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

  • Shane D. well done !

    some comments below in blue.


    "There are no experiments we can recommend with a guaranteed 100, 80, or even 50% chance of seeing an LENR effect. There is not a "top 3".

    Fully agree.


    There are however, a number of high quality experiments, that when pursued with the resources available to TG, the cooperation of the authors, and comprehensive instructions, will give a high probability of success.

    Yes, therefore we couln't exclude high XH both with high reproductibilty for some experiments.

    To do that, the secret of success will be in risk's distribution.


    The reverse question should be take in account too ? With Google currently didn't found results as expected ?

    Because there is always an implicit leader or a soft consensus in a big team with a large budget.

    Elun Musk wouldn't have succeeded in his so-called crazy projects if he had worked at NASA.

    As on LF, it should to have a competition of ideas because everyone always thinks they are right and in good faith.

    That's why I remain convinced that a big project including, full of smaller projects, would have much better chances of success.




  • I think, this is, again, nothing else, then excuses. Either for "having not enough money or ressourcs or talented people".

    The negative image on LENR ( mostly due to Rossi and BLP ) is really hard to overcome.
    But it is even strenthened by pro-lenr's which assure, that there are no numbers which allow at least a slight way of orientation.


    Look.


    Quote

    "There are no experiments we can recommend with a guaranteed 100, 80, or even 50% chance of seeing an LENR effect. There is not a "top 3".

    Fully agree.



    This is a "totschlag Argument".

    By stating this in such a self assured way, You now lost even the longest pro-lenr-believers.
    There is no reason to pursue anything, which cannot even grant this.

  • P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P. Forsley. 2019. Synopsis of Refereed Publications on Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions (v2.0). (https://www.academia.edu/38420…tions_in_Condensed_Matter)


    Quote

    The NASA Glenn Research Center replicated the co-deposition protocol. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division with JWK under NCRADA and with NASA and other agency funding, replicated the protocol, analyzed materials, and observed magnetic field effects and thermal responses.

  • Very short term I think that the Google calorimetric team should thoroughly review the Mizuno airflow calorimetry system, and maybe replicate it (with resistive generators).

    I have some issues with it, particularly R20, but haven't had time to make a post out of it.


    Alan,


    This is not entirely off-topic, if google guys are maybe to be asked to review it.


    Obviously, if R19 or R20 works as stated either one could be independently tested and if found to work this would be a world-changing (literally) event. Mizuno has shown himself with IH to be open to such testing. It could even be in his own lab, with instrumentation and expertise brought in, and independent testers checking everything.


    The air calorimetry used has issues: most notably the fact that efficiency, and reactor temperature for given power out, will vary with airflow around the reactor that is different between control and active runs. But after a lot of probing, even though this is a serious issue, I don't think it is quite enough to account for R19, and certainly not enough for R20.


    Finally, and critical, I don't think these results (R19 or R20) can be trusted without more clarity on input power. In previous (2016) experiments measured (with wattmeter) and calculated (from V*I) powers are mixed up. The measured power has to be processed from the wattmeter since Jed says that was always used on the input side of the PSU, and the equation to do that is not made clear. There is room for a lot of confusion here, especially because the I measurements gathered automatically again are not direct, but subject to calculation from a shunt resistor, as I understand.


    So in decoding the Mizuno experiments I'd want:


    1. Much more clarity on input power measurement (not difficult to do) first priority.

    2. Second priority would be methodology: explicit recording of when and under what conditions control experiments are done, with best practice being before and after active, with all differences (e.g. using different reactors, with possibly different PSU) explicitly recorded. Again not difficult.

    3. Third priority would be the various air flow calorimetry issues, some of which would depend on 2.


    Worth pointing out that whereas any replication can be criticised for not following the correct method, or this being one of those things that mysteriously only sometimes works, Mizuno's own reactors appear to have been working stably for quite some time, and have good enough results that testing them in situ should be possible: with independent validation of input power (easy) and output power (not so easy but surely possible given that +/- 20% accuracy would still leave plenty).


