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

  • The most important thing is that when making a choice no quick-shots are made


    30 years into this, and I have to wonder why TG should be concerned about "quick shots"? The LENR community has claimed this is well established science after all, so no need for them to take on the role to research it. TG clearly states their goal is to prove LENR, based on what the field has claimed are replicable experiments. So what are those experiments? Answering that, is what we were asked to do. Unfortunately, not doing a very good job of it.


    IMO, the field has to step up the plate, give them what they are asking for, and own up to the outcome...no matter the results.

  • That's probably what we should expect with LENR -- a long period of culinary art with gradual development of theory.

    At one time I thought as you do. After all the general consensus is that we don’t know much. There are many theories. There are so many papers that it seems impossible to even read them. But this whole thread is about what to do to eliminate the doubt that real fusion occurs without meeting the Lawson criteria. That happens if POSITA examine the data and it is persuasive enough that they mostly agree the fusion has occurred. The hard part then is getting the POSITA, this forum, to consider the hard facts and then to use that agreement to get the facts to those who can fund research which could lead to abundant energy.


    For example, the following fusion on a catalyst transmutation reaction is accurate to about 15 parts in 3000: 2 0 + 14 D goes to 4 N + 4 H. What was in the before reaction sample, what was in the after-reaction sample, how many units of oxygen and deuterium disappear and how much nitrogen and hydrogen appear and to what accuracy those are hard facts. They were derived by reasonable assumptions applied to real data from Santilli’s intermediate fusion pending patent, US 2012/0033775 A1.


    I need your help my fellows. Let open a thread on fusion on a catalyst and see if we can agree to work together.

  • At one time I thought as you do. After all the general consensus is that we don’t know much. There are many theories. There are so many papers that it seems impossible to even read them. But this whole thread is about what to do to eliminate the doubt that real fusion occurs without meeting the Lawson criteria. That happens if POSITA examine the data and it is persuasive enough that they mostly agree the fusion has occurred. The hard part then is getting the POSITA, this forum, to consider the hard facts and then to use that agreement to get the facts to those who can fund research which could lead to abundant energy.


    For example, the following fusion on a catalyst transmutation reaction is accurate to about 15 parts in 3000: 2 0 + 14 D goes to 4 N + 4 H. What was in the before reaction sample, what was in the after-reaction sample, how many units of oxygen and deuterium disappear and how much nitrogen and hydrogen appear and to what accuracy those are hard facts. They were derived by reasonable assumptions applied to real data from Santilli’s intermediate fusion pending patent, US 2012/0033775 A1.


    I need your help my fellows. Let open a thread on fusion on a catalyst and see if we can agree to work together.

    I know about Santilli’s work and, if it’s the patent I know of, the patent for that process went through all stages to a final rejection, and the main reason to reject, was that what he claimed and offered independent proof for (in the form of independent lab analysis of the gases prior and after the reaction) is unsupported by any known and accepted theory. We know Santilli’s Hadronic Mechanics is not mainstream at all, so it was also rejected as supporting literature.


    All that said, Santilli works with powerful DC arcs inside his reactor (I have read 40 KW and up to 300 KW DC welders to create the arc between the carbon electrodes), so he is not by any stretch working in the same range of energy input than most LENR researchers.

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

  • As I just wrote about Santilli’s patent rejection, I remembered that Ohmasa’s transmutation patent is also currently rejected by WIPO, (albeit non final yet) on the same ground than Santilli’s, namely, the lack of supporting theoretical framework that would predict or allow to see elemental transmutation caused by mechanically stirring water or aqueous solutions with vibrating fins at low frequency. However in Ohmasa’s case the main argument for the rejection is also based in the fact that he got already a patent for his vibration equipment as part of his water electrolyzer in 2001.

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

  • 30 years into this, and I have to wonder why TG should be concerned about "quick shots"? The LENR community has claimed this is well established science after all, so no need for them to take on the role to research it. TG clearly states their goal is to prove LENR, based on what the field has claimed are replicable experiments. So what are those experiments? Answering that, is what we were asked to do. Unfortunately, not doing a very good job of it.


