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

Personally,

Mizuno's work: there are too many question marks, high risk of its being negative and if it is this would not help matters.

Takahashi: best of the hot H/? work. But evidence looks weak to me, and a negative would not be informative. There seems little agreement it is known how to make this thing work, which means google doing stuff with negative result is just big waste of effort.

Classic F&P / Mckubre - that would be best:

(1) This work has a better theoretical chance of being onto something

(2) The old experiments are still viewed by most here as "best published evidence"

(3) There has been a lot of work in this area and "how to do it best" is well understood.

(4) Most people here agree that with some care about materials replicability (at some measurable level) is assured.

So:

FPHE is real => can get positive replicable results which will restart this area for serious research

FPHE is not real => negative results will be helpful too, preventing effort spent on stuff that will never work

THH

One way to answer this question that might help people is this:

What is the experiment that, if replicated negative, would most convince you that LENR was not real.

After all, that will be the experiment most likely to generate positive results.

Quote from THHuxleynew

One way to answer this question that might help people is this:

What is the experiment that, if replicated negative, would most convince you that LENR was not real.

I fully agree. This is my proposal:

If the purpose of this ONE SHOT initiative of the Google's research team is really to solve the mystery of CF cold case, all they have to do is replicating the most representative, famous and best documented experiment in the history of CF/LENR: the boil off experiment performed by F&P in April-May 1992 (1).

It's very simple, cheap and easy to replicate. If Google's team will decide to replicate it, they will surely obtain the exact same behavior documented in the following video:

Every people in the field knows that this experiment was the most reliable among those performed by the CF pioneers and that it was widely praised by the old guard and by all LENR supporters until recently. In fact, ref.12 in Nature paper cites the article published in 2009 by Krivit and Marwan, which presents the 1992 F&P experiment in this very positive way (2): "By 1993, Fleischmann and Pons had developed such control of their experiments, particularly the cathode material, that they had the confidence and ability to set up a row of four cells side by side and initiate anomalous-heat reactions on all four at will."

This experiment it's not at all difficult to replicate, nor too expensive. There is plenty of documentation on this experimental setup. It can be replicated very accurately. The running of the 1992 setup will certainly exhibit the same experimental behavior reported by F&P in their ICCF3 paper and documented in the various available versions of their lab video (3).

Replicators should just add a simple instrument to continuously monitor the cell weight in order to directly measure the electrolyte mass, so that they can derive the correct trend of the energy lost by evaporation along the whole experiment.

If the Google's team will decide to replicate this single crucial experiment, they will be able - by properly interpreting their experimental results and by comparing them to the conclusions of F&P - to fully understand the real nature of this controversial multi decadal phenomenon.

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

(2) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/l…ivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf

(3) FP's experiments discussion

Quote from THHuxleynew

Takahashi: best of the hot H/? work. But evidence looks weak to me, and a negative would not be informative.

Takahashi sees constant 50 watt excess with fool proof calorimetry, but as it is Ni-H LENR possibly the limit is the first condensation state of the p-p spin pairing.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Mizuno's work: there are too many question marks, high risk of its being negative and if it is this would not help matters.

This comment unmasks THH as well connected person to divert the field.

The Mizuno reaction fulfills all necessary conditions to start & run a successful high COP LENR reaction. The calculations show that in the Mizuno setup the D-D excess energy gets directly down scaled into Hydrogen orbital level oscillations what we call thermalization.

Quote from THHuxleynew

One way to answer this question that might help people is this:

What is the experiment that, if replicated negative, would most convince you that LENR was not real.

After all, that will be the experiment most likely to generate positive results.

Draining Loch Ness might prove that the monster doesn’t exist (currently), but that doesn’t also disprove the existence of the yeti... as it were.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This comment unmasks THH as well connected person to divert the field.

The Mizuno reaction fulfills all necessary conditions to start & run a successful high COP LENR reaction. The calculations show that in the Mizuno setup the D-D excess energy gets directly down scaled into Hydrogen orbital level oscillations what we call thermalization.

I should have added, M's results are large enough, and protocol easy enough, that many can and will replicate. Google not needed.

You believe they will get positive replicable results. I don't. Let us wait and see? I'll be delighted to be wrong.

I would love to see replication of the Pd/D co-deposition process and experiements at SPAWAR.

And I would suggest team up til Hagelstein to get some recommendations in variations of the old experiments, like the THz laser triggering experiments he performed.

Quote from JulianBianchi

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.

Julian, we would be happy to support you guys with a Mizuno replication in Lausanne. Nicolas is informed.

Quote from Cydonia

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.