    THH

  • We are coming to the end of this. Friday will be the last day I believe. Matt and I will talk about it then, and see where to go from there. I suspect we will keep this thread running because it serves as a direct communications line between TG, and the LENR community. Correct me if wrong, but right now my take-away after reading hundreds of comments, is that the LENR communities message to TG is that:


    "There are no experiments we can recommend with a guaranteed 100, 80, or even 50% chance of seeing an LENR effect. There is not a "top 3". There are however, a number of high quality experiments, that when pursued with the resources available to TG, the cooperation of the authors, and comprehensive instructions, will give a high probability of success. Success being defined as a small percentage of the total tests performed, will clearly demonstrate the effect."


    Not passing judgement, or being a grump, as I think this has been a very productive discovery process...both for TG, and LENR. The only reason I bring this up, is so we can all come together behind one message by Friday. So what do you think...Anything to add, subtract?

    Well Shane D. I think you are doing good at describing the situation of how we, as LENR community, are missing an opportunity here because of our lack of capacity to come to an agreement.


    Then I will insist in one thing that seems to me essential and everyone here seems to be completely ignoring or forgetting: excess heat is not the only aspect to LENR and has been by far the fleeting and elusive one. But, at the same time LENT has been observed even in total absense of excess heat, and these kind of experiments have been completely ignored in the ongoing discussion, while they are absolutely unambiguous, and you can perform them with absolute disregard of calorimetry as they require only quantitative and qualitative chemical analysis tools to check for results. I will mention Ohmasa here again, and as I see no one will pay attention to that, I will eventually get to do that kind of experiments, but I will leave here, in hope someone at team Google pays attention, a series of published experiments where transmutation has been observed either in solid samples or in aqueous phase.


    Piezonuclear Reactions in Cavitated Water

    Deformed Spacetime: Geometrizing Interactions in Four and Five Dimensions, 235-251, 2007



    Nuclear metamorphosis in mercury

    International Journal of Modern Physics B 30 (1), 1550239, 2016



    Chemical changes induced by ultrasound in iron

    Applied Physics A 114 (4), 1233-1246, 2014



    PIEZONUCLEAR NEUTRONS FROM IRON PIEZONUCLEAR NEUTRONS FROM IRON (Edmund Storms).


    Compositional Variations in Palladium Electrodes Exposed to Electrolysis

    Fracture, Fatigue, Failure and Damage Evolution, Volume 8, 187-195, 2016


    Ultrasonic piezonuclear reactions in steel and sintered ferrite bars

    Journal of Advanced Physics 5 (1), 69-75, 2016

    Isotopical Changes in Piezonuclear Iron

    Journal of Advanced Physics 5 (1), 90-96, 2016



    Will come back to add more to the list later.

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

  • Curbina Deformed Spacetime: Geometrizing Interactions in Four and Five Dimensions? As useful as 'Positive energy flow through quantum-induced temporal rupture'

    Max Nozin , everyone and the house parrot has a favorite pet theory, in my case I am focusing in reproducible experiments, if we can produce transmutations at will with cavitation in solids or liquids, eventually a theory will be developed, first we have to accept that this actually happens. I will see if I can bring Dr. Cardone to interact here, and see if he is willing to cooperate with supplying the sonotrode equipment.

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

  • Curbina as you might have already seen without understanding REAL physical processes behind LENR, it is impossible to create a simple reporduceable experiment. As Jed pointed out ' it is still an art not science'. Bringing in stuff like fifth dimensions and spacetime deformations does not allow you to limit the list of parameters to reasonably short list easy to control. What if where you lab is located the spacetime deforms differently from where successful experiment was held? Do you need to wait for proper spacetime elasticity and can you measure it? Or just simply bring you lab out on full moon light? These typed of things.

  • Curbina as you might have already seen without understanding REAL physical processes behind LENR, it is impossible to create a simple reporduceable experiment. As Jed pointed out ' it is still an art not science'. Bringing in stuff like fifth dimensions and spacetime deformations does not allow you to limit the list of parameters to reasonably short list easy to control. What if where you lab is located the spacetime deforms differently from where successful experiment was held? Do you need to wait for proper spacetime elasticity and can you measure it? Or just simply bring you lab out on full moon light? These typed of things.

    The experimental set ups used in the cavitation research are simple enough to not worry about such flamboyant issues. Every time you induce cavitation, however you create it, anomalies can be detected. The problem IMO is that nobody looks because there is no theoretical background that would justify looking, but when you look, you will find unexpected things. Why this happens I have no idea, the important part is that it happens, and it happens whether or not excess heat is produced.

