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

Quote from Dr Richard

All a bit worrying tho - one major research group linked to NASA and SPAWAR churning out multiple publications where everything works just dandy in LENR-world, then you have others like Coolescence where nothing works and everything LENR can be accounted for as either artifacts or calibration errors.

NASA and SPAWAR are not "churning out" multiple publications about anything. They have only published a few papers. They have never claimed that any of their devices works, dandy or otherwise. Only that some results are promising. I have been in close contact with them, and I think I have carefully read everything they published. Your characterization of their claims makes me wonder if you have read them.

I do not know if anyone has replicated the SPAWAR claims. I don't recall any solid replications, but the cold fusion literature is large and I may have forgotten them. There were many efforts to replicate it.

I do not think Coolescence concluded that the SPAWAR claims and the other claims they investigated could be accounted for as either artifacts or calibration errors. I read their papers carefully too. They were not able to replicate any effect, even as an artifact. To conclude that an effect is an artifact or calibration error, you have to get the same results, and the same numbers, and then show they are instrument errors. Coolescence did not do this. McKubre did in a few cases. The people at IH did this when they demonstrated apparent (but not real) excess heat coming from an empty reactor when they used Rossi's methods.

Quote from Cydonia

Let's wait for Christmas time then we'll see various confirmations and the ... rest.

If you are talking about Mizuno you will need to wait 3 years to never. That is how long it took him to make it work. Anyone who thinks this is likely to be replicated by Christmas has an unrealistic notion of how difficult scientific research is, and how difficult this particular experiment is. If someone manages to replicate Mizuno's ICCF21 results a year from now, seeing 100 W input and 112 W output, I will be thrilled. That will be proof his claims are real. People will probably have a long road ahead of them before they can achieve hundreds of watts.

As I said, 12 W excess will be a replication. Hundreds of watts in the near term would be a miracle, not a replication.

Mizuno and I will do all that we can to assist some of the professional grade replication attempts. I supplied as-received meshes, and he supplied (and is supplying) some prepared meshes. These are prepared, but not tested, so we don't know if they work. We can only do this for a small number of people who are skilled in the art, and who have fully equipped labs and high tech instruments. If these steps do not work after months and many attempts, perhaps he can provide samples of meshes that did work, to be analyzed by high resolution instruments. I might also recommend people start with reactors made by his vendor, because he himself does not have detailed information on how the vendor prepares and fabricates the reactors, so there may be something about the reactors he does not know.

I doubt there is much else he could do. Suggestions that he make a video of himself preparing a mesh seem futile to me. The problems with cold fusion materials happen on a microscopic scale, or even an atomic scale. You can't see them, and you learn little or nothing by watching someone physically prepare the materials. Also, if you don't know how to do chemistry and (for example) how to set up and operate a vacuum pump or a mass spectrometer, you are not skilled in the art and you should not be trying to replicate the experiment. Or any other cold fusion experiment. Along those lines, people who try to use a single thermocouple instead of a calorimeter should not be doing this, as you see in the Supplement, Temperature Distribution Study. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf) We recommended an air flow calorimeter for good reasons -- reasons we touched on in the paper. A Seebeck calorimeter might be equally good, based on how it works and the interface between the calorimeter and the sample. I do not know enough about other types to judge.

The only good news so far is that there has been an independent "reality check" of Mizuno's instruments and parameters by a third party. I will describe that briefly at ICCF22 in the presentation. Or poster session. And eventually in the paper or Supplement. All in good time. I am very busy trying to write the presentation and poster, and trying to assist people replicate.

The conference organizers have not told me whether I will be given a presentation slot. Frankly, a presentation is such a hassle, and so nerve wracking, I would prefer to make it a poster session. People have downloaded thousand of copies of the preliminary paper and supplement, so I have reached far more people than the than the ICCF audience already. Mizuno has no plans to attend. One good thing about a conference is that it forces you to meet a deadline.

Quote from Dr Richard

Well that's a bummer! Check out the Coolescence website showing a variety of failed replications including SPAWAR's C39 work being artifacts. Thanks to Ed Storms for pointing this out - maybe this just leaves the Takahashi group's work then, assuming they are willing to supply the complex nano structured Pd/Ni/ZrO or Cu/NI/ZrO catalytic materials. Coolescence ran for a few years with an expert team investigating LENR but achieved absolutely no positive results.

http://www.Coolescence.com

The coolescence website only refer to replication of the CR39 tracks, not excess heat measurments. So I think exces heat in co-dep is more important than to conclude if charged particles or not occurs in LENR as supposed by SPAWAR in CR39.

