a heat engine, and make it self sufficient.



    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    Although Mizuno's latest Reactor R20 looks very promising, I would rather advise to look into replicating Holmlid's findings, like Norrønt Fusion Energy currently is doing.
    This is much more fundamental.


    These are both excellent points, and have the great advantage that Mizuno and the Norront team are available to consult. However, since TM has declared his willingness to open-source the R20 tech he might be able to offer more support than Norront. who are more commercially oriented (I think).

    Quote from Alan Smith

    TM has declared his willingness to open-source the R20 tech he might be able to offer more support than Norront. who are more commercially oriented (I think).


    Norrønt Fusion Energy As has a commercial goal by licensing newly developed technology via a licence program. This is clear from their website.

    But, don't forget that TM's reactors have appeared in patent applications, of which some are now owned by IH and maybe others. That would in the end also hint to commercial goals.

    There seems to be some confusion about TM allowing open source replication. Although he, with the great help of JR, makes details available, these can also be found in the patent application(s). R20 patent applications are not available yet, but these might be pending.
    Any successful replication with the help of the 'open source' information will be fine with the patent application owner(s), but once commercial exploitation will start and the patent applications have been granted, you need licenses.
    So, replications can be 'open source' by all means. The patent (application) owners will love successful replications, it will be a good advertisement for their aimed license programs in the end.


    I've pointed this out a few times in earlier postings: granted patents might allow for 'open source' exploitation if that is the aim of the owners, to prevent too expensive implementations and serve mankind for free.

    Since IH now owns at least one patent application of Mizuno, I have great doubts these will be made available 'for free'.


    Last but not least, as an another example: (almost) everyone owns a smartphone nowadays. Each recently bought smartphone holds for approximately $30 on license fees. Yet, everyone is willing to pay the price.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.