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

  • I'll summariz what I understood of possibilities and problems :

    • reproducing R20 would be fantastic, with calorimetry, and I propose with heat engine, but it is not yer sure it can be reproduced
    • Reproducing Fralick/Liu/Biberian/NasaGRC heat anomaly with D2 permeation in commercial PdAg filter would b possible, but some says anomaly is tiny.
    • Reproducing Spawar Co-deposition seems great idea, but heat anomaly is said weak and previous effors were not successful
    • Reproducing classical Miles/Storms/F&P/McKubre/Violante is a hard job, requiring long experience in calorimetry... risky, and by the way many details are unsure.
    • Reproducing Nedo Funded tests would be nice, but the japanese companies and team are now unwilling to share data...
    • Iwamura thin film was not cited?

    I've seen many other proposal but I son't see many already reproduced and convincing...


    I remember of some efforts that more knowledgeable people may detail :

    • some test with PdB ?
    • Tritium productions ?

    Who can mitigate my despair?

  • We are coming to the end of this. Friday will be the last day I believe. Matt and I will talk about it then, and see where to go from there. I suspect we will keep this thread running because it serves as a direct communications line between TG, and the LENR community. Correct me if wrong, but right now my take-away after reading hundreds of comments, is that the LENR communities message to TG is that:


    "There are no experiments we can recommend with a guaranteed 100, 80, or even 50% chance of seeing an LENR effect. There is not a "top 3". There are however, a number of high quality experiments, that when pursued with the resources available to TG, the cooperation of the authors, and comprehensive instructions, will give a high probability of success. Success being defined as a small percentage of the total tests performed, will clearly demonstrate the effect."


    Not passing judgement, or being a grump, as I think this has been a very productive discovery process...both for TG, and LENR. The only reason I bring this up, is so we can all come together behind one message by Friday. So what do you think...Anything to add, subtract?


    Shane - I'm not quite sure which of the suggested options have the highest probability of success in the terms you state it above?


    Given all comments here, I'd still go for classic electrolysis D/Pd, but I'll accept correction.


    Anyway that is what people should focus on: highest probability of success, not highest COP or highest individual test success rate.

  • It is still my hope that Google and Dr. Mizuno will arrive at mutual agreement about a Google examination of Dr. Mizuno's existing physical instance of the R20, with Google to generate a public report carefully describing the tests they were able to conduct and their results.


    I don't care what's happening in the box. If there's heat and COP at the levels reported by Dr. Mizuno, and the box contains nothing but Dr. Mizuno's mesh, a 250W heater, and a bit of gas, Google should back Dr. Mizuno up with all the credibility that a wealthy corporation will have. I believe if Google were to say they'd examined the R20 and it does what Dr. Mizuno says it does, it would be the lead story on every newscast and in every newspaper in the world, the next day.

  • I believe if Google were to say they'd examined the R20 and it does what Dr. Mizuno says it does, it would be the lead story on every newscast and in every newspaper in the world, the next day.


    I think it would take a few months, or maybe a year for that to happen. First, you have to see 10 or 20 other large companies such as Google replicate. Then, news of that would have to leak out, or be published. Then, finally, it would be the lead story. If it were published today, most people would not understand the significance. Reporters would ask the editors at Nature and the DoE managers what it means, and they would say it is fraud and lunacy. That's they have said all along -- if they will say that about researchers at Los Alamos and BARC, they will say it about Google. So, the story would not be published. Most reporters know nothing about science. They don't know the difference between power and energy, or temperature and heat. They will never publish a report that the DoE says is fraud and lunacy.


    Eventually, with enough replications, Nature and the DoE would be overcome. Their opposition would not prevent other companies from replicating. It would only prevent news from being published in the mass media. That does not matter.

  • I think it would take a few months, or maybe a year for that to happen. First, you have to see 10 or 20 other large companies such as Google replicate.

    Well, I haven't gone through what Jed and others have. But given the climate crisis, if a large reputable company were to announce that they thought they'd found a new non-fossil-fuel based, non-radioactive, non-polluting energy source, I'd be very comfortable firing any editor that did not put that on the front page.