Dear Jed,

thanks for giving so much importance to a simple little sentence.

it was in fact, a general reflection not real intended to you, your work and Mizuno's work.

I respect what you do.

You said as SOT to exactly replicate Mizuno's parameters therefore from my side as Ed's Storms , i think it isn't fully necessary if you know how drive different tricks .

It necessary to link R20 with Ecat as i said and Ed Storms, to link both with IRs behaviors , both with Didier Grass, with Dan Chicea, etc etc.

Very few have skills and mind enough open to integrate all this even Google team.

However who really knows ?

It appaers that currently a lot of team will try R20 replications, so we will see more at end 2019 ( Chrismas )

See you soon.

Quote from JedRothwell

If you are talking about Mizuno you will need to wait 3 years to never. That is how long it took him to make it work. Anyone who thinks this is likely to be replicated by Christmas has an unrealistic notion of how difficult scientific research is, and how difficult this particular experiment is. If someone manages to replicate Mizuno's ICCF21 results a year from now, seeing 100 W input and 112 W output, I will be thrilled. That will be proof his claims are real. People will probably have a long road ahead of them before they can achieve hundreds of watts.

As I said, 12 W excess will be a replication. Hundreds of watts in the near term would be a miracle, not a replication.

Mizuno and I will do all that we can to assist some of the professional grade replication attempts. I supplied as-received meshes, and he supplied (and is supplying) some prepared meshes. These are prepared, but not tested, so we don't know if they work. We can only do this for a small number of people who are skilled in the art, and who have fully equipped labs and high tech instruments. If these steps do not work after months and many attempts, perhaps he can provide samples of meshes that did work, to be analyzed by high resolution instruments. I might also recommend people start with reactors made by his vendor, because he himself does not have detailed information on how the vendor prepares and fabricates the reactors, so there may be something about the reactors he does not know.

I doubt there is much else he could do. Suggestions that he make a video of himself preparing a mesh seem futile to me. The problems with cold fusion materials happen on a microscopic scale, or even an atomic scale. You can't see them, and you learn little or nothing by watching someone physically prepare the materials. Also, if you don't know how to do chemistry and (for example) how to set up and operate a vacuum pump or a mass spectrometer, you are not skilled in the art and you should not be trying to replicate the experiment. Or any other cold fusion experiment. Along those lines, people who try to use a single thermocouple instead of a calorimeter should not be doing this, as you see in the Supplement, Temperature Distribution Study. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf) We recommended an air flow calorimeter for good reasons -- reasons we touched on in the paper. A Seebeck calorimeter might be equally good, based on how it works and the interface between the calorimeter and the sample. I do not know enough about other types to judge.

The only good news so far is that there has been an independent "reality check" of Mizuno's instruments and parameters by a third party. I will describe that briefly at ICCF22 in the presentation. Or poster session. And eventually in the paper or Supplement. All in good time. I am very busy trying to write the presentation and poster, and trying to assist people replicate.

The conference organizers have not told me whether I will be given a presentation slot. Frankly, a presentation is such a hassle, and so nerve wracking, I would prefer to make it a poster session. People have downloaded thousand of copies of the preliminary paper and supplement, so I have reached far more people than the than the ICCF audience already. Mizuno has no plans to attend. One good thing about a conference is that it forces you to meet a deadline.

Display More

Quote from JedRothwell

If you are talking about Mizuno you will need to wait 3 years to never. That is how long it took him to make it work. Anyone who thinks this is likely to be replicated by Christmas has an unrealistic notion of how difficult scientific research is, and how difficult this particular experiment is. If someone manages to replicate Mizuno's ICCF21 results a year from now, seeing 100 W input and 112 W output, I will be thrilled. That will be proof his claims are real. People will probably have a long road ahead of them before they can achieve hundreds of watts.

Jed,

Can you answer if Mizuno can / has reproduced his R19 or R20 reactions successfully himself? By reproduced, I mean by a second reactor or a complete tear down and setup of the same reactor, with new fuel/meshes invovled?

There has been much guessing here on the forum. There has been some test results given, but it appears this was from a single run.

If Mizuno has indeed, replicated himself (per the above) then it should not be 3 years to see 100's of watts. He should be able to supervise a third party replication such as Google, which in my opinion is the #1 event the whole Cold Fusion field needs.

