Carl Page lecture MIT 2019
Around 9:30 he talks about LENR.
Fran Tanzella interview MIT 2019
Robert Duncan MIT 2019
Lawrence Forsley interview
Professor Iwamura Yasuhiro interview MIT 2019
Peter Hagelstein lecture MIT 2019
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
all very compact?
Display MoreTHH 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.
Certainly.
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.
One area where I agree with Kirk is the importance of error bounding. Anyone claiming extraordinary results ought to have watertight error bounds. For example, Mizuno could bound the errors in his absolute estimation of heat output, or he could bound all the effects that might make some difference between control and active run data with reasons for the bounds. That process enforces discipline, makes you think about methodology and what are all the differences. It can be challenged.
From my POV, given positive results like those Mizuno describes, the discussion, led by him, should be one of what are the various errors, how can we bound each one and under what circumstances.
Error estimation is extremely difficult and i would not expect it in most cases. Error bounding is however quite possible, and necessary. It forces you to make explicit and quantitative the assumptions on which your results rest. It can be done even if the experiment is just heating up two reactors next to each other on a bench and seeing which gets hotter.
Because it does not exist, in Mizuno's paper for example, we then have 60 pages of weird discussion trying to work out what are the possible error mechanisms relevant to those results.
I'm sure the google team would do this. I'd hope that all modern LENR researchers would do it. Some do, but only partially. They identify some of the errors, and bound them, but not all. However, that is what peer review is for and if the LENR community did this it would happen more.
Mizuno's paper for example, we then have 60 pages of weird discussion trying to work out what are the possible error mechanisms relevant to those results.
weird ....? as in finding errors such as
- 64% error in the velocity traverse for airflow ..when velocity traverses have been done for many decades Mizuno reports increased excess heat
Mizuno reports increased excess heat
- turbulent flow does not have a flat velocity profile
- HUGE combustion energy from a miniscule 3mg of deuterium
- 80C temperature for the insulation surface temperature
education of those with poor knowledge of basic stuff is not weird.
.
its boring.
It is quite true I got laminar/turbulent the wrong way round
Can we all agree, including kirkshanahan hopefully, that a device which has a 50W input and a 250W output when a comparable blank/control device has the expected 50W out- can we agree that such a result would not be negated by any type of conceivable calibration shift? That, of course, is the performance level claimed by Mizuno. If we agree on this, then we are back to concluding that Mizuno has some sort of stupendous mistake (like a decimal point error) or dishonesty or the only alternative conclusion is that Mizuno has invented a novel "anomalous" heat source, no? Are there other options?
QuoteFrom my POV, given positive results like those Mizuno describes, the discussion, led by him, should be one of what are the various errors, how can we bound each one and under what circumstances
Sure but with a power ratio of 5:1 starting at 50W in, he would be looking for a gargantuan Paul Bunyan sized error, wouldn't he? It wouldn't be any sort of subtle mistake, noise or ordinary calibration issue. The claim is a healthy power in and an f'n 500% power gain!
gargantuan Paul Bunyan sized error
THHnew has tried his best for a respectable portion of the
60 pages of weird discussion
but has found nothing sizeable
..THHnew still offers up 20% somewhere... hard to figure out where exactly
we are looking for at least 200% error to dismiss the results
Can we all agree, including kirkshanahan hopefully, that a device which has a 50W input and a 250W output when a comparable blank/control device has the expected 50W out- can we agree that such a result would not be negated by any type of conceivable calibration shift? That, of course, is the performance level claimed by Mizuno. If we agree on this, then we are back to concluding that Mizuno has some sort of stupendous mistake (like a decimal point error) or dishonesty or the only alternative conclusion is that Mizuno has invented a novel "anomalous" heat source, no? Are there other options?
Sure but with a power ratio of 5:1 starting at 50W in, he would be looking for a gargantuan Paul Bunyan sized error, wouldn't he? It wouldn't be any sort of subtle mistake, noise or ordinary calibration issue. The claim is a healthy power in and an f'n 500% power gain!
My best bet for a possible genuine mistake that might explain the sample R20 measurement using old heater resistance and measured voltage from PSU to determine heater power on R20. It is the sort of thing that can happen - where you change one variable and forget to propagate it through all the calculations that use it. It fits what is said, and we have no information that input power was measured directly in the R20 active test. Remember that the R20 active result comes from a different reactor, with different heater, perhaps driven in a different way (we do not know). Previous columns in spreadsheets have conflated calculated with measured anenometer data - so we'd need explicit confirmation from Mizuno to rule this out.
In addition, circumstantial, the stated heater element has rating up to 500W and a 100V 500W PSU would be enough to supply this.