    I agree that a story announcing a hitherto unlikely new source of energy would not be a big deal. But the story would not be "new energy source found, says little known group;" the story would be "New energy source works, say Google researchers." Actually, the story would probably be more like "Alphabet announces $100 million investment in new energy source, following investigation confirming inexplicable results from Japanese researcher."

  • Well, I haven't gone through what Jed and others have. But given the climate crisis, if a large reputable company were to announce that they thought they'd found a new non-fossil-fuel based, non-radioactive, non-polluting energy source, I'd be very comfortable firing any editor that did not put that on the front page.


    Hundreds of researchers at major labs such as Los Alamos, China Lake and BARC published peer-reviewed in major journals papers making this claim. These experiments were every bit as convincing as Mizuno's is, from a scientific point of view. The papers are definitive and irrefutable. No skeptic has ever discovered any significant error in any of them. Many of the researchers were far more important than Mizuno, with more credibility. For example, the head of BARC and later Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy commission published papers. These papers has no impact on the mass media. Not a single one of them has ever been mentioned by Nature, Scientific American, the Washington Post, or any other mass media newspaper or magazine. All of these newspapers and magazines continue to claim that cold fusion has never been replicated, no paper on the subject has ever been published, and all researchers are lunatics, fraud and criminals. Given this track record, what makes you think that an announcement by Google would have any impact? I don't see any reason. Google has no more credibility than BARC or the China Lake.


    I don't think this will matter. Opposition by Nature will not prevent replications, thanks in part to the internet. This is not 1989 anymore. The mainstream mass media can no longer prevent information from reaching other researcher as much as it could back then. People have downloaded more than 6,300 copies of Mizuno's paper. Some excellent researchers are trying to replicate it. Mizuno and I will do all that we can to assist them. It may take months or years.



    Actually, the story would probably be more like "Alphabet announces $100 million investment in new energy source, following investigation confirming inexplicable results from Japanese researcher."


    There is not the slightest chance any editor would allow that. If they mentioned it at all, they would only say that this is part of long string of fraud and criminality that Google has apparently fallen victim to, and they would cite Rossi and the problems with IH and the British investor.


    For them to mention this would be tantamount to admitting they were wrong all these years. Okay, not admitting it straight out -- they would be hinting that it is possible they might have been slightly wrong. Look at the track record of the Scientific American. They first attacked and belittled the Wright brothers in 1906. They repeated these attacks again and again, most recently in 2003, in the 100th anniversary of the first flight. They will never, every, admit they were wrong about anything, or any person, or any event. It just isn't part of their institutional character. They are perfect, always have been, and always will be. The same with Nature, multiplied by 10. Their arrogance knows no bounds. They may eventually come around to saying that cold fusion is real. They will if it is commercialized. But they will take credit for it, and they find some mainstream scientist who they will say really discovered it. That person will get a Nobel for it. Fleischmann, Pons, Storms, Mizuno and everyone else who actually discovered it will be buried under a mountain of calumny and lies by Nature, Sci. Am and the others. This is how the world works.


    You might as well expect THH to admit that when 4 different power meters show that a resistance heater has 50 W going into it, some of them clip-on, some direct, and they all agree to within less than 1%, that proves there is 50 W going into it. Not 300 W. THH and the other pathological skeptics will never, under any circumstances, admit this is true, or that any other cold fusion claim is true. They will continue to insist there might be an error measuring input power, and what looks like 50 W might actually 300 W. Of course they cannot actually cite any error, for this or any of their other crackpot claims, but that is no impediment. The laws of physics, common sense, reality and what actually happens means nothing to them, or the editors at Nature. Politics, power, money and primate emotions are all the only things they know. These are not rational people. They are not doing science. Their goal is not to discover new knowledge, or improve the prospects for humanity, or prevent global warming, or even to satisfy curiosity. Their only goal is primate politics: dominating others as Alpha Males. Being "right" by intimidation, posturing, hooting and throwing sticks and feces. Primate behavior is as much a part of human behavior as it is in chimpanzees or gorillas.

  • Quote

    These experiments were every bit as convincing as Mizuno's is, from a scientific point of view.

    Convincing in what way? Convincing to whom? Obviously not convincing to very many wealthy investors. Obviously not convincing to the military. Etc. etc. yeah, I know... they're all stupid or they don't read or what ever the excuse du jour is.


