The Lipinski / UGC materials referenced at the thread linked above might be appropriate for a replication using resources available to the likes of Google. If nothing else, their results deserve an independent confirmation. Further their results, if replicable, show that much lower impact energies (a few hundred eV) may result in useful energetic output (Q as high as several thousand) from at least a lithium target.
Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"
- Shane D.
- Closed
-
-
I think the situation is pretty clear and obvious.
The Mizuno experiment is going to be replicated by multiple teams so there is not an urgent need for it to be replicated by Google. If they can take on multiple projects it would be great for them to replicate it. Otherwise, it's not a big deal. We can perform a half dozen replications and then produce a viral chain reaction of replications.
The Ohmasa Gas (the whole concept of a "water gas" in a new phase of matter that contains trapped electron structures) experiment would be as simple as Google buying a generator and perform a series of tests. This would be fast, quick, simple.
My proposal, however, is the one that needs the attention of skilled electrical engineers to produce a tuned, resonant circuit. No one that I know of in the community has even attempted to build such a system to establish a stable complex space charge produced by the self organization of plasma during the negative resistance regime. When it comes to the resources needed for each of these projects, this proposal would need Google's experienced engineers and resources the most. The other two are relatively more simple and would require less engineering skill.
-
Display More
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.
And you did not get my point.
No one should do boil off test before they know for sure they have a Pd/D cell that actually produce excess heat.
So they would have to first test according to F&P 1990 paper.
And f they acihieve positive result by F&P original experiment, they have allready proven LENR and do not need boil off, since that was only an extension to prove increased excess at elevated temperatures.
-
Display More
We are getting bogged down in squabbles, and boil offs. We will never get down to a few experiments this way.
But I do have an idea that may help get the job done: Let this thread go on for a while, as it is serving it's purpose of whittling down the list, while also generating some very helpful background. At some point, we convene a thread for a few of the most prominent, and active players in the field, and let them *alone* decide the best experiment to recommend to Google. Or the "committee" could go private, using the Conversation feature. In essence, this thread would serve as a reference, or guide for the committee to use in it's decision making process.I already have candidates in mind from Australia, U.S., England, Austria, France, Italy, and last but not least Russia.
What do you think? I am open to any other suggestions. Somehow we need to get on some path, where in the end we know there will be 1-3 experiments to present to the Google Program Manager. If this is this tough for us, you can imagine how the Google Team feels when they try to pick and chose what to do next. It really is an issue when you think about it, and accentuated by the many opinions on this thread. But if we can iron this out here, we will have at the least, made their task a little easier.
The recent Mizuno experiment is an obvious one.
And I think the SPAWAR rsearch was good and should be tried.
For other I would suggest google should discuss the matter with Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein, which would have some very good suggestions I believe.
-
AlainCo , you know by deuterium diffusion all Lenr Things happens no need of strange exotic objets discharges.. etc.
All ingredients are already there but already difficult to apprehend.
This is a good technical Lenr summary therefore not necessarily an industrial solution.
Current Mizuno's way shouln't be enough to motorize a car for example.
For my understanding the key as you said isn't ingredients rather the specific Lenr Process.
Without wishing to disrespect Dr Mizuno or Jed Roswell, Lenr field has known so much Messiah so we must remain cautious.
Pitting on Rossi remains the favorite sport here, but what could we say about Parkhomov's great works for example ?
JedRothwell you reason too much with your heart ( about P&F case) but not enough with your head. Investors don't want one shot from time to time but all the time ..
A last word I already imagine dubious faces from Google staff when they will read this thread, they will laugh well ..
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...
-
(4) I noted, you agreed, that there was an unexplained X60 factor there, not used on (some) other spreadsheets you have posted
You did not note that. I told you that when I posted that spreadsheet.
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
No, there is no possibility of error. Any spreadsheet can multiply a number by 60 with 100% absolute certainty. It would only add to the possibility of error if the spreadsheet might multiply incorrectly.
The calibrations and other instruments prove this is the correct power level.
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 lazyThat is not what makes you biased or lazy. The bias shows up when you refuse to question your own assumption. The lazy part is when you don't even glance at the graph to see whether power is recorded continuously. One glance would answer your question. You are also lazy when you make assertions without checking the arithmetic.
The above sequence perhaps indicates why I believe my approach to be useful.
I do not recall you have said anything useful. All of your assertions have been mistaken.
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.
That is incorrect.
Airspeed as on spreadsheets is calculated from blower power, not measured (ok - this was ascoli but many people were not understanding this)
This is wrong, as I said. Apparently you are incapable of doing 4th grade arithmetic. You do not understand that when A * B = C, B = C/A.