    IMO, the field has to step up the plate, give them what they are asking for, and own up to the outcome...no matter the results.



    Many here (Jed in particular) say that LENR is proven, that there are any number of replicable experiments that show it.


    I think to use this one-in-a-lifetime opportunity of funds and people to do high quality replication properly, more attention is needed s to what this means.


    For example: Mizuno's results though interesting are from a single source, and have methodological issues. Now suppose, of the many attempted replications, a few are clear positives, but none are replicated in other people's hands. Mizuno's own devices do not work now in anyone's hands. 10 years pass. Would this be a suitable experiment for google to replicate?


    The LENR community should consider this: all that is needed is an experiment with guaranteed positive results given persistent experimentation. They don't have to be shown on every sample, but should be shown on enough samples to be properly tested. They don't need to be very large, just replicable and beyond calorimetric limits. In that case they can (and will) be tested to destruction or confirmation by skeptical google guys. Maybe it takes some work to get loading high enough or whatever. For decent mass flow calorimetry of the sort google would do a 20% positive would be more than enough. With care, a 10% positive enough.

    Given this I suggest there is just one class of experiments that fit the bill. D/Pd electrolysis excess heat. According to LENR protagonists these work when done properly, and many independent groups have been able to do them properly. If all the D/Pd results were known to be artifact how many LENR guys now would see LENR as a real effect? Still, for those that did, having the initial FP D/Pd work definitely shown to not make excess heat would vastly simplify investigation of other anomalies. Having D/Pd results confirmed as replicable would make an enormous difference, not least because the size of the effect could then be explored and related to all the various parameters, nanocrack theories explored, etc. When I say crack theories of course I do not mean crackpot theories, rather sensible phenomenological hypotheses that could with more data morph into real theories.


    Now, my understanding is that google say they have tried D/Pd electrolysis and got negative results. Also they say that they have not been able to obtain the high loadings considered necessary. Finally, they say they had some trouble measuring loading, and that eventually decided that some methods previously used lead to significant over-estimates. This clearly calls for more work (or else more transparency).


    What is needed to clarify this frustratingly inconclusive result is:

    (1) check they are using the (known) methodology needed to get high loading

    (2) check, in that case, loading.

    (3a) If it is now high fine - do the experiments

    (3b) If it is still low compare measurement of loading with that used in past experiments: check which method is wrong

    (4) Having done that, we will have loading comparable to that previously giving positive results, but possibly remeasured as lower. Experiments can proceed.


    If the experiments are still determinedly negative the LENR community would greatly benefit from transparency. Preferably, as a "negative result skeptic", to suggest ways in which the elusive LENR effect was not found because google guys did not look in the right place. Closing this feedback loop would allow efficient exploration of the space of possible techniques.


    At the end of this process the LENR community has definitely gained:

    (1) Either - LENR is proven inependently in a replicable experiment that can be used to explore in detail theories relating to it.

    (2) Or FP work, and initial other positive replications, and subsequent replications, have all been shown to be artifact.


    For the LENR community NOT to insist on this best attested positive set of experiments being redone would mean they felt these D/Pd electrolysis experiments were in fact not real. I guess I don't mind that, but I'd like it to be transparently stated. It is not satisfactory for google guys to say they have done D/Pd electrolysis with negative results, and for LENR guys to say - oh well, you did not try properly, and we know you did not try because you never got high enough loading!


    What is wrong with this argument?


    Best wishes, THH


    PS - before ascoli jumps in. I'm happy for the initial replicable (and replicated) open cell boil-off electrolysis experiments from FP to be tested as well, if that is deemed the clearest evidence of LENR in these D/Pd experiments. Personally I'd rather explore closed cell work.

  • For example: Mizuno's results though interesting are from a single source, and have methodological issues. Now suppose, of the many attempted replications, a few are clear positives, but none are replicated in other people's hands. Mizuno's own devices do not work now in anyone's hands. 10 years pass. Would this be a suitable experiment for google to replicate?

    In part I agree with you on this. not necessarily on the methodology issues, you could find those in how I make a pot of tea, but on the issue of 'single source'. So far both Deneum and IH have failed to report a positive, I think there are issues with both, variously methodological, in terms of haste or indeed tardiness for a start. There may be other factors too which we are not aware of. But we have to take these null results as proof that 'this experiment is not the slam-dunk that some seem to think.

