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

  • 3) Everybody on this forum seems tobelieve that Google will succeed in replicating the bestchoice made by this forum members.

    However, Google team track record isnot really good in this matter as they failed to replicatesome known to be replicable experiments.


    That is a good point.


    Do you really want a second article inNature describing another failed CF experiment ?

    Can you imagine the impact ?


    Nature would not publish a positive replication. They will only publish a failure, and the larger more prestigious the author, the better for them. They want to report that Google failed, not that some obscure retired professor failed. If Google's results had been positive, Nature would never have published. If Google comes back with a positive replication, Nature will reject it out of hand.


    The impact would be same as it has been since 1989. I don't see how it can make things any worse than they are. I wouldn't worry about it. We all know that Nature and the DoE will never admit cold fusion is real or that it has been replicated.

  • Nature would not publish a positive replication. They will only publish a failure, and the larger more prestigious the author, the better for them. They want to report that Google failed, not that some obscure retired professor failed. If Google's results had been positive, Nature would never have published. If Google comes back with a positive replication, Nature will reject it out of hand.


    I disagree. Nature would not publish an unconvincing replication. It would however publish a paper showing conclusively that much higher than expected excess heat exists in D/Pd electrolysis, with the checks and instrumentation to back up that claim, without any speculative claim that this comes from LENR (which would be unjustified in absence of high energy products or other evidence).


    Such a paper from google would be honest about the history, note that the replication of D/Pd results was interesting and that better checks than in any previous work had been done to make sure there was no artifact. it would note the problems in supposing this is due to D+D fusion, suggest further checks (e.g. He4) to confirm/deny this, leave it as an anomaly strongly deserving more attention.


    Which it would then get.

  • there was no artifact


    Which artefact does TTHnew suggest?

    Make a list for Google team. keep it concise... not like this


    (1) CCS is Shanahan's grand name for errors caused by cell condition changes altering calibration

    (2) While everyone knows this Shanahan pointed out that some LENR papers were ignoring the fact that small call errors of this type get amplified by the ratio between the (external) power in and the (observed) excess heat out. This is pretty obvious, so that for example a 10% excess heat result will be invalidated by a calibration shift (caused by some change in conditions) of only 1%.

    (3) There is then the matter of what could cause calibration to change by 1%. Shanahan hypothesised ATER (at-the-electrode-recombination) which LENR guys have uniformly stated is not possible. Well, Shanahan argues that it could be possible in certain special cases whn you have the right electrode preconditioning etc. Sound familiar? ATER has the potential to cause calibration changes by altering the position in the cell where heat is generated. For certain types of closed cell, where a recombiner is used at the top of the cell, it is plausible that moving from recombiner heat to electrode heat would move calibration consistently in the direction of less heat lost and therefore more measured.

    (4) From my POV this mechanism does not apply everywhere, but a wide class of LENR expereriments need to be aware of it and check carefully. Good enough calorimetry will reduce this problem to low levels, and some LENR experiments provably have this. Shanahan thought that all such claims should check for this possible error mechanism explicitly: other LENR authors argued that "they had checked and it was obviously not an issue".

    (5) From my POV "obviously not an issue" is not good enough when you have surprising results - like excess heat beyond chemical. You need to prove that such a hypothesis does not apply in every specific case that you cite.

    (6) The discussion thus is more about "does ATER exist" and "could ATER alter calibration" for specific experiments than it is about CCS. One thing that has sometimes annoyed me is that LENR papers do not always (or even usually) assume what I consider a proper burden of proof. Thus if some error mechanism has been shown not to be relevant in some cases it is assumed not relevant in all cases without careful argument. Because LENR excess heat is found to be erratic, it can be simulated by an error which only happens occasionally, hence the checking for what could possibly be an error needs to be very careful.

    (7) Therefore I side with Marwan et al in that there are various good ways to rule out ATER, some of which clearly apply to some LENR experiments. I side with Shanahan in that not all of the considered important LENR experiments, as documented, do rule out ATER.