    Quote

    No skeptic has ever discovered any significant error in any of them.

    Constant favorite strawman of JedRothwell and many other LENR advocates and basically the attitude which has gotten us where we are-- widespread lack of interest and knowledge about LENR.


    Quote

    Many of the researchers were far more important than Mizuno, with more credibility

    You persist in consistently misconstruing the process of scientific acceptance of an exhorbitant extravagant claim that flies in the face of known principles. You have to show it very very convincingly. To the people who matter because they have money and influence-- not the what I like to call "the usual suspects" who already have faith.


    Getting this latest LENR claim accepted doesn't depend on Mizuno's "importance" - whatever that is. Mizuno's perceived openness and apparent honesty in the past matter in getting people interested in trying the replication or visiting him to help him prove his claim. But the real motivations are the cleanliness and simplicity of the experiment (lack of convolutions and assumptions, I am not saying it's easy to perform) and the robust, truly irrefutable results which will be found if the claim is true.


    Quote

    Not a single one of them has ever been mentioned by Nature, Scientific American, the Washington Post, or any other mass media newspaper or magazine. All of these newspapers and magazines continue to claim that cold fusion has never been replicated, no paper on the subject has ever been published, and all researchers are lunatics, fraud and criminals.

    That's because those conservative publications did not find the claims credible and properly confirmed. It's not malice. And it's not bias unless you include bias against being fooled, which they have been many time before. The part about major publications officially calling " all researchers lunatics, frauds and criminals" is ridiculous. Show me where they have done that. For that matter, they don't claim the other items you attribute to them either. Provide good enough evidence and everything else will follow. I agree only with your last paragraph. This isn't 1900. It's the internet age. And if Mizuno's claim, which you, JedRothwell are championing, succeeds, the battle is all over.


    Whatever I can do to insure this, albeit very little, I will do. And I am sure all skeptics on this forum without exception will do the same.

  • That's because those conservative publications did not find the claims credible and properly confirmed. It's not malice.


    Nope. The confirmations were as good as science can be. They used the best instruments available. They got measurements of tritium 50 times background, hundreds of times background, 10E16 times background. They repeated the tests hundreds of times. They saw far more heat and energy than the first experiments with radioactivity and the first controlled fission reactor, and other experiments that were accepted immediately by every scientist. The claims were replicated in many labs with a wide variety of instruments and detectors. Some of the people doing the experiments were among the best in the world in electrochemistry, tritium detection and various other fields. If any other claim had this level of proof, every scientist on earth would accept it. It was rejected because of academic politics alone.


    You say otherwise, but you ignore the facts, and you claim you have not read the literature and you do not know the c.v.'s of the researchers, so you are wrong.


    It is malice. But it is mainly stupidity, ignorance, and refusal to look at facts or admit they might be wrong. Such behavior is common. It explains much of history. Such as most of the 9 million soldiers killed in World War I, many of them in futile attacks against machine guns and barbed wired strongholds.

  • The part about major publications officially calling " all researchers lunatics, frauds and criminals" is ridiculous. Show me where they have done that.


    See: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf


    Example:


    “. . . Sometimes the faithful don’t completely turn off their reason. They become captive to a fantasytheyhear in one ear, but listen for science with the other ear. So begins a deterioration that dims the wits but leaves a zealous heart beating - the result is a cult of fervent halfwits. Some of them believe the Universe is only 6000 years old. Some sing praises to satellites. Some claim to fuse hydrogen in a jar.


    Cloistered in southern France are the cold fusion team of Martin Fleischman and B. StanleyPons. While every result and conclusion they publish meets with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. They warn of fireballs that will be hurled from closed-cell experiments. They promise to produce an energy source by the end of the year that can power a home for 10 000 years. And a few scientists, captivated by the team’s fantasy and exile, pursue cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity.”


    Slakey, F., When the lights of reason go out - Francis Slakey ponders the faces of fantasy and New Age scientists. New Scientist, 1993. 139(1890): p. 49. Slakey was the Science Policy Administrator of the American Physical Society


    See also "The Fizzle in Fusion" Washington Post.


    More to the point, do you know of any counter-examples? Anything published in Nature? Has Nature discussed any replication, ever? Not as far as I know. How would you characterize the recent editorials published along with the Google paper?