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

  • 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, ...


    Yes, exactly, this is what is (almost?) unanimously believed in the CF/LENR community, so this is what should be replicated by Team Google.


    However, you should keep in mind a fundamental difference between open and closed cells. For open cells, we have videos that show the intimate source of the presumed excess heat, ie the sparking glow Pd cathode, and "the dramatic heat effect of the cold fusion reaction on the water fuel". This visible effect can be replicated and unquestionably demonstrated by the Google's researchers. On the contrary, closed cells are sort of magical black boxes equipped with instruments which produce numbers, you should trust into.

  • I think I have to insist that LENT is relatively easier to prove beyond any doubt without the eternal circular argument of wrong calorimetry. McKubre calorimetry is impecable and his excess heat undeniable, but as it is “impossible” no one pays attention because it is also of low magnitude.


    When you have a new element where it wasn’t before, be it detected by SEM EDX in a solid or by ICP MS or ICP OES In an aqueous solution, you can bet that the element is there and if your protocol rules out contamination or migration then the result can’t be denied.


    Transmutation has been reported with or without excess heat.


    My candidate because of the magnitude reported and the relative simplicity of the setup and undeniability of the results if independently proven is Ryushin Ohmasa mechanical vibration transmutation and radiation extinction in aqueous media. The vibration machine costs 17.000 British pounds EXW Japan.


    The results published through technical reports and patent application say that in as short as three hours an initial solution of Either CuCl, MgCl, CsCl or CaCl with a 5% v/v of D2O, prepared with p.a. Grade salts, and measured for a range of analytes (mostly metallic ) to be completely absent in the initial solution, can transmute a part of the initial solution in different elements initially absent (including iron, platinum, silver, tungsten, palladium, and others). This happens also in solutions without D2O, only takes longer (6 hours) and also in pure water (takes longer of course, up to 100 hours).


    Maybe the most striking result is the reduction of radiation from tritium enriched water to 1/16th of the original measured radiation in 25 hours.


    If I had the bucks I would be doing this myself but I think Google team Can do so with ease and be amazed themselves in a short time if they are willing to.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I have never read you being so wrong, on so many counts Jed. All I can say is that you are letting your ego get in the way.


    About what? The fact that we cannot discuss Mizuno's experiment until it is replicated? What is there to discuss? Or about my opinion that secret research is useless?


    If you mean the latter, what do you think of the Google research project? How do you know anything about it? Maybe you have inside knowledge. I do not, so I cannot judge whether they did a good job or not. The only thing I know about them is they did not consult with the people I listed. Plus, I gather from the paper they did not achieve high loading, so their Fleischmann-Pons results are not significant.


    My ego has nothing to do with this. I play no role in this, except presenting Mizuno's results.

  • The upthread question about who is the LENR community is a good one. Does it make sense that Google wants to fund research based on the opinion of self-appointed fans of LENR? Is the community they are talking about anybody who takes an interest in the topic? If I was in charge of a research team and they directed their efforts based on a poll of "fans", they would be looking for new jobs.

  • The upthread question about who is the LENR community is a good one. Does it make sense that Google wants to fund research based on the opinion of self-appointed fans of LENR? Is the community they are talking about anybody who takes an interest in the topic? If I was in charge of a research team and they directed their efforts based on a poll of "fans", they would be looking for new jobs.


    But this is the basis of Google's whole business model.

  • In a previous life, I crossed paths with a program manager at a major US government research funding agency who had, shall we say, an Axil/Director-type outlook on science. That person created some quite unique programs over the course of time, often having to browbeat researchers into working on them. Most serious scientists are not willing to spend their time on wild goose chases just because there is some money available. One never heard about the programs that this manager created because they didn’t exactly change the world. But perhaps Google wants to throw the same dice. Strange things can happen...

  • Go ahead RB, get your point across. Google has failed before in other areas, so.....


    Personally, I see it as a sign they are willing to try new things. If they fail, they learn from their mistakes, and do it better next time. Great example of that, is their next attempt at replicating LENR. First time around, TG got results they wished they had not gotten. Instead of being discouraged, closing up shop and moving on, they are trying again. This time asking for our help, which is a very smart move. That is how leaders do it. Failure is just another step on the road to success.


    Show me a company afraid to stick their necks out pursuing new ideas, and I will show you a company destined for failure. And Google *is* sticking their necks out with LENR, and it is embarrassing to me those believers not appreciative of that.

  • 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.)


    But we do have his claim that he heated his room in Sapporo with the unit, and it felt as warm as a 3kW heater. Obivously non-quantitative, but is he out of his mind? or lying? I would not say that at all. Some people I believe, and some I do not. I believe what Mizuno says. and I hope it is true.


    do you know when he might have sent out 12 reactors? Perhaps he will give you a bump in data to report at the conference.


    If this has been going on since the beginning of 2019, then it's been eight months. He might have some more data by September.

  • [I wish I could have persuaded Mizuno to report this months earlier. There might have been enough time for replications. I. . .]