Display MoreTHHnew has tried his best for a respectable portion of the
but has found nothing sizeable
..THHnew still offers up 20% somewhere... hard to figure out where exactly
we are looking for at least 200% error to dismiss the results
See my comment on the correct thread, and also above where I answer SOT re R20.
It is not hard to figure out where if you keep a level head and look carefully at all the info.
Display MoreTHHnew has tried his best for a respectable portion of the
but has found nothing sizeable
..THHnew still offers up 20% somewhere... hard to figure out where exactly
we are looking for at least 200% error to dismiss the results
See my comment on the correct thread, and also above where I answer SOT re R20.
It is not hard to figure out where if you keep a level head and look carefully at all the info.
I'd just want to correct the language here. Looking very carefully at the Mizuno results and asking how these can be error bounded is not dismissing them. In fact it is respecting them, taking them seriously. And if the error bounds no longer make surprising excess heat proven, that analysis still does not negate the results. It shows the authors what work they need to do to tighten up the error bounds.
Dismissing the results would be to look at headline figures without proper analysis of what they mean, or ignoring them because they are surprising.
Dismissing the results would be to look at headline figures without proper analysis of what they mean, or ignoring them because they are surprising.
THHnew has tried very hard with poor skills to show major errors.
and has contributed much to what he calls "60 pages of weird discussion"
He cannot show 20% error by calculation ... let alone 200%
but has plenty of words.(language)
Can we all agree, including kirkshanahan hopefully, that a device which has a 50W input and a 250W output when a comparable blank/control device has the expected 50W out- can we agree that such a result would not be negated by any type of conceivable calibration shift? That, of course, is the performance level claimed by Mizuno. If we agree on this, then we are back to concluding that Mizuno has some sort of stupendous mistake (like a decimal point error) or dishonesty or the only alternative conclusion is that Mizuno has invented a novel "anomalous" heat source, no? Are there other options?
This is precisely why Dr. Mizuno, as a matter of course, should replicate his experiment himself assuming he has the means to do so, and why Google, unless it is completely convinced that the result is fraudulent, should ensure he has the means to do so. He has results which, if replicated for impartial observers, would eliminate any legitimate controversy.
Let me lay out the basic points:
1. If excess heat can be generated by Dr. Mizuno's materials and at the rate he asserts, the impact on humanity would be overwhelming.
2. As the impact on humanity would be overwhelming, it would mean lifetime fame, wealth, and awards for Dr. Mizuno.
3. Most scientists dream of having an overwhelmingly positive impact on humanity, or at least of having fame, wealth and awards.
4. Therefore, a scientist with extraordinary results would want these results to be broadly acknowledged.
5. The path to such acknowledgement is replication in a manner open to the observation and inspection of impartial observers.
6. The person with the greatest likelihood of replication is Dr. Mizuno himself.
There is a fairly small set of reasons why Dr. Mizuno might not be conducting the replication himself. Perhaps he lacks the resources to replicate. Perhaps he is unwilling to divert his time to repeat things he's already done. Perhaps -- and I am not alleging this, I am only listing it -- he knows his results cannot be replicated. Perhaps -- and I am also not alleging this, but trying to be thorough -- he has been given cause to fear for his safety if he replicates.
If the problem is his lack of resources, Google or any medium-sized company or philanthropist could easily eliminate that problem.
If the problem is unwillingness to repeat himself, perhaps the benefits he would accrue on successful replication could be made apparent -- Google could certainly make that clear by offering a substantial award upon delivery of a successful reactor. If the problem is fear for his safety, Google could mitigate that issue.
If the problem is that he knows his results cannot be replicated, then solving the other issues above should make that apparent.
But to release a paper picturing a device which, with an electrical input in the hundreds of watts, is claimed to have heated a house which would require thousands of watts to generate sufficient heat via electric means is to assert that one has solved the largest technological problem facing humanity today, and it seems -- doesn't it?! -- like anyone with such a contribution already made would do everything in their power to see their contribution come to fruition.
I completely agree with mjtrac above. Sorry if this is in the wrong string and fine if someone wants to move it and the related posts to the other string. As for THHuxleynew 's comments about heater power, surely Mizuno knows how to measure Joule heat. Maybe JedRothwell can remind us how the heater power was determined for the experimental reactor and for the control ...
Display MoreTHHnew has tried very hard with poor skills to show major errors.
and has contributed much to what he calls "60 pages of weird discussion"
He cannot show 20% error by calculation ... let alone 200%
but has plenty of words.(language)
RB has puffed and strutted and inserted much personal diatribe where it should be just discussion on numbers and science.
THH is simply stating that all things should be taken under scrutiny and examined very closely, especially since the claims are extraordinary.