That's incorrect. They made tremendous progress. The program was shut down for political reasons. Before that, it culminated with these results, which are as dramatic and undeniable as Mizuno's recent results, only far more difficult to replicate:

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

I'm not a scientist, so am reticent to comment, but should some discussion about strategy and aims be had?

Is it worth offering up an experiment that relies on proprietary or difficult to obtain materials? Or an experiment that aims at new territory?

I would think that any positive result from Google will set off a flurry of activity, and I would think that picking an experiment that is reliably replicable, straight forward and well documented would be key to supporting that flurry of activity.

A rock solid SPAWAR replication (for example) in a top tier journal might not be the most dramatic result, but would it offer the best chance of being digested by the wider world? IE: replicated far and wide.

Perhaps I'm off base here. I trust Shane or somebody else will delete my post if so.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Mizuno's work: there are too many question marks, high risk of its being negative and if it is this would not help matters.

There are not "many" question marks. There is not a single one, so far, unless you count the kinds of "questions" you have raised, which are 7 orders of magnitude too small, or physically impossible. The risk of the classic F&P experiment being negative is higher. Google already did this experiment, and it was negative.

As I predicted when I first posted this, you invent all kinds of impossible reasons to doubt it, then you declare by fiat that you are right and there are problems, then you ignore people who show that you are drastically wrong by many orders of magnitude.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Classic F&P / Mckubre - that would be best:

(1) This work has a better theoretical chance of being onto something

As I said, they tried that and it did not work. It seldom works, except when done by experts. Also, it takes years of effort, testing dozens or hundreds of cathodes before you find one that might work.

There is no theory. There is no theoretical chance that any of this is right. F&P is no more supported by theory than Mizuno.

Quote from Ascoli65

famous and best documented experiment in the history of CF/LENR: the boil off experiment performed by F&P in April-May 1992 (1).

It's very simple, cheap and easy to replicate . . .

It is not simple, not cheap, and very difficult to replicate. Other than that, you may have a point.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This comment unmasks THH as well connected person to divert the field.

What makes you think he is well connected?

I think this comment unmasks him as someone who is unwilling to check his own hypotheses, to do even the simplest quantitative check of his hypotheses before posting them, and as one who is unwilling to admit his is wrong when other people show conclusively that he wrong by many orders of magnitude. And as someone who is careless and lazy. He does not make even the simplest observations to confirm what anyone can see at a glance, for example, looking at graph to see if input power is recorded continuously, or only measured a few times a day. If it is recorded continuously, the line will have have spikes and perturbations. If it is recorded once, the line will be perfectly straight. I suppose anyone would know that. Look at Fig. 7 in the Mizuno report. What does it tell you?

He also tends to come up with outlandish theories and questions that no ordinary person with a technical background would ask. Even after he realizes -- or grudgingly admits -- that power is recorded every 5 seconds, he then comes up with an equally far-fetched question: Did Mizuno record voltage only, without amperage? What?!?? Why would anyone do that? How difficult is it to record both? Have you ever heard of an experimentalist doing that? I uploaded spreadsheets years ago showing volts and amps recorded every 5 seconds. Robert Bryant recently posted copies here. Why not have a look at them instead of asking such a strange question? I have a hunch he asks that not because he wants to know, but because he wants to introduce confusion and doubt into the discussion. Such questions are not intended to shed light, but rather to shed darkness, like the ink from a cuttlefish.

In short, although he calls himself a skeptic, he is the very opposite of a real skeptic. A skeptic questions his own assumptions first, quantitatively analyzes them to see if the numbers add up, and tries to confirm them or disprove them. THH never does these things. When others do them for him, he never admits they are right. He just goes right back to making the impossible claim a day later. Most people opposed to cold fusion are like him. None of them has ever written a paper or made an argument that stands up to 5 minutes of cursory examination. None of them has ever discovered a substantive error in any important paper.

Quote from orsova

I'm not a scientist, so am reticent to comment, but should some discussion about strategy and aims be had?

Is it worth offering up an experiment that relies on proprietary or difficult to obtain materials? Or an experiment that aims at new territory?

I would think that any positive result from Google will set off a flurry of activity, and I would think that picking an experiment that is reliably replicable, straight forward and well documented would be key to supporting that flurry of activity.

A rock solid SPAWAR replication (for example) in a top tier journal might not be the most dramatic result, but would it offer the best chance of being digested by the wider world? IE: replicated far and wide.

Perhaps I'm off base here. I trust Shane or somebody else will delete my post if so.

Display More

If the SPAWAR work has not been tried replicated, it should absolutely be on top of the list.

Quote from JedRothwell

It is not simple, not cheap, and very difficult to replicate.

