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

  • 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. ..."


    I'm sorry, Shane, but IMO this is absolutely wrong.


    The "positive feedback" is a phenomenon which F&P have claimed to have seen in their experiments since 1986 (1) and many LENR researchers at various labs have claimed to have reproduced it at least until 2002 (2). So it is 100% guaranteed that Team Google has the resources, time, and talent to successfully reproduce this phenomenon and all its effects.


    Consider, please, what was just said by:

    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. ...


    All of these researchers replicated the PdD electrolytic experiments of F&P by using bulk cathodes or the co-deposition method. Considering only these last experiments, the number of confirmations and endorsements is really impressive, as recently reported in the Synopsis of Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter (3):

    - 60 peer-reviewed publications (the last in 2018);

    - 38 U.S. plus 22 non-U.S. authors from 12 countries;

    - 25 U.S. plus 13 non-U.S. institutions.


    Which other CF experiment can boast such a general consensus among the LENR scientific community?


    Actually, it's true that only a very low level of excess heat was claimed by using the co-deposition method, but the cell temperature was not increased up to the boiling point, as was said by F&P it was necessary to obtain power densities comparable to those typical of Fast Breeder Reactors. The Team Google can easily overcome this limitation by extending the temperature range up to the boiling point and letting the electrolyte to completely evaporate as happened in the "1992 boil-off experiment".


    Once Google's experts have procured and properly instrumented a set of open electrolytic cells, as similar as possible to those used by F&P in 1992, they can test a wide spectrum of different specimens, electrolytes and operating conditions, so that they will be able to reproduce the "positive feedback" phenomenon which led the multi-decadal research activity of F&P and of their emulators and epigones.


    100% guaranteed.


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

    (2) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…31.6578&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    (3) https://www.academia.edu/38420…tions_in_Condensed_Matter

  • 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.


    Why do you expect people should believe the Mizuno's extraordinary results without even looking at the original spreadsheets? The only spreadsheets available on internet, those referring to the 120 W active and control tests carried out in May 2016, contain many incongruities. The most serious being the cancellation, in the active test spreadsheet, of the powers directly measured by the wattmeter and their substitution with the results of product V*I (*). Results claimed for R19 and R20 are even more astonishing, and, to be believed, Mizuno should first reveal who modified the 2016 active spreadsheet, while providing a reason for doing so. A good reason, something capable of removing any little suspicion that the values of the original direct measurement of input power acquired by the wattmeter were deleted because they showed a power level double compared to that obtained by multiplying V and I.


    (*) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • The "positive feedback" is a phenomenon which F&P have claimed to have seen in their experiments since 1986 (1) and many LENR researchers at various labs have claimed to have reproduced it at least until 2002 (2). So it is 100% guaranteed that Team Google has the resources, time, and talent to successfully reproduce this phenomenon and all its effects.


    This is strictly my opinion, but I do think you and THH are making a good argument in defense. Those older Pd experiments are extremely well documented in the literature, and there are many of the old guard left who I think would be more than happy to offer TG their assistance.

  • 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...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.


    The difference, IMO, is that Dr. Mizuno is claiming more than a kilowatt of heat which is unaccounted for, not peaks on particular spectra or 8 watts in place of 7.5.

    Anyone, even me, can understand that if you get a sustained 2kW "worth" of heat out of a box when sending 250W of electric power in, something is going on. There are only two to three things to establish: that the only possible power into the box is from the path going through "honest" meters, that there is no wireless transmission of power involved, and that the box is empty except for the mesh and heater. Any popular news editor, I am confident, would be thrilled to have the story. They would put the risk primarily on Google, not their paper, by quoting the Google investigators for any statements as to what was observed. (That's just competent journalism, not cowardice.) And they would be fully prepared to run a follow-up, if it turned out to be necessary, showing how the Google engineers were fooled. But based on what little I know of reporters, nobody would want to miss out on being the first to run the story about Google confirming the heat. If confirmed, it doesn't just mean a Nobel for Mizuno, it would also mean a Pulitzer for the reporter who first reported the story.


