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

  • 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.

    OK - so this is getting way off topic. If, on another thread perhaps, you were to list one of these Nature rejected papers (in the last 3 years say) I could point out why it was rejected and how it could be improved. Earlier papers fine too - but remember if you go back too far the context is different, and it would not be possible to make the argument that google did and be published on that basis.


  • 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.

    I found nothing of what you are saying, neither in the "F&P Seminal paper of 1990" cited in your previous comment, nor in the 1992 paper reporting the boil-off experiment.

    The available documentation shows instead that it was not so difficult to onset a "positive feedback" regime, that is the major factor which drove the F&P cells to boil dry.

    On April 11, 1992, just a few weeks after the starting of the IMRA lab in France, the test apparatus for the boil-off experiment was ready to be switched on and the 4 electrolytic cells were driven to boil dry in a perfect sequence one after another: a 4 over 4 score. It was a mythical success, whose fame lasted for decades in the LENR community. A 2009 article described this historic event in this way (1): "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." (bold added, here and below)

    The phenomenon that F&P achieved in their cells was called "positive feedback", since the publication of their ICCF3 paper (2). They said: "The fact that (Qf)2 > (Qf)4 as well as other features of the experiments, shows that there is an element of "positive feedback" between the increase of temperature and the rate of generation of excess enthalpy. […] this feedback has been a major factor in the choice of our calorimetric method and especially in the choice of our experimental protocols. […] we take advantage of the "positive feedback" between the temperature and the rate of excess enthalpy generation to drive the cells to the boiling point, Fig 6."

    F&P were even more explicit in pointing out the crucial importance of this phenomenon in their answer to the Morrison's criticisms the next year (3): "(vii) We observe here that if we had followed the advice to use isothermal calorimetry for the main part of our work, then we would have been unable to take advantage of the "positive feedback" to drive the system into regions of high excess enthalpy generation (perhaps, stated more exactly, we would not have found that there is such positive feedback). The fact that there is such feedback was pointed out by Michael McKubre at the Third Annual Conference of Cold Fusion and strongly endorsed by one of us (M.F.). As this issue had then been raised in public, we have felt free to comment on this point in our papers (although we have previously drawn attention to this fact in private discussions) "

    So, this "positive feedback" is the real phenomenon which characterizes the F&P effect and that is worth to be replicated by Team Google.

    The exterior manifestations of this phenomenon are very clear and evident. In 1995, at ICCF5, MF presented a paper (4) specifically devoted to discuss this phenomenon, in which we can read: "the rapid increases in temperature towards the boiling point are only achieved following the detection of "positive feedback" […] the cells are "driven to dryness" in relatively short periods of time".

    The second footnote of this ICCF5 paper reveals also the early and crucial importance of this phenomenon in the F&P research activity on CF: "2 We obtained the first evidence for the presence of "positive feedback" during 1986, a phenomenon which we later described under the euphemistic heading "uncontrolled releases of thermal energy". Our subsequent work has been carried out under narrowly and tightly controlled conditions to limit the consequences of these effects."

    The conclusion of the above paper provides the following hypothesis as a possible primary cause which lead to the onset of positive feedback: "Prolonged polarization of cells containing Pd-based cathodes leads to "positive feedback", which can be attributed (at least in part) to a change from exothermic to endothermic absorption with increasing charging ratio. Increase of the cell temperature then leads to marked increases in the rates of excess enthalpy generation and enthalpy generation at the boiling point can be achieved."

    The next year, at ICCF6, Lonchampt presented the results of his triennial activity aimed at replicating the F&P boil-off experiment (5). He was successful in replicating the exterior manifestations of the "positive feedback", i.e. the rapid increase of cell overvoltage - that he called "voltage burst" - coupled with a rapid increase of cell temperature toward the boiling point, which drove the cells to dryness in a relatively short period of time. He was so successful, that the exteriors manifestations of this phenomenon is documented also on Figs. 3a and 3b, which refer to a calibration run with a platinum cathode!

    Lonchampt also discussed the primary causes of this behavior. In section 4 ("Basic phenomena occurring during electrolysis") he tied the "overvoltage at the cathode" with the "Increase of D loading in Pd" and finally with the "Excess heat generation". However on page 7, he provides another possible explanation of the phenomenon: "In all of our experiments showing excess heat at boiling, we have observed a sudden jump in power input towards the end of the experiment indicating a sudden change in the overvoltage. This might be due to the formation of a water gas film at the surface of the cathode when large quantities of heat are produced, either by electrical heating or possibly by the excess enthalpy itself."

