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

Forsley-MosierBoss because:

Their setup seems well described.

They claim lots of confirmatory results: excess heat, transmutations, particle ejections, and tritium production.

Co-deposition produces high H loadings easily, apparently.

Worries about reproducing electrode grain structures and surface finish are made irrelevent.

Takahasi, because it seems to have been successfully replicated already.

Quote

“I rented and sold 12 CF furnaces to Japan and overseas. They are collecting data and having a lot of data, I am going to announce the data.”

I hope this is true but reading it made me queasy about Mizuno's state of mind. It would help a lot if he would name at least one prominent individual or corporation who has a reactor and who will admit to it.

The problem I have with the entire story is how over the top it is and the above puts it even more over the top. It really trips my skeptical trigger. I hope it will be put up or shut up time pretty soon.

Quote from Zeus46

Takahasi, because it seems to have been successfully replicated already.

You cannot replicate this without Takahashi's cooperation. The exact composition of the material is secret. I do not think he and the others doing this are willing to cooperate with the Google group. The Ames Laboratory material might work, if they are willing to make more.

Quote from Shane D.

I hope you are wrong. Takahashi's team made it a point to advertise they are there to offer their assistance if asked.

It wouldn't hurt anything to ask them. However, their recent paper said they would describe the composition "at a later date." They have been saying that for years. People who ask them for help or for samples have been brushed off. Perhaps things have changed, but that how it was at ICCF21. On the other hand Brian Ahern and the people at Ames lab seem to know how to make similar material. Perhaps they are willing to make more. Ask them.

Not including Mizuno on this list seems silly to me, for the reason I gave earlier. What is the point of limiting replications to experiments that have already been replicated? They don't need to be replicated. Replicating them again will probably not contribute much. The point of doing science is to make discoveries or to replicate them, not to replicate previous replications. You might as well replicate Newton's experiments.

Granted, some of the experiments on the list have not been replicated very adequately. You can always do a better job. But is there any point to doing a better job? It seems to me it would be a lot more useful to replicate Mizuno's experiment than any other at this stage.

However, I have no strong feelings about this, because some competent people are already trying to replicate. Also, because I do not know whether the Google people are competent or not. I cannot tell from their paper in Nature. It did not describe the experiments in enough detail for me to judge. I believe they did not achieve high enough loading to produce heat in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. They did not consult with Storms, Cravens or Miles, who described the techniques. I do not know whether they consulted with the people at the ENEA who also understand how to load. I have no idea whether they read the literature or took the recommended steps to ensure high loading and other essential parameters are met.

It seems unlikely, but perhaps they never even read the literature. I have heard of multi-million dollar projects where the people in charge never read the literature or consulted with anyone. These programs failed. If the Google people are as incompetent as these earlier program directors, they too will fail, and there is no point to having them try to replicate Takahashi, Mizuno, or anyone else. As I said, I have no idea what they read or what they know. All I know for sure is that they did not consult with some of the leading experts, which seems like a stupid thing to do. If you are going to spends millions of dollars and years of effort, you should first do all you can to learn about the subject from every expert you can find. Perhaps they consulted with other experts I am not acquainted with.

Frankly, I am not interested in secret experiments. So far, the people at Texas Tech have revealed nothing, and the people at Google revealed practically nothing in the Nature paper. I wonder if either group intends to publish extensive details so that others can judge. If not, frankly, I don't care what they do, and I have no advice for them other than the obvious advice they could get from the McKubre review:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

Quote from Shane D.

Let me add: Trevithick is very aware of Mizuno and interested. Everyone in the field is. But he will be at ICCF22, where he says "it will be a comprehensive topic",

It what? What will be a comprehensive topic? The Mizuno experiment? Probably not. I do not see how it could be.

Mizuno cannot attend, and so far I have not heard a word from the organizers. It might be relegated to a poster session, which is little better than the paper. Even a 20-minute presentation will not include anything not already in the paper. The only thing I know in detail is the calorimetry. There are no SEMs or other detailed analyses because Mizuno's instruments were smashed in the earthquake. I doubt there will be any replications in time for the conference, so there will not be anyone else there with knowledge of the experiment. There is no point to speculating about it. You have to have actual experimental data, SEM scans of material that produced heat, and other experimental evidence from positive excess heat experiments.

I wish I could have persuaded Mizuno to report this months earlier. There might have been enough time for replications. It is possible there will be one or two, but I wouldn't bet on it. It would make my job a lot easier if there are replications. I would just introduce the topic and then hand the mic to one of the people who replicated. (I warned him I would do that.)

What about Les Case?

Exactly who is the LENR community? If we know who it is, let's get them to participate in a poll.