    I'm aware of anecdotes of people denying heavier-than-air flight was possible even after viewing the Wright Brothers' early flights. That's why I don't feel Dr. Mizuno's results must be incorrect. But I don't share your belief that positive results from an investigation would be suppressed by the entire mainstream media. I can't even imagine a world where that sort of suppression would be possible.

  • But I don't share your belief that positive results from an investigation would be suppressed by the entire mainstream media. I can't even imagine a world where that sort of suppression would be possible.


    Not suppressed; ignored. Not reported. No report of any cold fusion experiment was ever published by the magazines and newspapers I listed, as far as I know. It is easy to search their archives, and I have found nothing. They are not suppressing anything because we have the internet, and people have downloaded 4.5 million papers from LENR-CANR.org. But, even if Google replicates Mizuno, you can be sure there will be no news of it in any mainstream newspaper or magazine.


    But that doesn't matter. People will find out. Other companies are already looking at it. Word will get out. We don't need reports in Nature. We did back in 1989, but that was a different world in the history of mass media. Mass media has lost a lot of its power. That's a good thing.

  • But, even if Google replicates Mizuno, you can be sure there will be no news of it in any mainstream newspaper or magazine.


    I'd like to argue that if Google Research confirms the Mizuno experiment, it will cause a news earthquake that the world has not yet seen. Not only that, there will also be an earthquake on the commodity and equity markets, as it will soon be clear that countries that exist on commodity trading will experiencing significant difficulties and stocks of traditional energy producers and suplieres will be under massive pressure, unless they are not Vattenfall who conjure with e.g. Elforsk Cold Fusion patents and applications out of the hat. The world will be totally different when such a message has arrived and been understood. That's what disruptive technology means.

  • Quote

    Not suppressed; ignored. Not reported. No report of any cold fusion experiment was ever published by the magazines and newspapers I listed, as far as I know. It is easy to search their archives, and I have found nothing

    Because their editors and experts did not believe it. The results were not couched in terms they could appreciate and/or understand. The results were not consistent and reproducible and clearly out of the noise, despite all JedRothwell 's protestations. Because there were many many failed attempts to reproduce by people who should have been good enough, have spent enough money, and had good enough equipment. Looking at Jed's links over time, I had the same problem. It's a bummer to rehash this over and over with Jed.


    And then, what Rends wrote above. I don't agree as to extent but certainly as to direction it will go. I think power companies, oil companies etc. etc. will adapt, buy the tech. license it and so on and some countries will steal it. These things always happen. If the discovery exists of course.


    There is absolutely no way the main line anythings can ignore the power out/power in ratio and absolute power out and duration for the small amount of fuel used in Mizuno's reactors if they are real. Ignoring Swartz, Miley, the China Lake folks, and sorry but all the "usual suspects" is easy if you have not made a career of immersing yourself in their papers and their claims. Attack me if you wish but although the reasons are different for each, to my view, they simply don't impress. Mizuno if true, really does.


    To use the classic meme:


    size-matters2.jpg

  • even if Google replicates Mizuno, you can be sure there will be no news of it in any mainstream newspaper or magazine.


    I think that hardly matters any more. While exact statistics are not available for Google's search traffic, all the estimates I see are well over 10^9 (one billion) searches per day. Google can put anything they want in the cute little Google Doodle space at the top of their search page. So if they have something to say, a substantial part of the entire worlds population will see it within a day or two.

  • I think they should pick an experiment with a high chance of success and especially high power output. These are hard to be found in the open science realm and I dont know if they want to deal with complicated NDAs of commercial groups.


    I hope R20 becomes such an experiment in the next two years. I wish every replicator all the luck of the world.