    This last mechanism, which is much more conventional than those involving the D loading in the Pd cathode, seems to better explain the behavior of the curves shown in the already cited Figs. 3a and 3b, in which the cells were rapidly driven to boil condition and to dryness, even when there was no Pd in the cathode.

    So, a further very important reason for Team Google to replicate this crucial experiment is to better understand the real causes which triggered the "positive feedback" phenomenon documented in the many transient curves published by F&P and Lonchampt.






  • you still dont get it ?

    If F&P effect was easy to replicate it would no longer be a mystery.

    To my memory the best they achieved was 1 of 8 cells indicating LENR. But you will find info on this if you bother to investigate a litle are stop being lazy.

    So again: Many parallell F&P Runs must be set up for any hope of one or a few to show excess heat Events. And you would of course start with the easy tests of electrolysis Below Boiling to identify these.

    That is why I suggested the SPAWAR co deposition tests a better option for google , which had a higer rate of success.…_Fleischmann-_Pons_Effect

  • From the Lonchampt paper:

    Since the beginning of our experiments, in 1993, 18 runs have been carried out. Only five of them have produced excess heat, with high purity palladium cathodes.

    Yes, I know. But "excess heat" is not the phenomenon I'm talking about and which I'm suggesting to replicate. I'm suggesting to replicate the "positive feedback" phenomena, which is documented by the diagrams and videos of the "1992 boil-off experiment" carried out by F&P, as well as in all the graphs and data contained in the 1996 Lonchampt paper.

    In particular, the Lonchampt paper shows that the temperature and voltage curves in Figs. 3a/b (Calibration experiment with platinum cathode) are comparable with those in Figs. 4a/b and 5a/b (with palladium cathode). It means that Lonchampt reproduced the same "positive feedback" phenomenon in all of these 3 experiments, independently from the material of the cathode. On the contrary, the claimed "excess heat" comes from the author's interpretation of the experimental results, it is not necessarily an intrinsic feature of the phenomena that he produced in his cells.

    You can have a better confirmation of this fact, by looking at Table 2 and comparing each others the respective numbers for the first two experiments: an active run and a calibration test. Aside those reported on the last 3 columns, which were obtained by difference, all the other pairs of numbers are almost the same. In particular the two experiments have the same amount of "Enthalpy used for total vaporization". It means that also the second experiment (with a Pt cathode) led to the complete dryness of the cell. It's also worth to compare the "Enthalpy losses (to bath water)". Their very similar values indicate that the durations of the respective boil-off phases were nearly the same. Actually, the boil-off phase of the calibration test was even slightly faster than the active run!

    What I'm suggesting to the Team Google is to replicate the visible manifestations of the "positive feedback" phenomenon produced in the "1992 boil-off experiment" and to provide their own interpretation of the energy balance, on the basis of a better set of measurements obtained by equipping the same identical experimental set-up with supplementary instrumentation. In particular, they should add a device which measures the cell mass, so that they can exactly and continuously deduce the evaporation rate during the boil-off phase.

    As I've better explained in a previous comment (*), each experiment can be subdivided in 3 steps: setting-up, running and interpretation. The Team Google should comply with the first two, only. They should accurately reproduce the experimental set-up, carefully replicate the test running, but they are not required to repeat the same interpretation of the data, including the finding of any heat in excess with respect to the amount of the input power, otherwise they risk to repeat the same possible errors. This last step of the experiment should be carried out by the Google experts independently from the conclusions of the authors of the original test. At the end, they should publish their own interpretation of the experimental findings.

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

  • Wrong.

    "Positive feedback" would only be relevant for the cells that have been first identified as having active LENR, in accordance with my procedure above.

  • If F&P effect was easy to replicate it would no longer be a mystery.

    It depends on what you mean with "F&P effect". If it is intended as the exterior manifestations visible in the videos documenting the "1992 boil-off experiment", it is very easy to replicate and this same effect was replicated on a regular basis by Lonchampt and by the NHE researchers.

    If you include the interpretations of these manifestations, the calculation of a tentative heat balance and the proclamation of some alleged heat in excess of the input power plus noise, well, this happened only for a few of the Lonchampt attempts. However this last part of the experimental procedure is prone to incorporate errors due to the subjective misinterpretation of phenomena or miscalculations of data. So, including it in the Google replication is not so much useful for solving the CF mystery.

    IMO, in order to remove these last sources of possible errors, any attempt to replicate a CF test should be limited to the reproduction of the exterior manifestations of the claimed physical phenomena. And the only CF experiment which allows to objectively ascertain that these manifestations have been correctly reproduced is the "1992 boil-off experiment".