    (8) Shanahan argues that possibly all replicable FPHE observations are due to ATER. I don't have a view on that, it is not entirely clear what constitutes a replicable observation, given teh FPHE effect is hypothesised to depend on not easily determined electroe conditions that cannot be fully controlled nor measured, except by the apparent existence of FPHE. That makes a lot of people seeing FPHE, but not consistently, potentially fit an error mechanism that oes not always apply, but does sometiems.

    (9) Were I wanting to prove FPHE effects as due to above chemical heat production, I'd need to examine the ATER and CCS issue very carefully and list those results which could not possibly be due to it (perhaps because the come from a 99% efficient calorimeter and show excess heat above errors of >> 1%). My reduced list of experiments could then be examined for other possible errors etc. At the enmd of this process the experimenst that stand up would justify Jed's and others certitude.

    (10) Shanahan got annoyed with the LENR community because the published (and personal) replies to his hypothesis were dismissive without engaging fully in his arguments nor understanding them. For example, Marwan et al argue (amongst many other arguments) that CCS might lead to random errors which go both positive and negative, but these are not observed. Shanahan rightly pointed out that this was, if it existed, a systematic error mechanism, and therefore any argument about random errors does not apply. He felt that such a gross misunderstanding of his published idea showed they could not have read his paper when replying to it.


    Now after that background: note my tense in the sentence you quote: conditional. I cannot prove that CCS exists. Shanahan claimed he had, from analysis of provided unpublished data, strong evidence for it in one case. Obviously that is not proven. Even if CCS does exist it would be surprising for it to apply in all cases. If CCS exists there might be some other condition change causing it, not ATER. But, ATER as hypothesised has the potential to create CCS (obviously) since it alters cell temperature distribution which may create calibration changes.

  • I disagree. Nature would not publish an unconvincing replication. It would however publish a paper showing conclusively that much higher than expected excess heat exists in D/Pd electrolysis, with the checks and instrumentation to back up that claim,


    Don't be ridiculous. HUNDREDS of papers fitting that description have been published. Dozens were submitted to Nature. It rejected them all without review, and in the recent article and editorials it did not mention a single one of them. How much more proof do you need that Nature will not acknowledge the truth?? Ah, I know the answer. You yourself will not acknowledge the truth, so of course you will not see -- or you will not admit -- that Nature is lying.

  • Anyone trying F&P Pd/D system MUST set up 10 or 20 parallell cells and hope one or more of them show signs of heat bursts according to the F&P Seminal paper of 1990.


    Nowadays you can do a better job at that with the procedures described by Storms:


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


    You are correct that unless there is heat during the initial phase, there will be no heat during the boil off. This is one of the many things Ascoli does not understand.

  • would however publish a paper showing conclusively that much higher than expected excess heat exists in D/Pd electrolysis, with the checks and instrumentation to back up that claim, without any speculative claim that this comes from LENR (which would be unjustified in absence of high energy products or other evidence).


    THHnew has still not publishwd his official rebuttal to Michael Staker's publication.

    Is there a date for that .. or will it just be vague sniping on LF as usual.



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


    Of course this is fringe science

    and Michael Staker iis a fringe scientist according to THHnew

    but only when he deals with LENR.

  • Anyone trying F&P Pd/D system MUST set up 10 or 20 parallell cells and hope one or more of them show signs of heat bursts according to the F&P Seminal paper of 1990.


    The cells that prove signs of active LENR i.e. heat burst, may the used to test their 1992 hypothesis of larger excess heat at higher temepratures.


    I didn't find such requirements in the F&P Seminal paper of 1990 (1).


    In the abstract, the authors say: "It is also shown that prolonged polarization of palladium cathodes in heavy water leads to bursts in the rate of enthalpy generation." (all the highlights, here and below, have been added)


    Furthermore, introducing the results listed on Table 3, the authors explain: "Data are given for the three electrolytes used and the batch numbers of the particular electrodes are indicated. The measurements were made, as far as possible, when a steady state of excess enthalpy generation had been reached. However, this was not possible for some electrodes at the highest current densities used since the cells were frequently driven to the boiling point. The values given for these cases apply to the times just prior to the rapid increases in cell temperature (see section on Enthalpy Bursts)."


