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

  • ... Meanwhile, perhaps a discussion of the unique condition that is required to form in Pd before LENR can occur and how the burnishing process can cause such a condition would be useful.


    I posted to vortex-l about the possibility that the palladium need not be present. This assumes, rightly or wrongly, that it is the presence of calcium on the nickel that is a key factor - independent of the presence of palladium.


    A complicating thought: The burnishing embeds the calcium. Leading to other questions: Must burnishing be done with different metals? How much calcium can be rubbed into nickel (or palladium)?


    So the preparation process you are writing about involves "cleaning", "abrading", and "burnishing". Does it involve micro or nano alloying?


    May your lead an interesting life.

  • nickec why you said that calcium appaers as a key factor to you ?


    Yes, we have to try but, yes, Pd could be switched by for example titanium or rather platinium :)


    seven_of_twenty we don't need your pollution here I already told you, leave !

    Why this attack? Whilst SOT has, in the past, attacked many experiments there have often been valid reasons. They are not currently attacking Mizuno but are actually trying to help. Why would you not want this help?

    This is not like Ascoli65's pseudo skeptical "help" that is attempting to throw shade on any kind of LENR in any fashion.

  • I posted to vortex-l about the possibility that the palladium need not be present. This assumes, rightly or wrongly, that it is the presence of calcium on the nickel that is a key factor - independent of the presence of palladium.


    I would start to speculate only after you have a running reaction. The LENR process is delicate in case you like to have large excess heat. Even the first burn in phase can make a huge difference. We had fuels that did go from 50% to 100% excess radiation after the burn in phase.


    True is that Pt somehow can replace Nickel and only for one condition. Nickel has the ability to produce 10 equipotential orbits what allows a broad band magnetic interaction with the environment. The problem with Pt is that its radius is much larger what will make it less accessible for temporary "bonds" thus I wouldn't recommend it.


    For the production of D*-D* (dense hydrogen = the mice ..) Holmlid also used a styrene catalyst. Fe2O3 (old Mills) works fines too.


    But key thing for success is the mechanical preparation = producing cavities of the mesh and finding the right pressure.

  • Mark H

    you are right, therefore you have to know,

    Too few people like @Celani or @McKubre or @Biberian now Storms have been lost here.

    Although I don't share everything they have done or said therefore they still remain the living memory from last 30 years.

    It would have been smart to be able to freely discuss with them here.

    unfortunately I know how they run so talking about rain and good or bad weather doesn't flatter their huge ego then they run away ..

    I would like to raise the debate and I hope that Ed Storms will be patient as RobertBryant do.


    PS: thank you for not using a hidden nickname like so many others



    Why this attack? Whilst SOT has, in the past, attacked many experiments there have often been valid reasons. They are not currently attacking Mizuno but are actually trying to help. Why would you not want this help?

    This is not like Ascoli65's pseudo skeptical "help" that is attempting to throw shade on any kind of LENR in any fashion.

  • Too few people like @Celani or @McKubre or @Biberian now Stormshave been lost here.


    They pay attention, but overall I agree they "have been lost". Unfortunate, because they have so much knowledge to pass on, and no better place right now than LF to do that. Part of the reason for their not engaging anymore, may be because of the skeptics as you say. But we are down to only a few non-believer skeptics, with SOT being the controversial one, but even he is not the same as he was before. Overall, they play a necessary role here in keeping us objective, and I would think fear of over aggressive skepticism, is no longer a factor in deciding to stay active here as was the case before.


    Nice to see Storm back, but It would be nicer still to have all the old guard back. We would all like to hear their opinion on the focus of this thread, and others. Some are understandably frustrated after 20-30 years of trying to break through to the mainstream, and while interacting here may not change that, it may give them a better chance. This discussion we are having now -at the request of TG, is a good example of that. They are the ticket to the mainstream so many of them have waited so long for. If they were to help them succeed this next time, it will be "game on" for LENR, and redemption for them.

  • I don't have any particular sympathy for seven of twenty but he remains an human even if septic also please don't use SOT as an acronym to him.