    To my memory the best they achieved was 1 of 8 cells indicating LENR. But you will find info on this if you bother to investigate a litle are stop being lazy.

    Assuming your memory is correct, this score would be compatible with the rate of occurrence of some inadvertent error which could occur during the interpretative phase of the experiment.


    So again: Many parallell F&P Runs must be set up for any hope of one or a few to show excess heat Events. And you would of course start with the easy tests of electrolysis Below Boiling to identify these.

    That is why I suggested the SPAWAR co deposition tests a better option for google , which had a higer rate of success.

    This is a legitimate suggestion to be submitted to the Team Google.

    This thread was intended as a direct channel between the L-F members and the Google's people responsible for choosing the next CF tests to be replicated. I wish you they will take notice of the reasons of your proposal, as they hopefully will do with those of mine.

  • Perhaps the LENR community could decide, precisely, which F&P style experiments are replicable and how they can be replicated? There does seem common agreement that positive LENR effects are genuinely replicable.

    The variability here will not help the google guys.

    For example: if an electrolysis experiment needs 10 cells to be tested of which on average 1 or 2 actually show excess heat, that must be understood by those replicating but it is fine.

    Ascoli is right to warn that low success rates leave open the possibility of some error that induces the apparent success. But that is not a problem in a replication with good methodology where this is expected. For example, pre-screening could be done for active cells, followed by rigorous tests.

    If however the situation is that the best LENR experiments, when replicated, may not generate anomalous results, even after best efforts to get this and multiple cells tested with best material selection and preparation, that is a problem.

    I think it would be helpful to give google an explanation of why (perhaps) their tests so far have failed and a proscription for what needs to be done. Also helpful to find whether they have tested enough cells to deal with the 1 in 10 issue.

    If high D loading is the key issue (I note that this is not universally agreed, though many think it) they should be told what methodology attains high loading. If they follow this to the letter and do not get it can i suggest that it may be that those who have claimed high D loading have in fcat suffered from the same mistakes that google identify in their paper? Perhaps google's attempts are as good as the best in the field so far. Anyway, this is one question that surely can be answered and should be answered for the google work to have significance for the LENR community.


  • There are many criterias to be fulfilled for F&P type LENR, many identified, and some criterias not yet fully identified and understood. That is why the sucessrate was low.

    But again, to my knowledge the SPAWAR co-deposition studies gave better LENR reproducibility than F&P style and if google havent tried this allready, they absolutely should.

  • For example: if an electrolysis experiment needs 10 cells to be tested of which on average 1 or 2 actually show excess heat, that must be understood by those replicating but it is fine.

    Actually, it does not say that anywhere. Evidently you have not read the literature. It might work in 1 in 10 times, or it might be 1 in 100 (see Storms). You have to test the cathodes carefully with the procedures described by Fleischmann, Storms and Cravens. You have to understand what kind of cathodes are needed and how to identify them. Once you do that, they nearly all work, if you are skilled in the art. (If you are not skilled in the art of electrochemistry, it will never work.) You can also fabricate them to work, the way they did at the ENEA. Just declaring "1 or 2 out of 10" are likely to work is nonsense.

    This must be understood by those replicating. It is not understood by you or Ascoli, who claims "it is very easy to replicate and this same effect was replicated on a regular basis by Lonchampt and by the NHE researchers." It is very hard to replicate, and his statement is grotesque ignorance.

  • This would be good, except Iraj Parchamazad was an expert in zeolites and is no longer active in the field. He did not get funding and lost his lab. I believe he is completely retired from research now. You would have to know the skills to load the palladium correctly using this method. It's not an easy task.

    Mizuno is better than this one, because Mizuno is available to help you.

  • This must be understood by those replicating. It is not understood by you or Ascoli, who claims "it is very easy to replicate and this same effect was replicated on a regular basis by Lonchampt and by the NHE researchers." It is very hard to replicate, and his statement is grotesque ignorance.

    The phenomenon which drives a F&P type cell to boiling and complete dryness was replicated by Lonchampt even when his cell was equipped with platinum wires, as shown in his 1996 paper to ICCF6 (*).

    The Google's experts will be for sure able to replicate the same phenomenon, if they will be asked to do that.

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

  • Quote

    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.

    Paranoid nonsense, IMO. Whether any reputable main line journal publishes a report of Mizuno kilowatt replication depends on who did it and what they reported. But why does it matter? If Mizuno has what he claims, it will be only a short time before a wealthy investor and/or entrepreneur takes it up and develops it, first for spectacular demonstrations and a fairly short (a few years) time after that for practical products. Nature is a straw man. As to why it was difficult or impossible to publish many earlier works that JedRothwell claims were determinative, that's because reviewers and editorial boards found them less than suitable for publication. I suspect this was because of their technical features and not from bias or prejudice. Although one gets tired of seeing the same low value claims again and again. And after knowledgeable reviewers turn down ten similar ones, an editor could understandably become reluctant to submit an eleventh from the same sources and similar content. What I like to call the "usual suspects."