    So it would seem that these phenomena were quite common for those electrodes which were run "at the highest current density" and after a "prolonged polarization".


    In the section devoted to discuss the "Time dependence of the phenomena:“bursts” in enthalpy", the authors of the seminal paper wrote: "… we have found that cells are frequently driven to the boiling point, e.g. see Fig. 11. The rate of enthalpy production must become extremely large under these conditions since the dominant mode of heat transfer is now the latent heat of evaporation (see Appendix 3). It is not possible, however, at this stage to make a quantitative estimate of the heat output since the cells and instrumentation are unsuitable for making estimates under these conditions. It should also be noted that, although the cell potential initially decreases (in common to the situation for the bursts) there is usually a change to an increase of the potential with time when cells are driven to the boiling point probably due to the loss of electrolyte in spray leaving the cells."


    Anyway, at that time, F&P chose to avoid the onset of the boiling condition by discontinuing or reducing the current: "It is also not possible to decide at this stage whether the attainment of boiling is due to a burst in enthalpy production or to an increase in the baseline output since we have adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or, at least, of reducing the current density) when the boiling point is reached."


    Two years later, in 1992, F&P equipped their calorimeter with what they deemed a simple instrumentation suitable to make a reasonably accurate quantitative estimate of enthalpy lost by the system through the latent heat of evaporation. So, they began to run boil-off experiments where the cells were intentionally driven to the boiling condition.


    In the abstract of their 1992 paper to ICCF3 (2), they described this instrumentation in this way: "We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1 kWcm-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution. This has led to a particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings."


    In the section "A Further Simple Method of Investigating the Thermal Balances for the Cells Operating in the Region of the Boiling Point" of their ICCF3 paper, the two authors specified:

    "It will be apparent that for cells operating close to the boiling point, the derived values of Qf and of (k'R)11 become sensitive to the values of the atmospheric pressure (broadly for θcell > 97.5°C e.g., see Fig 9B.) It is therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive evaporation/boiling of the D2O. The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data.

    […]

    As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the boiling point."


    So, provided that the same shape, dimensions and materials of the F&P cells are reproduced quite accurately, it's not at all difficult to replicate the same boil-off phenomena reported in their ICCF3 paper.


    Quote

    But hey, they do not need to because their first test according to 1990 proved the LENR phenomenon.


    Let the Google's people decide which experiment is more suitable for their scope. Anyway, aside many other merits, the 1992 boil-off experiment is the only one which, thanks to the availability of the videos, they can indisputably demonstrate to have correctly replicated.


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

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

  • the 1992 boil-off experiment

    The 1992 boiloff expt is much more difficult, however Dr Michael Staker

    has replicated the F&P experimental results of significant heat

    much in excess of any chemical reaction

    with extensive documentation.


    8688-slater-png


    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    The Mizuno R20 experiment is far more easy to replicate than the electrochemical cells by McKubre, F&P and Staker


    It is being replicated in the near future

  • That is beceause you have not read or understood the whole story.


    F&P managed to get at best "only" one of 8 electrolytic cells to show active LENR.


    So you do NEED to find what cells are active and which is not active before you try more advanced tests like the boil off.


    And the way of finding active cells is to test many parallell cells like 20 off for weeks at temperatures below boiling and identify by excess heat or bursts of heat.


  • It seems to me if you want to succeed, follow successful people. The R20 is so far the most successful (that is publicly documented - not under trade secrets). The early F&P has been "reproduced" many times - always with great difficulty - and more often than not, it is not able to be activated. It all depends on the cathode material, which must have certain qualities that are still as yet unknown.


    30-years in, we are desperate for clean energy. Mizuno will also help replicators, and give detailed information. What more could you ask for? The R20 is the best bet for moving forward in the public domain.


    If a well-funded lab wants to succeed, there are experiencedCMNS scientists to help guide them, telling of the pitfalls, and what won't work. Failure to replicate is due to many reasons, not always because the experiment is wrong. Many variables are still unknown. But 30-years experienced scientists can fill in on many aspects of those variables, whereas the fresh eyes do not have this experience. "Fresh eyes" will take what is known, and start running. But they need to know what is known first, which doesn't happen overnight.