    I dont know the status of the reactors of Russ George and Alan. Is this highly reproducible? They definitly have a large signal. Does Google want to deal with Russ?


    I would suggest they replicate Randell Mills. High output - high reproducibility. Older experiments with less output power than today have been replicated at RUB in germany in 2003, in Eindhoven in 2006 and someone here recently posted a master thesis from 2009 where they replicated the effect with a 3 weeks visit of one of the PhDs from BLP. Current experiments have huge output power - but perhabs its not LENR but a different plus energy concept. And I dont know if Google wants to deal with Mills. He seems to be quite complicated from time to time.


    Speeking about Mills: has anybody mentioned the electric universe guys from the UK (dont remember the name of their experiment)? They have large excess energy too.


    I doubt that replicating these low power/energy experiments from the 90s and 00s will have an impact at all, even if Google successfully replicates them. To say it in Jeds world: if the Wright brothers needed three years to get media coverage while having a flying plane (!!!) I doubt that showing a single wing in the airflow chamber with a force measurement system that shows small signs of lift will achieve anything at all. If they dont find an experiment where they can show melting reactors, rooms heated with a reactor instead of a fire pit etc., their work will not have the effect I am hoping for. So stick with Mills melting reactors, try to deal with Russ or wait and pray that R20 is reproducible, but choose a high power experiment. Thats my opinion.

  • I'm assuming that, by the word "priority", we mean the most important experiment.


    I suggest to scratch that sort of thinking.


    When a student starts a new program, they don't ask "what's the highest priority course I should take?".


    Also, it shouldn't matter what the LENR community "wants to see conducted". This isn't Youtube's recommendation algorithm.


    Of course, if we go back to the root of the word priority, we can turn this question into "which experiment does the LENR community recommend Team Google work on first?"



    I'd suggest working on replicating F&P's work. It's well documented, and has a lot of replications. Spend 2-3 years on that, then branch out once you have successes.


    I really can't see a huge company like Google can have had an LENR lab without some F&P experiments running.

  • Perhaps it would be useful to circle back to the beginning and re-examine the original question. I can't help but feel that too little effort was given to thinking about the question, the way it was worded, how to define priorities, how to agree on criterion and how to answer it succinctly and satisfactorily. I do not mean to criticise the moderation team, they gave us the task. To my reading, the question did not ask for a 100% probability of success, nor did it ask for us to handicap probabilities of success. It asked for the highest priority. This is a different question. This is a question that the community should be able to answer, but has not. It is a question of judgement, rather than intractability of experiments.


    I was thinking about this last night, and decided to carefully re-read TG's Nature article. My recollection of how LF reacted to the article is that it was regarded (in some quarters) with a mixture of cynicism, doubt and exasperation. I found the article to be intelligent, well structured, well written, subtle and written with both eyes on a larger strategy and a longer game. To me, it is deeply reassuring and speaks to TG's professionalism and commitment.


    Earlier in the thread, I said the following:


    Quote

    To circle back, the original question was "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"


    I would submit that to answer this question, another question has to be asked:


    "What is the highest priority for the LENR community?"


    In TG's Nature article, they write:



    So, what is the highest priority for the LENR community? Perhaps it is finding the best candidate for development into this reference experiment?


    Here is the definition of a reference experiment that I will have in mind from here on out:


    Quote

    In one version of the concept, a reference experiment was described as being an experiment of high data density that does more than address a single narrow hypothesis and is proposed by an interactive and extensive team of scientists to collect data that would be suitable for later analysis by multiple groups of investigators. In such an experiment, the resulting data would have the benefit of multiple PI inputs into design and implementation, with the intent of creating large data sets with wider-ranging applicability and extensive post-flight usage than a single hypothesis experiment.


    Source: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine 2018. A Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA. The National Academies Press.


    Perhaps the answer to TG's original question “What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?” is “the experiment that offers the best chance of being developed into TG's reference experiment.” That is, after all, their ultimate goal and the endgame that lifts the dead hand of skepticism from the field.