    What distinguishes Mizuno's experiments are the high power and power ratio levels and seemingly good calibrations. I wouldn't urge Mizuno and Jed to submit a paper to Nature or Science just yet. But if a major test lab replicates the results, there would be no problem, no matter what Jed thinks of the chances. And if enough quality research scientist, at several different institutions, get similar results, that will also lead to several publications. I don't now the effect of amateur or back yard replications but though they will be interesting, I suspect they will not do the trick.

  • and for electrochemical cells

    I am sure that Dr Michael Staker is available to help

    within his busy academic schedule

    Scout's honour

    I take that to mean he agrees to work with Team Google (TG) if asked. Thanks.

    I do not know what TG feels about this, bu IMO it would be very important the authors be accessible. That is why I wonder about Mizuno. Word we have is that he has gotten very busy with visit requests from interested parties, while also planning a more comprehensive test with a major institution. Would he, or Rothwell have the time to help?

  • THH wrote something here (How do you convince a skeptic?) that Robert Bryant quoted here (Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"). RB’s quotation is prefaced by “not like this”, indicating that he disbelieves what THH wrote. RB should reconsider. So should Team Google.

    My comments below in normal text responding to what Robert Bryant (RB) quoted (italicized comments, his emphasis):

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

    ‘Grand name’? An emotionally-loaded term. How about ‘acronym’ (for Calibration Constant Shift, the full, descriptive term).

    (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%.

    No, it was obviously not obvious since no one ever (to date!) takes this into account. Instead, any positive excursion in the apparent excess energy curve is taken as ‘proof’ of LENR, and whether it is encompassed by an error such as described is never, ever discussed (to date).

    In fact, after 20 years of harping on this, how much error analysis do we see in the new, great result from Mizuno? Zip.

    (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?

    Yes, there is that matter. I published one possibility that seemed to work and that had the additional advantage of explaining (predicting) other observed experimental effects. I always said the mechanism was postulated. BTW, it should ‘sound familiar’ because if it didn’t, it would be disqualified as a viable explanative mechanism.

    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.

    Your wording is accurate. It should be read with a sense of correctness, not questioning. If ATER occurs in a real, non-homogeneous calorimeter (the ‘certain type’, NOT just ‘mass flow’ or ‘Seebeck)’, it can cause a CCS. Note that it can also happen in open cells.

    (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".

    Lower than 1% is _extremely_ difficult to achieve. Tough, really tough, to get better than that. The ‘other LENR authors’ never demonstrated that they checked for a CCS. Some of them made noises like the had made attempts at this, but failed to establish that what they did was an actual test of the 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.

    Agreed. A quantitative error analysis should do that.

    (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.

    Sounds fine.

    (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.

    Marwan, et. al, never ruled out CCSs. They ruled out randomness in the results, which I basically agree with (within limits, there is residual error, probably random). They then mistakenly said my CCS/ATER proposal was fundamentally random. It isn’t. They are wrong.

    (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.

    No disagreement.

    (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

    Absolutely. The CCS/ATER explanation has limitations. Anything outside those limits must be something else.

    (perhaps because the come from a 99% efficient calorimeter and show excess heat above errors of >> 1%).

    >>1% is not a good enough criterion. The results have to be greater than that obtained from 100% internal recombination at the electrode as magnified by the calibration process (said magnification being minimized by high heat capture efficiency).

    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.

    Possibly. There is always the possibility of other errors, even while another is occurring. Reproducibility in detail is the final proof.

    (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.

    What I _proved_ is that a proposed 780mW excess heat signal was potentially the product of a +/2-3% (3-sigma) change in calibration. That error level occurs in very good, high-quality techniques, and thus is not unexpected. IOW, the 780mW is the noise level. The baseline noise of the calorimeter is not the whole error level.

    What I _suggested_ is a mechanical theory as to how that would work, and a chemical mechanism that fit the mechanical theory. 3 levels: math, mechanics, chemistry. The math is certain, the mechanics is highly reasonable, the chemistry is reasonable but unproven.

    Even if CCS does exist it would be surprising for it to apply in all cases.

    Why? All the researchers are essentially trying the same thing. I’d expect the same error to arise in that case. Your doubt is unjustified.

    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.

    To the Google team: Whatever you do, evaluate your error quantitatively and correctly.