Oh, not at all! It's very easy to replicate the same behavior of the "boil-off experiment" carried out by F&P in 1992 (1). It's not difficult to bring a F&P electrolytic cell to boiling condition and let the water completely disappear by evaporation. Even Lonchampt succeeded in replicating many, many times the same exact behavior claimed by F&P (2).

The "1992 boil-off experiment", a milestone in the history of CF, is particularly suited to demonstrate that the problem is not the reproducibility of the apparent phenomena claimed by F&P and the others CF protagonists, but the correct interpretation of the experimental results.

This experiment is the perfect candidate to solve once and for all the CF cold case.

(1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(2) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

I think this comment unmasks him as someone who is unwilling to check his own hypotheses, to do even the simplest quantitative check of his hypotheses before posting them, and as one who is unwilling to admit his is wrong when other people show conclusively that he wrong by many orders of magnitude. And as someone who is careless and lazy. He does not make even the simplest observations to confirm what anyone can see at a glance, for example, looking at graph to see if input power is recorded continuously, or only measured a few times a day. If it is recorded continuously, the line will have have spikes and perturbations. If it is recorded once, the line will be perfectly straight. I suppose anyone would know that. Look at Fig. 7 in the Mizuno report. What does it tell you?

He also tends to come up with outlandish theories and questions that no ordinary person with a technical background would ask. Even after he realizes -- or grudgingly admits -- that power is recorded every 5 seconds, he then comes up with an equally far-fetched question: Did Mizuno record voltage only, without amperage? What?!?? Why would anyone do that? How difficult is it to record both? Have you ever heard of an experimentalist doing that? I uploaded spreadsheets years ago showing volts and amps recorded every 5 seconds. Robert Bryant recently posted copies here. Why not have a look at them instead of asking such a strange question? I have a hunch he asks that not because he wants to know, but because he wants to introduce confusion and doubt into the discussion. Such questions are not intended to shed light, but rather to shed darkness, like the ink from a cuttlefish.

Jed:

(1) I wanted to check the R20 input power measurements.

(2) You said they were just like all the others, why bother

(3) I persisted, you kindly posted raw data from spreadsheet

(4) I noted, you agreed, that there was an unexplained X60 factor there, not used on (some) other spreadsheets you have posted

Now, no doubt there are many reasons for that X60 factor. I've suggested one. However, it is not documented and adds possibility of error - a hand-made potential divider that has a different ratio - or some other mistake, perhaps incorrect usage of the incorrect integral in the patent to determine power, since X60 is normally found on time conversions.

• I agree, I ask all sorts of questions and persist with minutiae that are probably nothing, and 9/10 times end up being nothing
• I agree, I ask for specifics, not just general statements
• I disagree that makes me biassed or lazy
• The above sequence perhaps indicates why I believe my approach to be useful.

Other things I have usefully clarified:

• Reynolds number for airflow indicates average values ~ 20% smaller than section measured. Exact value is 24% smaller. It is inconsistent that calibration results don't show this and therefore something else must be wrong.
• Airspeed as on spreadsheets is calculated from blower power, not measured (ok - this was ascoli but many people were not understanding this)
• Inner foil temperature must be +80C or so to match stated reactor efficiency and output (R value unit issue with paper calculations). Radiative power transfer is much more significant (vs forced convection) at high case temperatures when compared with low.

Some here will have little patience with this process - and view it as irrelevant. That is fine, and I understand that. I see it as highly relevant. And, frankly, anyone viewing scientific publication of this experiment as something that could provide evidence of an extraordinary effect (LENR) not otherwise accepted and without support from proven theory would also do that.

Now - what is the significance of all these little details? Like an iceberg, they expose more information about experimental methodology. In a very well documented and written up experiment that is just not required (McKubre is best LENR example here I know). That was a (long) internal report rather than a single publication. Best way to do this in the space limits of a conference publication is careful and precise summary - with details referenced.

Here it IS required. Mizuno is not the most careful of experimenters (or perhaps not the most careful of documenters - which comes to the same thing for us) and his methodology has in the past had errors that produce false positives. That in no way invalidates his results, or his work, but it means - and I'm sure he would agree - that very careful scrutiny of his work (or replication with more care) is needed before the results are convincing.

Have I found an obvious error in the R19 or R20 results? No. Do I think both R19 and R20 (for different reasons) have question marks that could and should be removed? Yes.

What would do this?

R19: photos etc showing which cal / active reactor combos are used to get results and positions in box. Contemporaneous active vs cal raw data (since A/B switching is possible). Clarity about how large is space for airflow inside box around reactors with added insulation. Room temperature monitoring.