Reading more carefully the phrase "Team Google wants your opinion what is the highest priority experiment ...", I note they want opinions. So I reiterate, respectfully, claiming I am a member of the LENR community, my newest opinion:

If Team Google attempts multiple replications of Mizuno's experiment, we will all learn more, to the extent that Team Google shares their experiences.

Opinions on my opinion awaited with bated breath.

Quote from Shane D.

Google хочет, чтобы это привело к выводу. У нас есть 2 недели, чтобы сделать работу. Я позволял ему кипеть, с 2-3 месяца крайний срок в виду. Теперь пришло время стать серьезным, и объединить все это вместе, чтобы сформировать консенсус вокруг 2-3 из лучших.

Мне нужны наши квалифицированные исследователи...Каждый из вас. Больше никаких выкипаний, Эво, Росси, никаких фундаментальных исследований, только ваше квалифицированное мнение о том, какой эксперимент дает им лучший шанс доказать ЛЕНР. Перечитайте презентации ICCF21, последний коллоквиум MIT, чтобы освежить себя относительно того, что, возможно, было упущено. Если кто-то из вас в старой гвардии хочет отправить мне личное сообщение с вашим предложением, свяжитесь со мной через функцию "разговор". Я бы хотел, чтобы SERGEI перечислил свой лучший русский эксперимент для добавления в список.

Пожалуйста, не включайте Mizuno в качестве выбора. Причина в том, что у нас не будет твердых результатов от надежных репликаторов в течение нескольких месяцев, и это слишком поздно. Если что-то всплывает раньше, Google увидит это и примет во внимание. Так что давайте не увязать в неизвестном, а придерживаться известных. До сих пор я думаю, что это то, что у нас есть:

1. Группа Такахаши
2. Форсли / Моссье-Босс

3. Колер

4. Бури

5. Celani

Я хотел бы напомнить вам, насколько это важно. В случае успеха команда Google является билетом LENR в мейнстрим и приемлемостью. Это ваш шанс быть частью процесса планирования, и, надеюсь, книги по истории за то, что сыграли свою роль.

Display More

I think that from Russia it is possible to consider the work of Vitaly A. Kirkinskiy with saturation of palladium with deuterium from the gas phase: https://regnum.ru/news/innovatio/2631134.html

Dear all,

Just to reiterate.

Google should be given the experiment that in the expert opinion of those who know, is MOST LIKELY to achieve an extraordinary positive result. It does not matter much whether large or small, google have shown themselves competent at accurate calorimetry and other measurements.

For example: if a Mizuno replication failed people here would have many reasons to explain why that should be, and no way to direct google what is needed to make it work.

Many here, I thought, think that classic open or closed cell FPHE D/Pd experiments are well enough understood that excess heat can be reliably found by someone of skill. I'd suggest that that "success reliable" recipe be communicated to google. They can they replicate it, with three possible results:

• Those giving the recipe claim it is being done wrong, and google refuse to put it right (unlikely)
• The replication shows negative results, possibly with information about why false positives are quite likely
• The replication shows positive results, and mainstream interest in LENR is rekindled.

If google think they have done this then it would be helpful for all here to see whether they have been following the correct recipe, and if not get them to do that.

All of these other experiments, to my knowledge, if found to be negative, would not surprise anyone here. With the possible exception of PMB. There is enough detail and prior work there for some interest - though I myself have never been able to exclude the possible false positive mechanisms.

Best wishes,

THH

Might be wrong but I recall the Fralick etc. COPs being relatively low? Just adds the the endless conversations, where people try to conjure up reasons for using excessive error boundaries.

AlainCo is right therefore you don't seem very curious my friend, you have to know that Fralick's experiment have been with large temperature gradient.. for example..

Quote from Zeus46

Might be wrong but I recall the Fralick etc. COPs being relatively low? Just adds the the endless conversations, where people try to conjure up reasons for using excessive error boundaries.

Quote from Zeus46

Might be wrong but I recall the Fralick etc. COPs being relatively low? Just adds the the endless conversations, where people try to conjure up reasons for using excessive error boundaries.

Zeus,

The advantage of google doing this is that they will themselves have those conversations, and they are in a position to resolve them with better instrumentation etc. So if you think the low COP results represent genuine excess heat, rather than experimental errors, that would not itself be a problem.

The most simple LENR experiment with a guaranteed COP >>1 is the Lipinksi solid Lithium disk proton irradiation with very low energy protons ( between 50eV and 1000eV, 100eV! optimal). The older, pre Lipinski (Japanese) work with first positive result is proton radiation with some (1-2) keV on liquid Lithium.

The work is well documented in Lipinskis patents. The value of the patents is low as there is enough older work to demonstrate the same features/results. The only thing they added was the detection that an alternate voltage has a great impact on the result. As usual this added finding has been made by a serious mistake!

7-Li LENR is an Importland side reaction and the only one with protons (¹H) given large positive results.