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

  • Quote


    However, if those results turn out to be mistaken, exact replication of Mizuno with better instrumentation will show nothing. I trust Mckubre's set of results much more. They have better documented methodology, better instrumentation, are more comprehensive.

    Which McKubre results is it you are trusting?

  • Which McKubre results is it you are trusting?

    I don't trust any set of results. However overall his corpus of closed cell D2O/Pd electrolysis results is more convincing than Mizuno's results, in terms of documentation and instrumentation. Since google can use high quality calorimetry the fcat that excess is smaller is neither here nor there.


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/category/authors/mckubre/


    Do I think google will find significant excess heat replicating? Possibly.

    Will it, if they do, end up being nuclear in origin? Also possibly.


    Neither possibility that high, but higher than chances for M replication IMHO.

  • THHuxleynew I agree with his slide on miscommunication. Poorly written and overly complex papers (not necessarily only his). slide: "ICCF20 - Problems Noted"


    I have joked about not reading anything. Of course, that's not true. But I draw a blank on overly complicated papers with graphs depicting God knows what on God knows how labelled axes. Or unlabelled axes! That's fine for in house work documentation and perhaps for theoretical articles in very specialized journals. For papers the typical scientist is supposed to read, just present the minimum necessary facts in a simple, clear method using as much as possible the simplest most common units.


    Despite our frequent differences, I appreciate the most recent work by JedRothwell who documented in excellent English, the work of Mizuno. For the most part, it's clear and unambiguous and you don't have to have taken course in tensor algebra to comprehend what was done and what was found. If only the usual suspects wrote that way.

  • You say "we". Do You consider Yourself a proper scientist ?

    By the royal "we", I mean people who wish to champion for LENR research to succeed.

    I am an engineer, not a scientist, working in biotech, with a lapsed background in Engineering Physics.

    This whole discussion on this thread is how to make suggestions for the Google scientists on experiments to perform.

    Maybe I am not subtle enough about it, but my pet peeve is the word salad people who try to string together every possible fringe science topic into an incoherent hodgepodge.

    I think theses people are extremely counterproductive to "our" cause (sorry if that "our" bothers you too).

    Almost as counterproductive as scammers like Rossi.

  • Despite our frequent differences, I appreciate the most recent work by JedRothwellwho documented in excellent English, the work of Mizuno. For the most part, it's clear and unambiguous and you don't have to have taken course in tensor algebra to comprehend . . .


    I shouldn't "like" comments praising myself, but anyway, let me point out this is because I was trained to write technical manuals for people using computers for things like municipal water billing. Those people want to know how to correct a 90-day-overdue water bill account. They want to know right now. They do not want extraneous information. It is often said that when you ask a scientist "what time is it?" he tells you how to make a watch. Don't do that when instructing some lady in the back office in the Emmitsburg, MD waterworks who needs to correct a water bill. That is why the Mizuno paper came out sounding more like a dishwasher manual than a scientific paper. For which I make no apologies.

  • So why bother reading any scientific paper with "results"


    Because results are interesting, when not trusted, and multiple results that cohere, however extraordinary, become trustworthy.


    Trust is not a binary thing. When I say "I don't trust" I mean that they are interesting and have weight but not overwhelming weight. Everything is like that (except maths). Trust comes after much evidence, not on first unwrapping a new set of results.


    THH

  • What can still be done (could have been done) is take your simplest strongest replicable LENR experiment (which you say there are many of), replicate it with better instrumentation and more checks against anomalies. Write a stonking paper showing extraordinary results and all the attempts made to explain them conventionally without mentioning LENR.


    Well said. And, as I've already explained (*), there is no doubt that the simplest strongest replicable LENR experiment is the boil-off experiment documented by F&P in 1992. Unlike any other CF/LENR test, the availability of the videos provides also the unique opportunity to see, after 27 years, the same images that led F&P to claim an excess heat of almost 150 W with a COP of about 4. The lab video recording would give Google's replicators the unique chance to visually verify that they have reproduced exactly the same physical phenomenon obtained by F&P, so that they will be able to indisputably affirm of having "successfully" replicated this crucial CF experiment. Where, in this case, "successfully" means that they have been able to reproduce the so called "positive feedback", which caused the F&P cells to boil dry in a relatively short time.


    As you have correctly said, this apparently extraordinary phenomenon should first be examined by considering all possible conventional explanation, without mentioning LENR.


    Whatever interpretation the Google people will propose to explain the behavior of this historic F&P boil-off experiment, the publication of their results will be of enormous importance for the epistemology of the CF/LENR phenomenon.


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

  • That spotlights one of the most interesting aspects of “the LENR community”: it is mostly composed of individuals without scientific training or experience. So when Google solicits input from the community, are they really hoping to hear from people whose expertise consists of whatever information they have gleaned from the Internet, or are they really hoping to hear from actual LENR experts? There are assuredly many crackpots in “the community “, but I doubt many of them are actual LeNR researchers.

    A good boss listens to all opinions in the organization from the cleaner

    right up to brains of the operation.

    Someone like Ruby could get google

    in touch with LENR researchers.


    https://coldfusionnow.org/

  • "A good boss listens to all opinions in the organization from the cleaner right up to brains of the operation."


    Listen - yes - but only an insane boss considers the opinion of the cleaner to be as valuable as that of the brains of the operation. There is, after all, such a thing as an expert, i.e., a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. Or is the hospital janitor also to be consulted on your brain surgery?

  • Sorry RB: I thought my post was clear. I'm not sure which aspect you don't understand? That statement relates to the thread topic - which LENR experiment would it be most productive fro google to try replicating.


    I guess you are still beating the "data quantisation" drum THH?


    Even SOT agrees that could not at all explain the excess heat.

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

  • Or is the hospital janitor also to be consulted on your brain surgery?


    Well, stranger things have happened. My father was a very skilled cabinetmaker and was once asked to advise an orthopaedic surgeon on improving the standard ways of fixing metal plates to bone. Don't confuse manual skills (like using a broom properly which I notice few modern kids can do without training) with lack of brains, or an academic education as being the only route to 'thinking out of the box'. Human beings are more complicated and surprising than that. The value of an opinion resides in the opinion itself, not in the perceived status of the person proffering it.