  • That some electrodes seem to produce heat, and others don’t. And no-one knows why.


    So: there are two options here:


    (1) The seeming positives are mistake/artifact/scam (with scam being v low occurence but included for completeness)

    (2) There is a real effect which is hard to reproduce.


    But "hard to reproduce" does not mean "can't be reproduced given effort". And, with all such efforts, new attempts can benefit from all the expertise gained from past attempts, and therefore success rates get higher.


    Either (1) or (2) allow my argument to proceed.

  • Unless you have some ideas on on how to make a definite working cathode, I’d say your argument is still stuck where it was four posts ago...


    (And that’s without getting into the issue of whether it’s possible/a good idea to prove a negative or not)


    ...I don’t think “Google” are looking to spend an indeterminate amount of time searching through an unbounded parameter space in the hope of finding something that works.

  • Unless you have some ideas on on how to make a definite working cathode, I’d say your argument is still stuck where it was four posts ago...


    (And that’s without getting into the issue of whether it’s possible/a good idea to prove a negative or not)


    ...I don’t think “Google” are looking to spend an indeterminate amount of time searching through an unbounded parameter space in the hope of finding something that works.


    So - are you saying the D/Pd evidence that many here think is compelling is not replicable? For me, it looks a better bet than anything else...

  • What is wrong with this argument?


    Best wishes, THH


    PS - before ascoli jumps in. I'm happy for the initial replicable (and replicated) open cell boil-off electrolysis experiments from FP to be tested as well, if that is deemed the clearest evidence of LENR in these D/Pd experiments. Personally I'd rather explore closed cell work.


    I agree with your arguments and, after your PS, I agree even more.


    An important and well funded initiative such as Google's can afford to replicate both the types of F&P cells, open and closed. Two is better than one.


    However, I stay on my idea that only the "open cell boil-off" test will allow the Google testers to deal with the objections such as the one just raised by Zeus46 : "… some electrodes seem to produce heat, and others don’t. And no-one knows why."


    In fact, when the Team Google will reproduce the same behavior shown in the F&P video (1), and there is no doubt they can easily do it, the objections will be limited to the interpretation of the experimental data. There will be no more room for other objections.


    Consider for example a possible objection on the crucial point of "loading", that you have reminded in your post. The Team Google will be never able to attain long lasting and measurable loading values such as those which, in the F&P interpretation of their results, allowed them to obtain excess heat levels above the noise threshold. The reason is that, by their interpretation, the adequate loading is obtained thanks to a dynamic and short lasting phenomenon, they called "positive feedback" (2). This "positive feedback" is intimately connected to the boil-off phase, therefore if the Team Google wants to avoid any objection on loading inadequacy, they must reproduce the "boil-off" transient and, most importantly, they must demonstrate to have reproduced it. The only way they can do it is by reproducing the F&P's "1992 boil-off experiment".


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

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

  • The answer is apparently simple: if TG want to do electrolytic experiments then they should use the SPAWAR Pd-D co-deposition protocol which Szpak & Mosier reported had a 100% cathode excess heat success rate. Depositing new Pd from solution onto a nickel mesh substrate bypasses the Pd cathode sourcing problems (whether it contained other important trace elements etc) and guaranteed >0.9 loading ratios. (I don't know why they didn't do this in the first place!). All their work is rigorous, refereed and clearly described and I think deserves serious consideration for replication by TG, rather than going further back in time to attempt the more primitive F&P experiments which will always be hit and miss. Besides, they've already tried these tests and failed.

    ,

  • If this work can all be verified/replicated by TG then we'll really be in business; if not then forget it.