    Let write SOT in french under google translate, you will see, it isn't respectful :)


    Ils font attention, mais dans l’ensemble, je reconnais qu’ils "ont été perdus". Dommage, car ils ont tellement de connaissances à transmettre et aucun meilleur endroit que LF pour le moment. Une partie de la raison pour laquelle ils ne s'engagent plus peut-être à cause des sceptiques, comme vous le dites. Mais il ne reste que quelques sceptiques non-croyants, SOT étant controversé, mais même lui n'est plus le même qu'avant. Globalement, ils jouent ici un rôle essentiel dans le maintien de notre objectif, et je pense que la crainte d’un scepticisme excessif n’est plus un facteur pour décider de rester actif, comme c’était le cas auparavant.


    C'est bien de voir Storm revenir, mais ce serait plus agréable d'avoir encore toute la vieille garde. Nous aimerions tous connaître leur opinion sur le sujet de ce fil et d’autres. Certains sont naturellement frustrés après 20 à 30 ans d'essayer de percer dans la société et, bien qu'interagir ici ne change rien, cela peut leur donner une meilleure chance. Cette discussion que nous avons actuellement - à la demande de TG - en est un bon exemple. Ils sont le ticket pour le grand public que beaucoup d’entre eux attendent depuis si longtemps. S'ils devaient les aider à réussir cette prochaine fois, ce serait «un jeu d'avance» pour LENR et une rédemption pour eux.

  • I'm glad to see that my comment resulted in some interesting reply. Rather than respond individually, I would like to continue my suggestions of what needs to be done to have LENR accepted and applied. First of all, a HUGE amount of information about and support for LENR has now accumulated, most of which is ignored by everyone. Instead, people either accept the skeptical conclusion or they pick information that supports their favorite theory. As best as I can tell, the important questions are not being asked and the answers required to understand LENR are not being acknowledge. I say this after having read most of the papers (My library contains 5000 papers having an important relationship to LENR), after doing hundreds of experiments involving electrolysis, gas discharge, and gas loading of various materials, and after designing and building many different kinds of calorimeters. I do not say this to brag but to justify what I'm about to say.


    All of this experience clearly shows that LENR consists of two independent parts, one chemical and the other nuclear. For LENR to occur, a change MUST first occur within a material that involves a chemical process. This change must produce an unusual site that can attract hydrogen atoms and cause them to form a chemical structure. This structure has the unusual ability to experience a new kind of nuclear process, which is fusion but not the type of fusion commonly produced, which is called hot fusion. Because this is a chemical process, it must follow all the laws and rules known to apply to a chemical process. Once this unique structure forms, which I call the NAE, the nuclear process takes place automatically without any additional intervention. This description is basic to understanding the process. Unless this description is accepted and its consequences are explored, LENR will not be understood.


    The basic question is, "What is the NAE and how can we create it on purpose and in large amount"? That is the basic question that the field has failed to address effectively. I suggest, Mizuno has discovered a method that can produce the NAE. If anyone is interested, I will attempt to describe what I believe Mizuno has done.

  • First of all, a HUGE amount of information about and support for LENR has now accumulated, most of which is ignored by everyone. Instead, people either accept the skeptical conclusion or they pick information that supports their favorite theory.


    My informed opinion, is that TG has run across the same problem when seeking advice from the field...opinions given have more to do with a favorite, or pet theory/experiment, than what is truly the best option for TG to pursue next. Human nature to fight for ones own idea developed over many years, but when there are dozens, if not more competing ideas to have to chose from, and only 1 that can be chosen...it is not so easy as it first appears.


    Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better to ask: "what is best for us to work on next", with the qualifier: "other than your own (not directed at you)". Provocative maybe, but it takes the emotion, and ego out of the decision, and gets us quicker to the heart of the matter.


    Matt told me in the beginning this was a tougher task than I thought it would be, and reminded me again the other day. Now I believe him.

  • The basic question is, "What is the NAE and how can we create it on purpose and in large amount"? That is the basic question that the field has failed to address effectively. I suggest, Mizuno has discovered a method that can produce the NAE. If anyone is interested, I will attempt to describe what I believe Mizuno has done.

    Very interested DR Storms.