RB... what "techinal content" does the above have! 
That is what your typical statement! It is clear you are simply personalizing and have attached yourself to this project and cannot help yourself but be juvenile.
So here goes the wager..... what are YOU going to say, when 3 months from now, there is no replication showing positive results? I forecast that you will say something along the lines of "well.... we have not replicated yet... but THH is STILL wrong!" I should save this post to see what happens.
Over the past 11 years, I have seen many people boast, prod and give juvenile taunts to other who do not take line, hook and sinker of their current "pet project".
There was one here just a year ago that was going to bring the "fossil fuel age" to an end withing months. Where are we now? I seem to believe that you were flag waiving it along that time. What will you be doing 6 months from now on this project? More of the same I imagine.
I sincerely hope that Mizuno is correct. I believe that THH hopes that as well. We all should. But that hope does not blind some or make them act juvenile. Perhaps you should reconsider your taunting. It is neither professional nor complimentary to you at all. It is the manner of a spoiled child. SInce you often quote, perhaps you should review these James 1:26 , Ephesians 4:29, Proverbs 15:1, Proverbs 21:23, 
Display MoreThis is precisely why Dr. Mizuno, as a matter of course, should replicate his experiment himself assuming he has the means to do so, and why Google, unless it is completely convinced that the result is fraudulent, should ensure he has the means to do so. He has results which, if replicated for impartial observers, would eliminate any legitimate controversy.
Let me lay out the basic points:
1. If excess heat can be generated by Dr. Mizuno's materials and at the rate he asserts, the impact on humanity would be overwhelming.
2. As the impact on humanity would be overwhelming, it would mean lifetime fame, wealth, and awards for Dr. Mizuno.
3. Most scientists dream of having an overwhelmingly positive impact on humanity, or at least of having fame, wealth and awards.
4. Therefore, a scientist with extraordinary results would want these results to be broadly acknowledged.
5. The path to such acknowledgement is replication in a manner open to the observation and inspection of impartial observers.
6. The person with the greatest likelihood of replication is Dr. Mizuno himself.
There is a fairly small set of reasons why Dr. Mizuno might not be conducting the replication himself. Perhaps he lacks the resources to replicate. Perhaps he is unwilling to divert his time to repeat things he's already done. Perhaps -- and I am not alleging this, I am only listing it -- he knows his results cannot be replicated. Perhaps -- and I am also not alleging this, but trying to be thorough -- he has been given cause to fear for his safety if he replicates.
If the problem is his lack of resources, Google or any medium-sized company or philanthropist could easily eliminate that problem.
If the problem is unwillingness to repeat himself, perhaps the benefits he would accrue on successful replication could be made apparent -- Google could certainly make that clear by offering a substantial award upon delivery of a successful reactor. If the problem is fear for his safety, Google could mitigate that issue.
If the problem is that he knows his results cannot be replicated, then solving the other issues above should make that apparent.
But to release a paper picturing a device which, with an electrical input in the hundreds of watts, is claimed to have heated a house which would require thousands of watts to generate sufficient heat via electric means is to assert that one has solved the largest technological problem facing humanity today, and it seems -- doesn't it?! -- like anyone with such a contribution already made would do everything in their power to see their contribution come to fruition.
Have you read Ruby's new article on Mizuno? If not, it may answer some of your questions. Mizuno update by CFN/LF Journalist Ruby Carat
This is precisely why Dr. Mizuno, as a matter of course, should replicate his experiment himself assuming he has the means to do so,
What does that mean? A researcher cannot "replicate" himself. He can repeat the experiment, or improve it. Mizuno has been doing that for years.
In research "replication" generally means someone else does it.
THH is simply stating that all things should be taken under scrutiny and examined very closely, especially since the claims are extraordinary.
No, THH has been posting endless impossible upside down and backwards nonsense. He claims that it traversed tests that comes within 3 mm of the walls does not prove the fluid is well mixed. He claims that a few milligrams of material might produce ~40 W for 111 days. He claims that macroscopic condensed droplets of water can become invisible and move against gravity, and this process this magically cancels the conservation of energy because the energy needed to vaporize them disappears. His claims sound impressive thanks to jargon and obscurity, but when you restate them in understandable terms you see that everything he has said and all of his contributions have been egregious nonsense.
Also, these claims are no more extraordinary than any other cold fusion claims. They are quite ordinary once you are familiar with the field. "Extraordinary" is a state of mind in the observer, not something inherent in the experiment. Even if we grant this is extraordinary, just because claims are extraordinary does not mean they need to be examined in some special way. All claims, ordinary or extraordinary, should be held to the same standards of rigor.