You yourself have said it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to commercialize LENR. This is not going to be done by a garage tinkerer, regardless of how smart or talented they are. A mega corporation is not going to get involved, unless there is reproducible tests available. Therefore, the #1 thing Mizuno probably should do, is supervise a 3rd party replication. If he supervises, I cannot think it would take 3 years.

However, if he cannot reproduce himself, then this whole thread is a bit premature. The track Rossi takes, who we all criticize "moving on to the next and greatest design" when in reality, never proves the existing eCat works, is not what Mizuno should copy! My understanding is that he is working on improvements? Should he not be assisting replications?

Can you confirm if Mizuno can reproduce successful R19 or R20 reactions at will, or at least a high percentage of success?

Thank you.

Well understood

Quote

Moderator hat on now; since Ed brought it up, and taking into consideration his stature in the field, how about we let him, or any serious researcher such as Cydonia, reference Rossi as a scientific fact without raising a ruckus?

Sure. And let's reference Bernie Madoff when we talk about financing, Enron about environmentally and socially conscious investors, Equifax as a high security company and well... you get the picture. No. Why exactly would anyone need a pass about Rossi?There are no scientific facts about Rossi, none at all. There have been none his entire life. He's a walking disaster to investors and believers alike. Brushing scams in a scientific area under the rug damages that field rather than helps it.

Quote

If you feel compelled to say something anyway, do so on the Rossi thread. Keep it civil, and non-personal though, and hopefully Ed won't go there and read it.

Seriously? You think Dr. Storms is so delicate he needs protection against critiques-- even of critiques of people other than himself? I very much doubt that he would agree, The little I know about him is that he is extremely smart, accomplished, and independent. Why would he need to be protected about Rossi? Why don't you ask him if that is what he wants done?

Quote from Cydonia

Well understood

Not by seven of twenty.

Quote from Bob#2

Can you answer if Mizuno can / has reproduced his R19 or R20 reactions successfully himself?

The R20 is a replication of R19, as you see in the paper. And 14 through 18, although 14 was only getting about 12 W, as I said. That was probably the mesh rather than the reactor.

Quote from Bob#2

By reproduced, I mean by a second reactor or a complete tear down and setup of the same reactor, with new fuel/meshes invovled?

Yes, as you see in the paper. I do not think he reuses the reactors much, or he wouldn't have 20 of them.

Quote from Bob#2

There has been much guessing here on the forum. There has been some test results given, but it appears this was from a single run.

The papers show one run from the R20, and 111 days with the R19, in Table 1. You can see how the effect varies. The R19 was tested again in July. It still works. It is about the same. It takes a little more input power to achieve the same amount of heat. I will present this result in a few weeks at the conference.

Quote from Bob#2

If Mizuno has indeed, replicated himself (per the above) then it should not be 3 years to see 100's of watts.

It will take other people months or years to learn to do it. It is art, not science.

Quote from Bob#2

He should be able to supervise a third party replication such as Google, which in my opinion is the #1 event the whole Cold Fusion field needs.

First, no one can "supervise" a scientist. They never listen, and they never follow directions. You saw that already here, with Deneum, who dispensed with the mass spec and the calorimeter. I am surprised he didn't use whipped cream instead of deuterium gas.

Second, Mizuno cannot supervise because he does not know any more than he & I already wrote. It took him weeks to clarify those steps. If you were to go watch him, you would not learn anything more than you learn from the paper. To learn more, you have to subject meshes and reactors to examination with advanced instruments and SEM. Which, alas, Mizuno does not have. Then you have to spend a few months doing it yourself to get a feel for it. Compare your meshes to his.

Quote from Bob#2

You yourself have said it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to commercialize LENR. This is not going to be done by a garage tinkerer, regardless of how smart or talented they are.

Mizuno is not a garage tinkerer. No garage tinkerer has ever replicated any cold fusion experiment.

Quote from Bob#2

A mega corporation is not going to get involved, unless there is reproducible tests available.

You are wrong about that.

Researchers at mega corporations are not idiots. Not all of them, anyway. Some are, I will grant. The smart ones know that you have get involved before reproducible tests are available. If you wait for reproducible tests, that would be like waiting for Tesla to begin selling electric cars before you start to develop one. Which is, in fact, what the idiots in charge of most automobile companies did, which is why Tesla now outsells all other luxury brands combined.