  • I'm glad to see that my comment resulted in some interesting reply. Rather than respond individually, I would like to continue my suggestions of what needs to be done to have LENR accepted and applied. First of all, a HUGE amount of information about and support for LENR has now accumulated, most of which is ignored by everyone. Instead, people either accept the skeptical conclusion or they pick information that supports their favorite theory. As best as I can tell, the important questions are not being asked and the answers required to understand LENR are not being acknowledge. I say this after having read most of the papers (My library contains 5000 papers having an important relationship to LENR), after doing hundreds of experiments involving electrolysis, gas discharge, and gas loading of various materials, and after designing and building many different kinds of calorimeters. I do not say this to brag but to justify what I'm about to say.


    All of this experience clearly shows that LENR consists of two independent parts, one chemical and the other nuclear. For LENR to occur, a change MUST first occur within a material that involves a chemical process. This change must produce an unusual site that can attract hydrogen atoms and cause them to form a chemical structure. This structure has the unusual ability to experience a new kind of nuclear process, which is fusion but not the type of fusion commonly produced, which is called hot fusion. Because this is a chemical process, it must follow all the laws and rules known to apply to a chemical process. Once this unique structure forms, which I call the NAE, the nuclear process takes place automatically without any additional intervention. This description is basic to understanding the process. Unless this description is accepted and its consequences are explored, LENR will not be understood.


    The basic question is, "What is the NAE and how can we create it on purpose and in large amount"? That is the basic question that the field has failed to address effectively. I suggest, Mizuno has discovered a method that can produce the NAE. If anyone is interested, I will attempt to describe what I believe Mizuno has done.


    I am very interested. Please share.

  • Dear Ed,


    because i never meet any investors because lake of money, even if always inerested by the field,

    It forces you to read, read, read, study, and best way forward for me has been to synthesize the cross-checks of parameters encountered in many experiments.

    This approach makes it possible to prevent that truth, true truth i say, from the ground, from experiments not being hidden from my eyes.

    Ego tends to freeze you in one truth that actually becomes the truth true.

    All of these philosophical considerations to say that chemical involvement in Lenr field would be in relation to so-called radical species since Piantelli for sure.

    So a non-zero electronic spin would be important to, i think, all experiment.


    Now, I have to leave, to get on my train to French Riviera :)


    I'm glad to see that my comment resulted in some interesting reply. Rather than respond individually, I would like to continue my suggestions of what needs to be done to have LENR accepted and applied. First of all, a HUGE amount of information about and support for LENR has now accumulated, most of which is ignored by everyone. Instead, people either accept the skeptical conclusion or they pick information that supports their favorite theory. As best as I can tell, the important questions are not being asked and the answers required to understand LENR are not being acknowledge. I say this after having read most of the papers (My library contains 5000 papers having an important relationship to LENR), after doing hundreds of experiments involving electrolysis, gas discharge, and gas loading of various materials, and after designing and building many different kinds of calorimeters. I do not say this to brag but to justify what I'm about to say.


    All of this experience clearly shows that LENR consists of two independent parts, one chemical and the other nuclear. For LENR to occur, a change MUST first occur within a material that involves a chemical process. This change must produce an unusual site that can attract hydrogen atoms and cause them to form a chemical structure. This structure has the unusual ability to experience a new kind of nuclear process, which is fusion but not the type of fusion commonly produced, which is called hot fusion. Because this is a chemical process, it must follow all the laws and rules known to apply to a chemical process. Once this unique structure forms, which I call the NAE, the nuclear process takes place automatically without any additional intervention. This description is basic to understanding the process. Unless this description is accepted and its consequences are explored, LENR will not be understood.


    The basic question is, "What is the NAE and how can we create it on purpose and in large amount"? That is the basic question that the field has failed to address effectively. I suggest, Mizuno has discovered a method that can produce the NAE. If anyone is interested, I will attempt to describe what I believe Mizuno has done.

  • All of this experience clearly shows that LENR consists of two independent parts, one chemical and the other nuclear. For LENR to occur, a change MUST first occur within a material that involves a chemical process. This change must produce an unusual site that can attract hydrogen atoms and cause them to form a chemical structure. This structure has the unusual ability to experience a new kind of nuclear process, which is fusion but not the type of fusion commonly produced, which is called hot fusion. Because this is a chemical process, it must follow all the laws and rules known to apply to a chemical process. Once this unique structure forms, which I call the NAE, the nuclear process takes place automatically without any additional intervention. This description is basic to understanding the process. Unless this description is accepted and its consequences are explored, LENR will not be understood.