    Szpak, S., et al. LENR Research Using Co-Deposition. in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter
    Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC.
    LENR Research using Co-Deposition
    S. Szpak 1
    , P. A. Mosier-Boss 1
    , F. Gordon 1
    , J. Dea 1
    , M. Miles 2
    , J. Khim 3
    , L. Forsley 3
    1
    SPAWAR Systems Center-Pacific, San Diego, CA 92152
    2 Dixie State College, St George, UT 84770
    3
    J W K International, Annandale, VA.
    ABSTRACT
    The Pd/D co-deposition process was developed by Stan Szpak at the Naval
    Laboratory in San Diego as an alternative means of initiating LENR. Besides heat,
    other nuclear products that have been measured using Pd/D co-deposition include
    tritium and the emission of γ- and X-rays, neutrons, and energetic particles. This
    communication summarizes 19 years of LENR research that has focused on the
    Pd/D co-deposition process.
    In March 1989, two chemists in Utah, Fleischmann and Pons, announced that they had
    performed electrochemical experiments that produced more excess energy than could be
    accounted for by chemical reactions. Therefore they speculated that the source must involve
    nuclear reactions and the effect became known as “Cold Fusion.” The claims of Fleischman and
    Pons caused a global sensation. Much of the uproar was due to the fact that their observations
    disagreed with the accepted theory of nuclear reactions. Within days scientists around the world
    had started work on duplications of the experiments. Many of these efforts failed. Reasons for
    the failures varied. Many researchers used palladium cathodes whose past histories were
    unknown. Others used improper cell configurations that precluded achieving the high D/Pd
    loadings necessary to initiate the effect. Still others did not realize that, with bulk electrodes,
    long incubation times were necessary to produce the effect. However, despite the large number
    of failures, there were other scientists who did observe anomalous behaviors that could not be
    explained. These other scientists continued to investigate the effect, which is now called Low
    Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).
    Stan Szpak, an electrochemist at the Naval laboratory in San Diego, developed the Pd/D codeposition process as a means of initiating LENR that greatly reduces the incubation time and
    gives reproducible results. In this process, working and counter electrodes are immersed in a
    solution of palladium chloride and lithium chloride in deuterated water. Working electrode
    substrates that have been used include Cu and Au foils and Ni mesh. Palladium is then
    electrochemically reduced onto the surface of the working electrode in the presence of evolving
    deuterium gas. SEM analysis of electrodes prepared by Pd/D co-deposition exhibit highly
    expanded surfaces consisting of small spherical nodules.1,2 Cyclic voltammetry2,3 and
    galvanostatic pulsing4
    experiments indicate that, by using the co-deposition technique, a high
    degree of deuterium loading (with an atomic ratio D/Pd>1) is obtained within seconds. These
    experiments also indicate the existence of a D2
    +
    species within the Pd lattice. Because an ever
    expanding electrode surface is created, non-steady state conditions are assured, the cell geometry
    is simplified because there is no longer a need for a uniform current distribution on the cathode,
    and long charging times are eliminated.5 Using a Dewar-type electrochemical cell/calorimeter, it
    2
    was shown that the rates of excess enthalpy generation using electrodes prepared by the Pd/D codeposition technique were higher than that obtained when Pd bulk electrodes were used.6
    Positive feedback and heat-after-death effects were also observed with the Pd/D co-deposited
    electrodes. In one experiment that was done in the open air, boil off of the electrolyte occurred as
    well as melting of the Pd deposit, Figure 1a (Note Pd melts at 1554.9C).1
    Infrared imaging of
    electrodes prepared by Pd/D co-deposition, Figures 1b and 1c, show that the working electrode is
    hotter than the solution indicating that the heat source is the Pd/D co-deposited electrode and not
    Joule heating. As shown in Figure 1b, the heat generation is not continuous, but occurs in
    discrete spots on the electrode. The steep temperature gradients of the hot spots, Figure 1c,
    indicate that the heat sources are of high intensity and located very close to the contact surface.
    Figure 1. (a) SEM of the Pd film showing features consistent with Pd melting under water. Infrared images of
    the electrode surface prepared by Pd/D co-deposition. (b) View of the obverse side of the cathode showing the
    distribution of hot spots ranging from <29C (purple) to >49C (white). (c) Temperature gradients on the
    back side of the cathode.
    The ‘hot spots’ observed in the infrared imaging experiments are suggestive of ‘miniexplosions’ (Figure 1b7
    ). To verify this, the Ag electrode on a piezoelectric transducer was used
    as the substrate for the Pd/D co-deposition. If a mini-explosion occurred, the resulting shock
    wave would compress the crystal. The shock wave would be followed by a heat pulse that would
    cause the crystal to expand. In these experiments, sharp downward spikes followed by broader
    upward spikes were observed in the piezoelectric crystal response. The downward spikes were
    indicative of crystal compression while the broader upward spikes are attributed to the heat pulse
    and the consequent crystal expansion following the explosion.