    This is a slightly different way to answer the question, and shifts the focus away from the weighing of and worrying about probabilities of success and towards a longer view of TG's goals. Answering the question this way cuts the Gordian knot that is the problem that nothing can be recommended with complete confidence.


    Which experiment is the best candidate to be developed by TG into a reference experiment?


    I think we can disqualify bulk Pd/D. The materials science difficulties, and the high loading required mean that whilst TG might succeed in replication, it is unlikely they will master the experiment to such a degree that it can be developed into a reliable reference experiment. There have been 30 years of efforts and, whilst, in my opinion, proving the phenomenon conclusively, it has not been mastered.


    I do not think Takahashi's work is a good candidate either. The researchers are, as of now, secretive, and their work rests on proprietary materials. Unless they open it up completely, it cannot be a widely shared reference experiment. If it requires convoluted manufacturing processes, is this a further black mark against it in so far as its capacity to qualify as a candidate for our purposes? I would think, but do not know, that you would want an experiment that can be done 'off the shelf' so to speak.


    I submit that, for the moment, it should be put into the same limbo as Mizuno's work. For TG to follow up on, as and when they deem it appropriate, but understood as not a candidate for answering this specific question.


    Of the remaining experiments, SPAWAR seems head and shoulders above the rest.


    It requires no proprietary materials, and has no significant materials science issues. It neatly sidesteps the issues of loading bulk palladium. It is a fast, table top experiment. Because it is fast, it can be iterated quickly, increasing the chances of success and also allowing the parameter space to be explored efficiently. I note that Shane stressed that the speed of the experiment should not be a concern, but I would note that if it is to be developed into a reference experiment, the significant flexibility provided is a positive.


    It has been replicated in a good number of places, including at NASA and SRI. I think it's of note that the co-deposition protocol has been developed to the point that it can be done by students (who have successfully found energetic particles).


    Dr Storms' counsel that the experiment is difficult, and his failure to replicate should be taken seriously, but must be weighed against the history of successful replications. It is also notable that Miles had difficulties early on. However, Szpak said that if you do the experiment correctly, it is “100%” replicable. Perhaps that should be taken with a grain of salt, but it speaks to their confidence in their work.


    In the interest of completeness, I wanted to 'read into the record' the following, posted earlier:


    P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P. Forsley. 2019. Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: Synopsis of Refereed Publications on Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions. V2.



    Regarding Coolescence, I think that their work archive has to be scrutinised closely and carefully before any judgement is made about the quality of their efforts. Was their entire team as listed on their website? How much electrochemistry experience did they have? Is it notable that David Knies & Richard Hamm did not join until 2014, after the co-dep work was done? Who did the co-dep work? Was it Cantwell? I think there are reasonable questions here.


    Consequently, I do not think it is fair to characterise the co-deposition protocol as:


    Quote

    heat anomaly is said weak and previous efforts were not successful.


    because Coolescence and Dr Storms failed to replicate.


    Issues of replication aside, SPAWAR did a large number of experiments over a long period. They published extensively. They claim that their protocol is the best documented in the field.


    It's worth noting that SPAWAR say, explicitly, that they moved away from studying excess heat because people would dismiss their calorimetry. Instead, they used CR-39 detectors, among other things, to gather evidence of nuclear products being thrown off by the experiments.


    I think this was a smart approach. They seemingly had a good deal of success using this evidence to convince others.


    They got two positive write ups in New Scientist and were written up in The Economist. There was apparently also an NPR feature, but I cannot find it. Their work was covered by FOX. Dwight Williams, then senior science advisor at the US Department of Energy was publicly enthusiastic about their work when interviewed.


    I would think that the fact that the experiment generates a number of phenomenon (neutrons, protons, other charged particles, x-rays, transmutations, tritium, excess heat) is a plus in a reference experiment. Many avenues of approach. Many paths to success.