I test drove a Tesla the other day. It is far ahead of any other car. Today I saw a Benz on display at a shopping mall for the same price as the Tesla, $45,000. It was pathetic! Practically no computerization. No radar or safety features. Absurdly low mileage. Only 50,000 mile coverage. It is 19th century technology with a bag on it. I cannot image any tech-oriented person buying such an obsolete machine for such an outrageous sum of money. Cold fusion will be like that compared to conventional energy, only about 200 times more so. I mean 200 times cheaper. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, as you see in the paper. I do not think he reuses the reactors much, or he wouldn't have 20 of them.

I think some of them are bits and pieces of old ones, with new flanges.

Quote from JedRothwell

Practically no computerization. No radar or safety features.

I mean, for example, when you go to change lanes on the highway in the Tesla, it warns you if someone is in your blind spot, or if someone is approaching rapidly from behind in that lane. There is a huge display showing the cars ahead, behind and in other lanes. It is not distracting. It is like super-good radar-equipped all-weather rear view mirror, except it is rear, front and sides and it never forgets to look. It is hard to describe how much better this is compared to other cars.

The owner told me it is much easier to drive long distances, and much safer. She is in her 60s and not particularly computer oriented, but she had no trouble mastering the technology.

Driving it is quite different from a regular car. Quite different from a Prius, too, which is a step up from a regular car, with the usual auto speed gadgets and whatnot.

Actually, I most enjoy driving cars with manual shift, no air conditioning ("4-60 air"), and zero computers. I think I would enjoy driving a Model T Ford. My late mother said they were great fun. But for safety and long distance transportation, I would prefer self-driving cars that get you there 100% of time in perfect safety even if you are drunk, asleep, or dead.

Quote

I mean, for example, when you go to change lanes on the highway in the Tesla, it warns you if someone is in your blind spot, or if someone is approaching rapidly from behind in that lane. There is a huge display showing the cars ahead, behind and in other lanes. It is not distracting. It is like super-good radar-equipped all-weather rear view mirror, except it is rear, front and sides and it never forgets to look. It is hard to describe how much better this is compared to other cars

Jed, it's OT so we can discuss it elsewhere if you wish. The Tesla is ahead of its time but it has to be recharged which is a huge PITA while the Benz runs on ordinary fuel and there is a new Benz hybrid which gets excellent mileage. All modern cars have radars (in very cheap cars they are options) including automatic spacing/speed adjusting "adaptive" cruise control, rear cross track alert when backing, and side blind spot warning. My relatively inexpensive Camry Hybrid (2017 model bought in 2016) has all those features. Some also have parking sensors and even auto-parking. I have not seen the multiple cameras you describe on the Tesla but if you're accurate. those are not yet on most cars but I am sure they will be. And a rather small and rough riding Model 3 Tesla realistically starts at around $40-45K while the larger models begin at $70K and go up, way up from there.

Tesla is getting there fast but it's not quite all there yet, IMO. And soon, all major manufacturers will be competing with fine hybrids and all-electric cars.

Quote

I think I would enjoy driving a Model T Ford.

You might but it wouldn't be much fun to be in a freeway crash in one.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

All modern cars have radars (in very cheap cars they are options) including automatic spacing/speed adjusting "adaptive" cruise control, rear cross track alert when backing, and side blind spot warning. My relatively inexpensive Camry Hybrid (2017 model bought in 2016) has all those features. Some also have parking sensors and even auto-parking.

The Benz I saw today did not list any of those features. It was on exhibit in a shopping mall. The display screen was small. It looks to me like a design made by people still oriented to gasoline powered, manually driven cars. It is not even as advanced as my 2010 Prius.

I will grant, I have not looked at cars since 2010.

The Tesla range is not as big a problem as I thought, according to the owner. She drives several hundred miles most weekends. The range is 240 miles. Supercharger locations are shown on the map. It would be a problem driving from Atlanta to Pennsylvania, but shorter trips are not a problem she says.

I expect the range and speed of recharging will improve soon. If the range reaches 800 miles, I think that is the most an ordinary person would ever want to drive in one day, even given a 10% buffer (720 miles). As long as you can recharge overnight I don't see a problem, except you cannot do that on 120 VAC.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

You might but it wouldn't be much fun to be in a freeway crash in one.

Yup. That's the problem. The same problem with these electric scooters that are all over Atlanta. 4 people killed on them this year since the craze began.

Quote from JedRothwell

First, no one can "supervise" a scientist. They never listen, and they never follow directions.

Thank you for your response, it cleared up several points for me.