  • So - are you saying the D/Pd evidence that many here think is compelling is not replicable? For me, it looks a better bet than anything else...


    Respectfully, your argument is frustrating and incoherent.


    Jed, and others, have written about how hard the experiment is; that materials science concerns are real, and even if you solve them satisfactorily by finding a source of type A palladium, you still have the problem of searching a number of samples for those that work. If you don't solve the materials science problem, you are doing no better than spinning the wheel. Then you have the difficulty of loading the palladium.


    It's, by all accounts, a fiendishly hard experiment. If it weren't, the world would have changed. It's not a matter of 'well, you say it's replicable so why don't you want to put it forward? either it's replicable or it's not.' This sort of two dimensional logic is not helpful.


    For the LENR community NOT to insist on this best attested positive set of experiments being redone would mean they felt these D/Pd electrolysis experiments were in fact not real. I guess I don't mind that, but I'd like it to be transparently stated.


    This makes no sense. It can be the best documented experiment, and still be so difficult as to cause people to think seriously about putting forward other experiments.


    When somebody comes to you and says 'we would like the recipe for a cake, and if we fail to make the cake, the consequences will be terrible', you don't give them the recipe for a croquembouche. Instead, you go and find the family recipe for a flourless orange cake.


    The robustness of the experiment is key.


    Why is bulk Pd/D a better bet than co-deposition, for example? The SPAWAR work is ostensibly straight forward and replicable. To my understanding, there are no significant materials science problems. There is no difficult loading of bulk palladium. The experiment throws off a range of nuclear products. There are many avenues to success. It is not entirely dependent on calorimetry.


    Granted, no experiment is 'gliding across the freshly waxed floor in your socks'. Some are more robust than others though, right?


    Do you think TG is less likely to succeed with co-deposition than bulk Pd/D? Why?


    You need to talk about the experiments that have been submitted to this thread in relation to each other. Weigh them along all the possible axes you can think of. You need to handicap them the way horse handicappers handicap horses. Don't spin up an argument that is an expanding tree of propositions focused on a single experiment. Weigh the experiments against each other.


    What are their strengths and weaknesses?


    Again, with respect, I just don't understand how you can arrive, confidently, at the conclusion that bulk Pd/D is the best option without going through this process.


    Other questions: Why is bulk Pd/D preferable to the Fralick experiment? Or Celani's wires? or Kirkinskii?


    If bulk Pd/D is the best option, and it may well be, then a compelling argument in its favour would weigh it against the other experiments and explain why it is preferable. You haven't done that.


    I don't know the answer to TG's question. I'm not fluent with the experiments that have been suggested. I'm not a scientist. All I want is a rigorous discussion.

  • On top of all the other LENR theories (Widom-Larsen e-capture; Wyttenbach's rotatoral field collapse; Holmlid's infra-red laser muon release from ultra dense D; Shoulder's EVO's and heavy electron screening of the Coulomb barrier etc etc) we now have Parkhomov proposing neutrinos/antineutrinos are involved too! Which is not such a new idea since Isaac Shomer proposed the same thing possibly being involved in H-bomb deuterium fusion ages ago:


    The hypothesis of Fischbach and Jenkins that neutrinos emitted from the
    sun accelerate radioactive decay is noted. It is thought that neutrinos accelerate
    beta decay by reacting with neutron-rich nuclides to form a beta particle and a
    daughter product, with no antineutrino emitted. Conversely, it is proposed that
    antineutrinos can react with proton-rich nuclides to cause positron decay, with no
    neutrino emitted. It is also proposed that the nuclear fusion of the hydrogen bomb
    is triggered not only by the energy of the igniting fission bomb, but by the
    antineutrinos created by the rapid beta decay of the daughter products in the
    fission process. The contemplated mechanism for this chain reaction fusion
    process is the following: (1) The antineutrinos from the fission daughter products
    cause positron decay of deuterium by the process outlined above. (2) In a later
    fusion step, these positrons subsequently react with neutrons in deuterium to
    create antineutrinos. Electrons are unavailable to annihilate positrons in the
    plasma of the hydrogen bomb. (3) These antineutrinos thereafter react with more
    deuterium to form positrons, thereby propagating the chain.