    The basic question is, "What is the NAE and how can we create it on purpose and in large amount"? That is the basic question that the field has failed to address effectively. I suggest, Mizuno has discovered a method that can produce the NAE. If anyone is interested, I will attempt to describe what I believe Mizuno has done.


    Hi Ed,


    So far I think this is part of the LENR theory canon that stands up. I'd add that what happens after an NAE fusion is also (at a phenomenological level) significant. E.g does it destroy the NAE. In terms of corroboration at this level you have a model where:


    • NAEs are formed (and destroyed)
    • H (or D) atoms are attracted to the NAE and form the pre-fusion structure which then fuses


    It would be good if reaction rate dependence on temperature etc could be explored to obtain quantitative and bounding information here. For example, if the H entry to NAE is a chemical process it should have an activation energy - even if multi-step - one of these probably dominates. An Arrhenius plot can find the activation energy which would then be a predictive observable of LENR: excess heat results not showing this could be seen as something else (error etc). That would also mean that excess power proportional to temperature difference from room temperature would certainly be seen as not LENR (and would be a typical sign of a systematic error as others have pointed out).


    If more complex than that (e.g. NAE creation/destruction typically produces time varying numbers of NAE that get conflated with the chemical reaction rate) it may be more difficult to get predictivity. My point is that something that was truly predictive, whose observed absence would contradict the theory, would be a real boon, because a theory that can be disproved but is not (at least in some cases) has more weight than one which can never be disproved.


    You can see however that just from this (commonly agreed) component I'd have another basic question, which is can the reaction dynamics be characterised in a predictive way?


    Best wishes, THH

  • Storms


    I am sure everyone here is interested in what you think Mizuno has accomplished and how. But while that is extremely interesting, it must remembered that Mizuno's story is still entirely claims and as many learned to their chagrin (another nice French word) claims were far from facts when, to give a flagrant example, Rossi and his "colleagues" made them. LENR enthusiasts were far too quick to embrace those claims before they were sufficiently vetted.


    I disagree that a single spectacular demonstration isn't useful to prove the existence of LENR and stimulate more and better funded research -- from private parties including entrepreneurs if not government. An old example of a spectacular experiment which convinced a lot of very hardened skeptics was the discovery that peptic (gastric, stomach) ulcers are frequently caused by bacteria and can be treated by killing the bacteria. All the microscopic and bacteriological studies failed to convince the old main line medical establishment. But when brave (and incautious) experimenters swallowed the bacteria, got ulcers, treated them with antibiotics and were able to repeat the cycle, more and more main line physicians became convinced. So they satisfied the gold standard: Koch's Postulates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1246068/ Another hackneyed example is that when people saw the Wright Brothers actually fly, instead of theorize about flight, most who witnessed the demos were convinced and investment followed (yes, it took a while).


    Similarly, a single, extremely impressive demonstration meeting the gold standard - for example liquid flow calorimetry or Seebeck or simply using heat flow transducers on the surface of the more powerful reactor, all would wake up a lot of people and convince a lot of hardened skeptics, me included. And what could be more impressive than Mizuno's claims -- one for 50W in and 250W out and another for 300W in and 3kW out (!) Of course theory is important. But with the past history of LENR and the past reaction of established science to it, it seems to me what is urgent is proving Mizuno's claims if they are, in fact, valid. With due respect, this, IMO, should take precedence over any consideration of theory until the validity of the results has been firmly established beyond reasonable doubt. Again with respect for JedRothwell and Mizuno, that is not now the case. I would caution that many people were in a hurry to "explain" the theory behind Rossi's "discoveries" when in fact, all Rossi had was deception, lies, and criminal intent. While I doubt very much that Mizuno's case is in any way like Rossi, some sort of colossal error must be ruled out- by reliable people working directly with Mizuno to repeat all the measurements or by replication. Theorizing about stuff which isn't proven can lead to a lot of embarrassment and a loss of confidence in the people doing the theorizing.