For some reason, I was thinking reactors before R19 were heated externally and that something significantly different was done between R19 (lower watts) versus R20, (hundreds of watts0. While these would not be technically replications as there were differences (significant?), if they all showed excess heat, then I would think anyone would accept the base reactor as replicated.

However, as far as supervising, I have little experience with researchers in this field. However, I did work in R&D in the automotive field. On new products, either a third party testing company tested the product , with MUCH instruction from us, the automotive engineering department tested the product themselves, again with much input, or most often, we would conduct the testing and the automotive engineering department would witness the testing, the protocols, the data collection and then determine final approval results. Result, a verified product or a rejection by their engineers as to why the data was not acceptable.

I would think that any major corporation is going to do one of the above. Either replicate themselves, thus need MUCH direction from Mizuno or have Mizuno conduct the tests in the presence/witness of their engineers. Even IH did this. They first tried to replicate via their own staff, then tried to monitor Doral.

I still propose that LENR / CF has went 30+ years in a quagmire.... people arguing whether it is even a real phenomena or not!

We need to get past that. If Mizuno cannot "supervise" a replication, then I would think it certainly possible and well worth the project for a team to monitor Mizuno running a successful test, checking procedures, equipment and data collection. This would certainly give them a BIG advantage in conducting their own replication.

It has been stated that Mizuno's design is much simpler than F&P. Not easy, but much simpler. Surely he can demonstrate this to another group of competent engineers. You stated that no one can supervise a scientist.... well I am unsure of that... However.... I know you can supervise a group of top notch engineers. I have done it personally. This needs to be done!

It is a bit contradictory to publish Mizuno's procedures, admonish a group for "not following the procedure" and then tell me that you "cannot supervise scientists as they never follow procedures" !

Looks like we need to get some high quality engineers on the project! Otherwise, I fear it will be more of the same old, same old.... 30 years of it still being argued whether LENR is even real, all because it cannot be readily replicated by instructions to others.

Thanks again.

Quote

It has been stated that Mizuno's design is much simpler than F&P. Not easy, but much simpler. Surely he can demonstrate this to another group of competent engineers. You stated that no one can supervise a scientist.... well I am unsure of that... However.... I know you can supervise a group of top notch engineers. I have done it personally. This needs to be done!

Completely agree (for what it's worth). Not only is Mizuno's process way simpler and somehow more aesthetic and "cleaner" than wet electrolysis cells but the consistent output and power ratio are claimed to be much better than anyone else has claimed to have accomplished on a regular basis. Yes you have to understand high vacuum technology, clean techniques, and mass spec methodology. That is tough but not insurmountable these days. And IMHO, even the air calorimeter is better conceptually than isoperibolic methods (basically single or few point temperature measurements). Still, at this point, I think cautious people will still see it as claims. Alluring as hell claims, but still claims, far from proven. Yet.

Quote

I expect the range and speed of recharging will improve soon. If the range reaches 800 miles, I think that is the most an ordinary person would ever want to drive in one day, even given a 10% buffer (720 miles). As long as you can recharge overnight I don't see a problem, except you cannot do that on 120 VAC

I agree and in the not far distant future, if our messy world allows us one, most cars will be electric and they will be charged from solar and wind (and OK, if LENR exists and bears out the optimistic projections of cost and safety, it's an obvious choice for making electricity). But I suspect affordable 800 mile range is some distance in the future unless we get an unexpected battery breakthrough that is both cheap and high storage.

Just based on that sort of attitude, I guess they want to keep the credit and the technology for themselves as long as possible. That is just a guess. Along similar lines, I wonder why the people at Texas Tech have revealed nothing about their research, or whether they have made progress, and I wonder why the Google paper in Nature had essential no information in it. I cannot read minds but I suppose these people are all hoping they can steal the march and make progress in cold fusion before others do.

I'd guess that Texas Tech would say nothing when they had no obvious positive results, but were continuing to check things and try stuff in the hope of getting such. Or, if their results were clearly so contaminated with unexpected noise (leaks or whatever) that they still had to get stuff working.

I'd guess no info in the google paper because they do not want to publish a whole load of negative results - especially since they want if possible to continue the hunt.

Coming back to the thread topic, we have:

SPAWAR - a failed replication with suggestion of what were the artifacts seen and misinterpreted.

Takahashi - can't replicate because no info.

I come back to my suggestion - do a more complete job of understanding the artifacts and/or real excess heat from D/Pd systems. I'm neutral on whether vanilla or co-deposition variant.

THH