    But we do have his claim that he heated his room in Sapporo with the unit, and it felt as warm as a 3kW heater. Obivously non-quantitative, but is he out of his mind? or lying?


    I do not see what your statement has to do with mine. I knew about this last year. I was trying to persuade Mizuno to publish it. He wanted to work on in more. That's what academic scientists often do. They work for years before publishing. No one has accused him of lying or being out of his mind (except Mitchell Swartz, who I suppose is jealous).

  • I do not see what your statement has to do with mine. I knew about this last year. I was trying to persuade Mizuno to publish it. He wanted to work on in more. That's what academic scientists often do. They work for years before publishing. No one has accused him of lying or being out of his mind (except Mitchell Swartz, who I suppose is jealous).


    If you read Ruby's whole comment, where she goes on to say:


    "Obivously non-quantitative, but is he out of his mind? or lying? I would not say that at all. Some people I believe, and some I do not. I believe what Mizuno says. and I hope it is true"


    It is clear she is very supportive, and hopeful of Mizuno's work. We all are. Everyone wants this to be the big breakthrough. Many are reserving judgement however, until more data is available, but that is what science is all about.

  • Quote

    They work for years before publishing. No one has accused him of lying or being out of his mind (except Mitchell Swartz, who I suppose is jealous).

    You suggest Mizuno may be doing more work. With a power out of approximately 3kW and a power in of 300W, why in God's name does this need more work?


    Lying or out of his mind definitely has to be ruled out. It would have helped a lot if his reactor had worked when tested by IH or if he had invited reliable people from IH to witness his tests. I am very troubled by the claim he gave/rented/sold 12 reactors to others. Without confirmation by the recipients, it seems weird. Which others? Are they well known? If not, why not? What have they done with them? It would be just peachy to have one or more discussing their experiences with the reactors here, wouldn't it? Can anyone arrange it? If not, why not? The work is supposedly not proprietary and if there is a language barrier, the indefatigable JedRothwell can translate the best report(s). The issue of those 12 reactors is something that Ruby's investigative talents should be put to work on.

  • Go ahead RB, get your point across. Google has failed before in other areas, so.....


    Personally, I see it as a sign they are willing to try new things. If they fail, they learn from their mistakes, and do it better next time. Great example of that, is their next attempt at replicating LENR. First time around, TG got results they wished they had not gotten. Instead of being discouraged, closing up shop and moving on, they are trying again. This time asking for our help, which is a very smart move. That is how leaders do it. Failure is just another step on the road to success.


    Show me a company afraid to stick their necks out pursuing new ideas, and I will show you a company destined for failure. And Google *is* sticking their necks out with LENR, and it is embarrassing to me those believers not appreciative of that.

    Steve Jobs quotes


    • The worst thing that could happen might turn out to be the best thing that could happen.
    • Stay hungry. Stay foolish.
  • 1. Takahashi's group

    2. Forsley/Mosier-Boss

    3. Staker

    4. Storms

    5. Celani

    6. Letts / Craven

    7. Vitaly A. Kirkinskiy

    8. Fralick

    9. Lipinski


    Is this a fair list so far? Are there any reasonably simple criteria that can be used to disqualify experiments? The list needs to be winnowed and the experiments weighed against each other.


    Some thoughts:


    • What are the potential materials science difficulties with these experiments? Do they disqualify the experiment or can they be obviated?

    • Are the original researchers available and willing to advise on the experiment? If not, does this disqualify the experiment?

    • How well documented is the experiment?

    • What is the history of prior replications of the experiment?

    • How quickly can the experiment be done? Are faster experiments, which allow for more iteration, adjustment and variation preferable?

    • Does the experiment just show excess heat, or other products too? How much excess heat is reasonably expected? Does an experiment that throws off other products, in addition to heat, offer more avenues to success for Google?


    etc.


  • If you read Ruby's whole comment, where she goes on to say:


    "Obivously non-quantitative, but is he out of his mind? or lying? I would not say that at all. Some people I believe, and some I do not. I believe what Mizuno says. and I hope it is true"


    It is clear she is very supportive, and hopeful of Mizuno's work. We all are. Everyone wants this to be the big breakthrough. Many are reserving judgement however, until more data is available, but that is what science is all about.


    People can make quite surprising mistakes, even when neither liars nor insane.


    That human fact is often forgotten by people who put lone scientists up on a pedestal imagining they cannot have normal human failings.


    Modern science does not forget this, which is why surprising results from a single source are never believed till replicated elsewhere.

  • People can make quite surprising mistakes, even when neither liars nor insane.


    THHuxleynew wrote:

    That is because at the temperatures I did this calculation (380C reactor vs 80C wall) the re-radiation is\\

    less that 10% of the radiation due to the T^4 factor for relatively small gaps

    Unfortumately THHnew does not know how to work out reflected heat.


    A proper calculation involves both the emissivity of the reactor wall and the emissivity of the aluminium foil


    and gives much more reradiation than 10% .... ~ 30%


  • Very valuable. Thank you. I have asked for some clarification of priorities, to help us narrow the list down.