Or if you do understand that, you are deliberately lying and trolling here. Frankly, I think you should be banned for a week for repeating this garbage. It is incredible to me that you think you can fool people with this.
Frankly, you have gone too far this time. When you repeatedly claim that something as simple as A * B = C, B = C/A is not true, you have gone over the line. I am going to block your messages and ignore you from now on. I will not waste my time with such an obvious troll. You are a troublemaker, and your only agenda is to cast doubt on things and confuse the audience here.
-
No one should do boil off test before they know for sure they have a Pd/D cell that actually produce excess heat.
So they would have to first test according to F&P 1990 paper.Correct. Except you should say: "No one can do the boil off test before they know for sure they have a Pd/D cell that actually produce excess heat." It does not work. You can, of course, boil off the water with high input power, but the calorimetry shows no excess heat. It shows a deficit, from heat not accounted for.
-
I think the situation is pretty clear and obvious.
The Mizuno experiment is going to be replicated by multiple teams so there is not an urgent need for it to be replicated by Google.I know of two or three credible attempts to replicate it. I hope one of them succeeds.
If they can take on multiple projects it would be great for them to replicate it.
If the Mizuno experiment can be replicated and it produces the kind of results he saw with R19, with good control over the reaction and 40 to 100 W of heat, there will be no point to doing any other cold fusion experiment. All other approaches will be abandoned. This one will be improved in various ways, such as the ones Ed Storms has in mind. This will be the starting point for all future research.
Okay, a few other approaches might still have value. A Takahashi replication with Ames NL material might be worth it. But all other experiments such as bulk-Pd F&P style experiment would be a pointless waste of time and effort.
-
Display More
We are getting bogged down in squabbles, and boil offs. We will never get down to a few experiments this way.
But I do have an idea that may help get the job done: Let this thread go on for a while, as it is serving it's purpose of whittling down the list, while also generating some very helpful background. At some point, we convene a thread for a few of the most prominent, and active players in the field, and let them *alone* decide the best experiment to recommend to Google. Or the "committee" could go private, using the Conversation feature. In essence, this thread would serve as a reference, or guide for the committee to use in it's decision making process.I already have candidates in mind from Australia, U.S., England, Austria, France, Italy, and last but not least Russia.
What do you think? I am open to any other suggestions. Somehow we need to get on some path, where in the end we know there will be 1-3 experiments to present to the Google Program Manager. If this is this tough for us, you can imagine how the Google Team feels when they try to pick and chose what to do next. It really is an issue when you think about it, and accentuated by the many opinions on this thread. But if we can iron this out here, we will have at the least, made their task a little easier.
good idea...please don't forget Switzerland
-
Mizuno's data is rock solid in my opinion. What makes it even more compelling is that he has deposited palladium onto nickel with different methods in differing setups while still producing excess heat. If people follow Mizuno's directions closely and don't make a simple mistake like you pointed out (using mesh that really isn't the same alloy of nickel), I expect the likelihood of successful replications to be very high. I'd go so far to say that if multiple replication attempts failed, I'd have to start questioning the fundamentals of how I mentally assess various LENR systems and the claims made about them. There would have to be a highly significant (important not only in regards to this experiment but others as well) problem for multiple replication attempts to all fail. And I don't think this is likely at all. My guess is that in such a situation - if stupid or careless mistakes were ruled out - the cause for failure would have be something totally unexpected and perhaps non-intuitive. For example, something as esoteric as the magnetic field conditions in the room or the activity of the sun having some sort of effect. And if this proved to be the case, it would be a discovery in and of itself.
Anyway, for powder based or any kind of "bulk" metal system (wire, rod, sponge, mesh, bar) I believe if the Mizuno replications are successful, this experiment will be the starting point for such research exactly as you state. However, I do think predominantly plasma based systems (with only nano-particles of metals like nickel, platinum, or titanium present from sputtering of the electrodes) is a path that deserves some serious experimentation. The legacy of these systems going back a hundred years, which George Egely describes very well in his lectures and articles in Infinite Energy Magazine, and there's a unifying theme that extends to modern systems such as Mills, Simon Brink, and others. Although I don't believe the whole nexus of phenomena I've already described in this thread is the explanation for every last type of LENR reaction, I believe it's an extremely likely common link. For example, when Randell Mills describes how holes were burnt through the Tungsten walls of his reactor, I can't help but think of how Ohmasa Gas can cut through such materials and how micro-scale EVOs have been demonstrated by Shoulders and others to liquify metal in a seemingly non-thermal manner for it to suddenly re-solidify without affecting nearby areas.