    So where do the neutrinos/antineutrinos come from in LENR? 2 sources, as far as I know: p-p fusion to D, Tritium beta decay. Don't know if they are low energy enough - to increase their reactive cross-section as P proposes and the Fischbach & Jenkins theory looks like it was disproved by later expts with radioactive Au foil. So LENR theory is still in an utter mess but the best gamble in this case is maybe there's an element of truth to each theory, GO LARGE if possible in replications just in case critical mass-effects are important re chain reactions etc.

  • Why is bulk Pd/D a better bet than co-deposition, for example? The SPAWAR work is ostensibly straight forward and replicable. To my understanding, there are no significant materials science problems. There is no difficult loading of bulk palladium. The experiment throws off a range of nuclear products. There are many avenues to success. It is not entirely dependent on calorimetry.


    Granted, no experiment is 'gliding across the freshly waxed floor in your socks'. Some are more robust than others though, right?


    Do you think TG is less likely to succeed with co-deposition than bulk Pd/D? Why?


    Other questions: Why is bulk Pd/D preferable to the Fralick experiment? Or Celani's wires? or Kirkinskii?


    Bulk Pd/D has multiple successful (according to most here) replications by independent groups. Therefore:

    (1) It cannot be too difficult

    (2) Whatever it is appears to exist.


    The other work you cite has been either not replicated, replicated finding issues in the original work, or very little replicated.


    I do agree, in principle, that given time you would expect better different experiments to emerge showing the same effect - a good example being co-deposition. If any of those have the same level of positive replication I'd want to pick them. Do they?


  • Bulk Pd/D has multiple successful (according to most here) replications by independent groups. Therefore:

    (1) It cannot be too difficult

    (2) Whatever it is appears to exist.


    Huxley, you should read a litle more what F&P themselves stated .


    During the 80's they had to run many parallell cells, in the hope that one of them indicated burst of heat after weeks of electrolysis.


    In their later work I believe it was 1 of 8 cells that showed exces heat Events.


    So, no, bulk Pd/D is not straight forward tests.


    And You you would NEVER go straight to boil off experiment before identifying cathodes that had proven excess heat allready at lower temps.


    Also, SPAWAR cells can go wrong. Researchers that fx started off with too high current got codeposition that flaked and falled off the electrode. So If they started very carefully, low current for a period, the co-dep had improved success rate compared to F&P cells.

  • There appears to be a consensus forming around the Takahashi, SPAWAR experiments...does everyone agree? Note: I did not add Mizuno, because Trevithick asked us not to consider. He will get the info he needs on that at Assisi next month.


    If you agree we are approaching a consensus, then maybe it will be more productive from now on to hold those two up as the gold standard for contending experiments to be measured against? If someone thinks there is a stronger candidate, then present your argument to the forum. Go category by category and explain the; type, quality, replication history, publications, availability of research data, accessibility to the author/s, and how each compare to, or exceeds the gold standards?


    In the end, if Takahashi/SPAWAR survives against all challengers, TG will have our final choices (we get 3, so we can add another) for what we believe will give them the best chance to prove LENR. If not, we have 3 better choices. Win-win.

  • I would like to add that cost, time, difficulty, and type of experiment (Pd/Ni, wet/dry, bulk/powder, XH/transmutations/nuclear signature) are not factors for us that need to be taken into consideration. They have the resources, time, and talent to handle anything already in the literature. So very simple...when TG begins anew on this next project, all they want are the 3 best experiments that give them the best chance to succeed in proving LENR.


    Full disclosure statement: Trevithick may or may not use what we recommend.