    And an aside to Dr. Storms: Jed Rothwell said that Mizuno's most powerful (3kW) reactor was difficult to measure because it would exceed the capabilities of calorimeters available to Mizuno. I was unable to convince Jed and others here to consider that it would be possible and useful to place heat flow transducers on a few representative areas of the outer surface of the reactor to estimate the heat output. Wouldn't you agree, Dr. Storms, that, within a reasonable error range, that approach would work roughly comparably to a calorimeter? I don't know what about that idea is so hard to grasp but several folks gave me a hard time for even mentioning it.

  • Yes, the ego is a handicap in all human activity, but other fields of science find ways to resolve conflict and take advantage of expert opinion while ignoring the ego. It seems to me the lenr problem is rather unique because it is not exposed to the search for truth normally done in a university setting, the people in the field are self-selected to be very independent, and the field is constantly fighting the skeptical attitude. Consequently, the normal search for truth does not take place. In my case, my search takes several forms. I read everything available about the subject, I apply standard scientific knowledge rather than far out imagination, and I ignore the crazies who are attracted by the subject. I recommend this approach.


    As for the need to have an impressive demonstration, in any other field of science the present demonstrations would have been more than enough to have the claim accepted as fact. In rejecting this evidence, a skeptic, apparently believes that hundreds of otherwise competent scientists in dozens of major laboratories are either incompetent only when they work on LENR or they are fools without the ability to identify error. Of course people make errors and see what is not real. I have had this experience many times. Nevertheless, people who have spent their career doing scientific research in various fields know as well as the skeptics what is error and what is not. In fact, the initial skeptics made fools of themselves when they rejected the original claims by Fleischmann and Pons based on evaluations that had no relationship to fact. While a skeptical approach is required, the approach applied to LENR from the beginning was not scientific. Instead, it was based on political issues. In the process, these "skeptics" denied the use of this clean energy source now for over 30 years and counting. And yes, I'm pissed. But from the useful and intelligent comments being made here, I have to hope change is possible.


    Nevertheless, I'm very sympathetic to true skepticism. After all, the claim being made is impossible based on conventional understanding. I would also have rejected the idea if I had not eventually seen supporting evidence based on my own efforts. But, unfortunately, the LENR effect is difficult to cause. Why then was I and perhaps a hundred other people so lucky to make it occur? Only a few researchers have tried to answer this question, including myself. In the process, a collection of explanations have been proposed, with most being useless because they focus only on the nuclear process. Instead, the unique condition present in the material in which the nuclear reaction takes place must be the focus. Only four conditions exist in a material where a unique condition might form. These are between the atoms in the normal crystal structure, within atom vacancies in the crystal structure, on the surface of the atomic structure, or in physical gaps located between the planes of atoms. Each of these locations have been used in the various models to identify where the nuclear process might occur. In order to choose which location might be the correct one, we must make an assumption about how many different unique conditions are able to support the nuclear process. I prefer to assume only one kind of condition can do the job. After all, the process is so unusual, common sense would suggest Nature would have found only one way to make the process work. If this assumption were correct, only one condition is found to be present in all materials in which the LENR process has been observed. That condition can be described as physical gaps located between the atoms, commonly called cracks. If we focus on this condition, several obvious consequences emerge about how LENR can be reproduced and how the nuclear process must function. When the evidence is examined with this kind of structure in mind, an amazing large number of successful attempts can be logically explained, both with respect to the material properties as well as with respect to the nuclear consequences. In addition, several ways to achieve the required gap can be suggested, with the Mizuno method being one of them. Consequently, a successful demonstration is not only important but would be expected based on my model. Therefore, how the replication is done is important.


    My model identifies which variables are important and which can be ignored during the replication attempt. Such knowledge is important because an exact replication is not possible and will not be done because everyone has different equipment and skills available. It would be unfortunate if failure were to result because an important variable was uncontrolled or ignored. This situation occurred during the initial efforts to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons work, which resulted in the failures used to reject the claim. I hope this does not happen again. But avoiding such a result is difficult because no way exists for my ideas to be effectively communicated, believed, or applied until later when I might be able to say "I told you so". Eventually, I will apply my ideas to the Mizuno method, but not until my other projects are finished. Meanwhile, if anyone is interested in applying my ideas during their replication, I would be glad to go into more detail.