One benefit of the route I'm proposing, perhaps parallel to replicating the Mizuno tech, is that the devices can be even smaller and once the key circuits and power supplies are designed, the cost might not be too out of the price range for researchers on tight budgets (who have already have access to vacuum pumps, oscilloscopes, and other equipment) that might not be able to afford a rod of palladium and a large custom made reactor body.
I personally want to see both of these paths followed: the Mizuno bulk material path and the plasma based path.
-
And you did not get my point.
No one should do boil off test before they know for sure they have a Pd/D cell that actually produce excess heat.
So they would have to first test according to F&P 1990 paper.
And f they acihieve positive result by F&P original experiment, they have allready proven LENR and do not need boil off, since that was only an extension to prove increased excess at elevated temperatures.The excess heat claimed in the tests described in the F&P 1990 paper is in the order of watts at most. On the contrary, for their 1992 boil-off experiment, F&P claimed to have obtained more than hundred watts of excess heat for all the 4 cells used in the experiment. This is the same order of magnitude of the last Mizuno's experiments, that many people here are proposing to replicate for the simple reason that such a level of alleged excess heat is well above the experimental noise.
The boil-off test is very easy to replicate. The researchers of Team Google will for sure succeed in boiling off all the water contents of the cells, so reproducing exactly the same behavior documented in the original F&P videos. They don't need to know in advance if the specimens or the cells are able to actually produce any excess heat. If they will carefully carry out that experiment and will correctly interpret the data, they will easily discover which it was the real source of the excess heat claimed by F&P and by their emulators.
-
Shane D. That is why it took 30 years and still there. We need to restart this thread and not allow usual innuendo which constitutes 80 percent of the posts on this forum.
It seems a bit chaotic, but I see some positive developments. Just have to look hard for them!
True about the cat fights (innuendo) breaking out, and if that stopped, we will be back on track. In my first post starting this thread, I said it would be like herding cats, and at times there would be contentious debate. Unfortunately I was right, so not at all unsurprising.In fact, the Google Program Manager for the project told me this was not going to be easy to do. He knows, because he went through this before in trying to decide on what their first experiment should be. There is so much out there to chose from, and each experiment has it's proponents and defenders, who in some cases are unwilling to concede there may something better for them to pursue.
It does not help matters either, with the field being led by, and made up of mostly 30 year veterans. Of course, they had to be tough to survive this long, but sometimes growing a thick hide can have it's drawbacks. We will get this done however, and it will be with their help. They will come through for us. This is so important, they have to IMO. Google may be their salvation after decades of being outcasts, and bring them into the mainstream fold..if they succeed.
-
I thought you lived in Austria?
Yes I do, but I have met with N. Chauvin CEO of LENR Cars SA in Lausanne recently and he is quite open for a replication. They are well equiped and have a nice lab near EPFL campus. Our role would be more engineering and manufacturing support. This is more our core competency.
-
Mizuno and anyone from Japan, only because he/Japan has/have no financial interest in NDA's or anything like that which would hamper/limit progress in research of the field.
And... perhaps Brillouin if they are willing to disclose how their pulsed mechanism works, (doubtful).
-
This thread should only allow posts with 3 bullet points: I suggest these 3 experiments - - -. JedRothwell , with all due respect, is stealing the show by asking us to look at things like fire etc. If we want lenr to get out of its academia diapers or by into production we all need to learn how speak on the engineering point. There is a Russian saying : brevity is a sister of talent.
-
Perhaps a discussion of criteria that the experiment needs to meet would be useful?
fwiw, imo:
• Non proprietary materials
• Solid documentation
• Readily replicable by scientists beyond the field who may have their interest piqued by Google's imprimatur
• An experiment that is well understood by the community, rather than something that is more exploratory or novel
• An experiment that offers a range of phenomena for study, as opposed to just excess heat (?)
etc.
-
23 posts have been moved to 'clearance' from this thread. Not that they were bad posts, but they were pretty much OT, or complaints about OT.
I remind members that this thread is asking a question on behalf of a serious team of skilled scientists - the question :-
"What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"
-
I remind members that this thread is asking a question on behalf of a serious team of skilled scientists - the question :-
"What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"
The google scientists have a skilled
Scientist in Mizuno who wants his
work replicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadahiko_Mizuno
They have a no nonsense guy in Jed
Rothwell who speaks Japanese and
has contact with Mizuno.
Let’s get the show on the road with
Google Scientists Mizuno replication.