I am concerned that while calibration has been done, and active measurement with positive results has been done, the two processes may be separated, and done under different conditions (e.g. airspeed). I am concerned that many things could alter airflow in box on one side and therefore change efficiency of calibration versus active reactor. If we had single run A/B data showing the dramatic +100% difference this would be less relevant. I am concerned that many aspects of the later systems are stated as documented in earlier papers. It is then not clear exactly what has changed and what has stayed that same. The default "it is all the same" may turn out to be incorrect (as with the heater power data for R20 and earlier spreadsheets). A long history of experimentation, with older assumptions about apparatus kept, makes possible "change with consequences" type errors which Jed as a software guy will be well aware of. This is where you forget that a change you make later on breaks some characteristic needed to ensure an earlier assumption stays true. The earlier assumption has been constant and true for so long that you forget all the things needed to make it hold, and just don't notice this.

My concern here is higher than usual because Mizuno has made quite a few mistakes in his theory (the wrong equation for power) and presentation (lack of clarity over whether airspeed on spreadsheets is measured or calculated). That allows unknown unknown errors. The only way to check these is a lot of detail.

Removing these question marks is not difficult. Given that R19 exists and works a single run, carefully documented and recorded, could answer all these questions.

R20: This is only a single sample result, which for me is not enough. However everyone else here seems to put weight on this, even though this is not fair to Mizuno who does not advertise this as more than early indicative data.

My reservations:

(1) a system with this COP would not normally be stable, and would certainly have a high temperature no input power on state (just reduce box airflow a little to get this, increase to stabilise again). Surely Mizuno would have discovered this? The alternative, that some non-thermal aspect of the heater power is needed to keep the reaction going, seems to me unlikely because the levels of possible stimuli are low, and has not been proposed by Mizuno.

(2) The heater has changed (external -> internal). I therefore wonder whether the sudden increase in performance is a measurement error related to different drive and measurement of a (different) heater element. All I know at the moment is the unexplained X60 factor, which at least shows that the measurement methodology for R20 is different from that for some earlier results posted here. Not sure how much the X60 factor is used for. In any case it is unexplained.

(3) As above, this is a "sample" result. I'd want to wait for "real" results, made with more care, before using them.

I am deeply sorry if people here are offended by these reservations. They are not personal, I have no intent to say or imply anything dishonourable about Mizuno, or Jed. Indeed I have a high respect for Jed's integrity, and Jed vouches for Mizuno's integrity. Nor, whatever the errors that exist in this data, does that imply anything dishonourable. Experimental work is hard, and those who do it and are open, as Mizuno is, should be applauded whether they get positive or negative results. However, I believe that my reservations here are rational, and justify further work before these results are taken as indicating LENR. It is worth noting that with some effort, or perhaps help from those more concerned about this, all of my questions about R19 and R20 results could be answered quite easily.

Indeed that is what normally happens in science when highly important novel unexpected results have been found. My criticism of some LENR research is that such a normal and helpful process is not viewed as helpful. That, more than anything else, would make an external observer worry that this is a pseudo-scientific endeavour.

Regards, THH

Quote from Ascoli65

Oh, not at all! It's very easy to replicate the same behavior of the "boil-off experiment" carried out by F&P in 1992 (1). It's not difficult to bring a F&P electrolytic cell to boiling condition and let the water completely disappear by evaporation. Even Lonchampt succeeded in replicating many, many times the same exact behavior claimed by F&P (2).

The "1992 boil-off experiment", a milestone in the history of CF, is particularly suited to demonstrate that the problem is not the reproducibility of the apparent phenomena claimed by F&P and the others CF protagonists, but the correct interpretation of the experimental results.

This experiment is the perfect candidate to solve once and for all the CF cold case.

(1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf
(2) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf

Display More

Before doing a boil off experiment you would first like to know if the particular Pd/D cell actually produce excess heat.

F&P found some 1 of 8 cells producing excess heat.

So google would in any case replicate the 1990 paper of F&P BEFORE they would try the 1992 paper. Which is an extension of the 1990 paper and excess heat at elevated temperatures.

But we have discussed this before, and you never understood the F&P experiment.

Quote from oystla

Before doing a boil off experiment you would first like to know if the particular Pd/D cell actually produce excess heat.

F&P found some 1 of 8 cells producing excess heat.

So google would in any case replicate the 1990 paper of F&P BEFORE they would try the 1992 paper. Which is an extension of the 1990 paper and excess heat at elevated temperatures.

But we have discussed this before, and you never understood the F&P experiment.

This is not the place for continuing our debate on this subject. We already had a plenty of opportunities to do that (1).

This thread is aimed to propose to the Team Google a single test which should solve the multi-decadal controversy about the CF. Many other people here have already proposed to replicate a F&P experiment. My suggestion is to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment", because IMO it is the most representative and best documented F&P's experiment.

You can propose whatever other experiment you like. The final choice depends on the Team Google.

(1) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement