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

  • 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?


    I also agree. But, in the CF/LENR history, these claims are not at all extraordinary. F&P claimed in 1992 to have obtained more than 150 W output from 4 cells in a row, with less than 40 W in input. These are very similar figures, but much more important than Mizuno's, because they were claimed 27 years ago, by the fathers of CF and, most importantly, they are fully documented in videos available to everybody.


    The big problem in replicating Mizuno is that no replication from an independent third party will solve the main dilemma: mistake or novel heat source. The Mizuno's claims are based on numbers which come at the end of a long and complex procedure: preparation of specimen, set-up of the experimental apparatus, running of control and active tests, data-logging, calculation of derived quantities, energy balance and, finally, the claims of excess heat. A possible major mistake could be hidden in any of these steps. If the replication will show no excess heat, CF believers will complain that a mistake was made in the preparation of the specimen, the esperimental system or the testing procedure. Vice versa, if the replication will find some excess heat, CF skeptics will complain that measurements or calculations were wrong. Such independent replication will be in anyway inconclusive.


    Claims such as Mizuno's can be confirmed only by the market. When you'll find Mizuno's heaters (3 kW in output, 1/10 in input) in the stores, you will know that his claims are true. Mizuno does not need the curiosity of an independent third party, he only needs the attention of as many as possible "very interested parties", willing to know as soon as possible if his claims are true in order to make a lot of money by making and selling his devices.


    On the contrary, the same dilemma (mistake or novel heat source) can be easily solved for the "1992 boil-off experiment" of F&P. The availability of the lab videos would allow the Google's replicators to ascertain and demonstrate to have been able to replicate the same physical phenomenon produced by F&P, so that they will finally be able to find out whether the claims of the two CF's pioneers were due to a big mistake or to the actual discovery of a new energy source.

  • 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.


    Let me clarify, Jed. By replication, I mean the following:


    1. Dr. Mizuno and team constructs a reactor as identical as possible to the existing R20.

    2. Dr. Mizuno and team validate that this reactor's behavior is similar or identical to that documented in their paper.

    3. The Mizuno team then gives (or sells) the newly constructed reactor to a team, perhaps one sponsored by Google, which can confirm the results observed by the Mizuno team, with complete independence from that team. If the reactor cannot be moved, it could be developed in a room that is then given over to the independent team, for whatever rent is appropriate.


    I can understand the disinclination of Mizuno and team to repeat the experiment, as opposed to improving upon it. But given the odd situation in which LENR experimenters find themselves with respect to much of the world's physics community, the value of a second copy of the R20, produced by Mizuno but operated independently, would be enormous. Do you disagree?


    Independent replication by groups unrelated to Mizuno's team would be valuable; if one or more such groups are able to replicate similar quantities of excess heat, then any potential confusion will be gone and there would be no need for Mizuno and his group to spend time on replication.


    But if it is true that the Mizuno group is the one most likely to be able to successfully produce a twin of the R20, then I believe their doing that would be a greater service to humanity than any work on improvements.


    As I've stated before, I think it would be appropriate to offer the Mizuno team or anyone else a substantial reward for providing a copy of the R20 which could then be independently confirmed to produce similar amounts of excess heat. I'd be happy to pledge $100 or more (a token amount, I know) and I believe hundreds or thousands of others would also be happy to pledge amounts in that range, if the pledges were only to be collected and transferred upon independent confirmation of the results by an independent team, such as Google. In fact, I'd be honored to have been allowed to participate in that tiny way, and I feel certain that others would feel that way as well.

    • Official Post

    As I've stated before, I think it would be appropriate to offer the Mizuno team or anyone else a substantial reward for providing a copy of the R20 which could then be independently confirmed to produce similar amounts of excess heat. I'd be happy to pledge $100 or more (a token amount, I know) and I believe hundreds or thousands of others would also be happy to pledge amounts in that range, if the pledges were only to be collected and transferred upon independent confirmation of the results by an independent team, such as Google. In fact, I'd be honored to have been allowed to participate in that tiny way, and I feel certain that others would feel that way as well.


    Very generous of you, but for the moment it is best we let things take shape. Mizuno's latest has attracted a lot of attention ranging from garage tinkerers, MFMP, some of the old guard, one large university, at least one investor group, and one large corporation that I am aware of. Just a few credible replications, and they will be throwing money at Mizuno, so we can sit tight for now.


    If no success, then we can go to Plan B.

  • Quote

    The big problem in replicating Mizuno is that no replication from an independent third party will solve the main dilemma: mistake or novel heat source.

    I disagree if the replicator is a clearly competent and experienced researcher with excellent training. Such an experimenter would be very unlikely not to notice a gross error along the way and even less likely to duplicate a large error exactly. I do agree that the work from garage and back yard enthusiasts could yield questionable results but hopefully some folks with the right training and facilities will try a replication. And having done a replication that worked, it would not be a large amount of additional work to redo the experiment with entirely different calorimetry methods, for example the simple and elegant liquid cooled mass flow calorimeter of GSVIT which I have linked in the forum many times. That calorimeter even has the correct general form factor for the Mizuno experiment. If someone can accomplish what Mizuno has in terms of getting the reactor to work properly, they can expand the testing and measurements any way they want.



    Quote

    Claims such as Mizuno's can be confirmed only by the market.

    Complete nonsense. You believe neutrinos are real, right? When was the last time you saw one for sale at a chemical supply house? How can intelligent people believe such a ridiculous idea?

  • Quote

    As I've stated before, I think it would be appropriate to offer the Mizuno team or anyone else a substantial reward for providing a copy of the R20 which could then be independently confirmed to produce similar amounts of excess heat. I'd be happy to pledge $100 or more (a token amount, I know) and I believe hundreds or thousands of others would also be happy to pledge amounts in that range, if the pledges were only to be collected and transferred upon independent confirmation of the results by an independent team, such as Google. In fact, I'd be honored to have been allowed to participate in that tiny way, and I feel certain that others would feel that way as well.

    I didn't ask about it the first time I saw it somewhere around here but didn't Mizuno say he had provided as many as 20 working reactors to others to test... or was he planning to or what? If JedRothwell or Shane D. or someone else knows what I mean, fine. If not, I will have to find it again. What was that about?

  • For me, there is something slightly unreal about the Mizuno R20 reactor information.


    • If those R20 results are correct, and they are so large it is not easy to see how they could be mistaken except through very careless input power measurement error, Mizuno has a working LENR power source, with many months lifetime, and any number of parties would want to test it and if results are positive great things happen.
    • From the above, as far as I can see, Mizuno is open to this, as anyone would expect.
    • Checking that the R20 results are correct does not require 6 months and complex calorimetry. It requires one day, double checks of input power, and a simple "how hot does the reactor get" test in open air against a control.
    • No replication of Mizuno's work can be as effective as independent measurement of the existing reactors. We all know that there are any number of excuses for replications not working when the original does.
    • Positive information from a simple third party test of Mizuno's R20 could be available within 2 weeks of Mizuno releasing the results


    I'd guess that negative results would take a lot longer to emerge: all things that could prevent the stuff working need to be fully checked, etc.


    The R19 info is a bit different. At COP=1.5 bomb-proof calorimetry is quite possible, not very expensive, but requires care. The simplest "sure we have something" test would require two reactors, one control, one R19, with I and V measured equal input power (the heaters could be in series in which case all that is needed is V measured, or parallel with I measured. The two reactors need to have identical size, shape and color - which might be an issue if such are not available. The reactor case temperature when natural convection cooled would be enough to prove significant excess heat. Unlike R20, R19 results from Mizuno's paper could be a combination of errors.


    So: either R19 or R20 could be quickly 3rd party checked, and if it works as it appears from the paper, a positive result would prove LENR (or some other "free energy" source, since mechanism could not easily be determined) beyond doubt.


    We can see from this thread that Mizuno appears to welcome this, and that parties are willing to do it.


    How long do we expect this to take? And, if we do not get these positive results, what does that tell us about calorimetry papers that Jed considers prove LENR?

    • Official Post

    How long do we expect this to take?


    I don't think we have had this many replicators run to the lab since FP's announcement, so I hope to get the initial results back within a month, or two. But I expect those to come from the small time operators, who can get up to speed faster. The big boys (university, one corporation) will take much longer, because negotiations with Mizuno are involved. When done, the wheels for them turn slowly -like a bureaucracy. They have to go back and get final approval, get funding, round up a team, get the right equipment, planning sessions, etc.

  • I disagree if the replicator is a clearly competent and experienced researcher with excellent training. Such an experimenter would be very unlikely not to notice a gross error along the way and even less likely to duplicate a large error exactly. I do agree that the work from garage and back yard enthusiasts could yield questionable results but hopefully some folks with the right training and facilities will try a replication.


    The previous Google study published on Nature shows that, regardless of how "competent and experienced" replicators are, their results will not change the current situation: believers and skeptics will find valid justifications for maintaining their current views.


    However, Mizuno's reactors have all the characteristics of a product ready for the market: the power level (3 kW), the shape, dimension and design (the shiny rod in the fireplace looks really cool) and an adequate IP protection (Mizuno has several patent applications). He just needs to convince one or more companies, with adequate production capability, that his claims are real, so that a massive production of his LENR home heaters can be started as soon as possible and flood the market.


    If Google want to easy this outcome, they could provide a connection between Mizuno and as many as possible industrial parties interested to manufacture his device. Google could start from its many HVAC suppliers, informing them about the Mizuno's reactors, offering them a refund for the mission of their experts to Sapporo and rewarding Mizuno for the time he keep busy in convincing the industrial experts of the reality of his claims. The only condition required by Team Google should be the authorization to publicly disclose the names of the companies involved in these verifications and the date they happened. The appearance of the Mizuno's heaters on the market, or the time elapsed from the verifications without the product appearing on the shelves, will tell the public all there is to know.


    Quote

    Complete nonsense. You believe neutrinos are real, right? When was the last time you saw one for sale at a chemical supply house? How can intelligent people believe such a ridiculous idea?


    This is a wrong analogy. Contrary to Mizuno's heaters, neutrinos have no practical and common application, not even on paper. The scientific interest for neutrinos is more associable to the F&P claims.


    In fact, contrary to Mizuno's, F&P cells have no industrial interest. Even assuming the heat excess claimed for the 1992 boil-off experiment was real, the effect lasted for a few minutes only, so it is not directly exploitable. Moreover, the F&P patents have expired (or withdrawn) and replicators can no more count on the help of the two scientists. Furthermore, this experiment plays a paramount importance in the history of the whole CF/LENR research, including Mizuno's. However, despite the availability of the lab video, there are many doubts – to say the least - about the reality of the excess heat claimed by F&P. All these facts make this experiment the perfect candidate to be subject to a new thorough scientific investigation, which could rise a large interest in the wider scientific community.


    Team Google could take this opportunity to invite some renowned scientific institutions, including those already involved in the previous study published on Nature, to reproduce exactly the same phenomenon shown in the videos of the "1992 boil-off experiment" and provide their own interpretation of what happens in their replicas, in order to find out once and for all what really happened in 1992 in the four F&P's cells.

  • It will take anyone starting from ground zero a month to 2 months to get the basic equipment together, another 2 weeks to clean and degas the reactor. That's assuming they know how to use a QMS and run a high-vacuum system. I would not really expect to see any results until October.


    Alan, as I understand it, M has reactors that work and have been doing so for a long time. Maybe they have been decommissioned and require restarting?


    My comment was about testing a working reactor - not getting one to work...

    • Official Post

    If Google want to easy this outcome, they could provide a connection between Mizuno and as many as possible industrial parties interested to manufacture his device. Google could start from its many HVAC suppliers, informing them about the Mizuno's reactors, offering them a refund for the mission of their experts to Sapporo and rewarding Mizuno for the time he keep busy in convincing the industrial experts of the reality of his claims. The only condition required by Team Google should be the authorization to publicly disclose the names of the companies involved in these verifications and the date they happened. The appearance of the Mizuno's heaters on the market, or the time elapsed from the verifications without the product appearing on the shelves, will tell the public all there is to know.


    That goes way beyond Team Google's mandate of proving LENR exists. First things first, and that means helping them decide on the best experiment to accomplish that.


    That reminds me; do you think the FP's boil-off would be a good candidate? :)

    • Official Post

    I don't think we have had this many replicators run to the lab since FP's announcement, so I hope to get the initial results back within a month, or two.


    @THH. My comment about 'October' was a respose to Shane's post quoted above. Also- while we are talking Mizuno, I suspect most of his old reactors have been running on hydrogen rather than deuterium. They will definitely take a lot of cleaning.

  • That goes way beyond Team Google's mandate of proving LENR exists. First things first, and that means helping them decide on the best experiment to accomplish that.


    Leaving aside that facilitating the appearance of LENR devices on store shelves would be the best way of proving LENR exists, I was just replying to SoT and my comment began with an "if". Actually I'm not interested in the Mizuno claims and, for what I read till now, the best explanation of the published results is the presence of big errors in data logging and/or subsequent calculations.


    Quote

    That reminds me; do you think the FP's boil-off would be a good candidate?


    IMO, the "1992 boil-off experiment" is the ONLY possible candidate to be replicated for the reasons I've already explained in my first post to this thread (*), provided that Team Google's mandate is to solve the "cold case of cold fusion" as written in the title of their article on Nature (1).


    If instead Google's intent is "to fund a multi-institutional collaborative effort that would work quietly […] to look into the materials science, electrochemistry, and physics surrounding this topic" (2) for the years or decades to come, well, understanding and publicly revealing what happened in the "1992 boil-off experiment" would not be the best choice.


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

    (1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6

    (2) https://news.mit.edu/2019/3q-y…-case-of-cold-fusion-0527

    • Official Post

    Google wants this brought to a conclusion. We have 2 weeks to get the job done. I have been letting it simmer, with a 2-3 month deadline in mind. Now it is time to get serious, and bring it all together to form a consensus around 2-3 of the best.


    I need our skilled researchers here to engage...All of you. No more boil-offs, EVO's, Rossi, no basic research, just your qualified opinion about what experiment gives them the best chance to prove LENR. Re-read the ICCF21 presentations, the last MIT Colloquium to refresh yourselves as to what may have been missed. If any of you in the old guard wish to send me a private message with your suggestion, then contact me via the "Conversation" feature. I would like SERGEI to list his best Russian experiment to add to the list.


    Please do not include Mizuno as a selection. Reason being, we will not have solid results from credible replicators for months, and that is too late. If something pops sooner, Google will see it and take it into consideration. So let us not get bogged down on an unknown, and stick to the knowns. So far, I think this is what we have:


    1. Takahashi's group
    2. Forsley/Mossier-Boss

    3. Staker

    4. Storms

    5. Celani


    I would like to remind you of how important this is. If successful, Team Google is LENR's ticket to the mainstream, and acceptability. This is your chance to be part of the planning process, and hopefully the history books for having played a role.


  • Please add: Letts / Cravens dual laser experiment.


    Reason: It had shown a strong, not easily mistakeable, effect as well as some solid theoretical support. According to Peter Hagelstein, 2 out of 3 heterodyne frequencies with the strongest effects obtained, were corresponding to known optical phonon modes of the lattice under test.


    At least consider asking the authors and Prof. Hagelstein for more detailed information.