    It is worth noting, as an aside, that a focus on excess heat may be a little myopic. Whilst we can all agree that excess heat is likely the most useful product of these experiments for society, the path to scientific respectability and the path to useful products for humanity are not necessarily the same.


    The volume of material published by SPAWAR on their experiments is a major advantage. TG can pick up the work already done, and assuming they successfully replicate it, they can then, perhaps relatively quickly, begin exploring the parameter space and optimising it into their reference experiment.


    Mosier-Boss and her colleagues are likely available to advise and assist TG with their work. This cannot be said confidently of Takahashi.


    It is also perhaps worth suggesting that not all difficulties are equal. Some are more tractable given time, patience, resources and skill than others. Whilst no LENR experiment is easy, I would submit that the difficulties of the co-deposition protocol give all the indications of being tractable in ways that bulk Pd/D simply is not. Said differently, are the difficulties more of experience and skill than insurmountable problems like unknown variability in palladium cathodes?


    Another - long term - benefit of introducing the SPAWAR co-deposition protocol to a wider audience is that it introduces scientists to the fact that Pd/D co-deposition can be used to fission uranium and thorium. This opens up new possibilities in reactor design, and the remediation of nuclear waste. Whilst beyond the remit of TG's stated aims, the potential development of these possibilities is a long term bonus, and would be a side benefit of introducing the SPAWAR work to a broader scientific community. I note that TG have gone to great pains to justify their LENR work by stressing the way it can benefit other areas of science.


    So, to conclude, how would I answer TG's question?


    “What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?”


    “The highest priority of the LENR community is to assist Team Google with their task of finding a reference experiment that can serve as a tool to assert the underlying reality of LENR. It is our belief that SPAWAR's co-deposition protocol offers the highest chance of being successfully developed into a reference experiment that can be introduced to a larger scientific community. It is a protocol that has a credible history of replication, is exhaustively documented, provides a number of phenomenon for study and suffers from no serious materials science challenges. Whilst it is a difficult experiment, with some failures to replicate on record, the difficulty inherent in the experiment is likely to yield to patience and expertise in ways that some other experiments may not. In addition, the SPAWAR scientists are likely able to provide their extensive experience and advice as the work progresses. There are other high quality, well documented experiments, but none have the unique set of characteristics that qualify them as a high quality candidate for development into a reference experiment. Each seemingly suffers from some disqualifying characteristic.”


    Earlier in the thread I argued that Google's imprimatur matters tremendously, and that this is a unique opportunity. I have not changed my opinion. Rereading the Nature article, TG's strategy becomes clearer to me. Perhaps this was already obvious to others. They do not wish to simply replicate and publish, as I, and perhaps others, had assumed. They wish to find an experiment that can be developed into a reference experiment that yields a great deal of data that can be studied by a large group of scientists from multiple institutions. Something that they can study inside out and then present to the world.


    This kind of effort is only possible because of Google's funding and reputational top cover. This kind of effort is perhaps the only kind that would have the weight to properly shift the scientific consensus reasonably quickly. I say again, this is a unique opportunity. Now is the time to be rigorous, disciplined and pragmatic. Now is not the time or place to explore quixotic or eccentric suggestions that do not fit the bill, or that propose to prosecute a narrow hypothesis.


    Now is the time to put our heads together to help Google parse the literature for the best candidate for development of their reference experiment. TG have stated that this is their longer term goal, and it deserves to be thought carefully about by all who are here, reading and participating.


    Time is almost gone and no real consensus has been reached.


    Questions:


    Do you agree with the way I have framed my discussion and the way I have refocused TG's question on the search for a reference experiment? If not, why? How do you understand their original question? How do you think about 'highest priority'?


    If you agree with my reframing of the question, do you agree with my disqualifying of bulk Pd/D and Takahashi? If not, why? Why is your preferred experiment a credible candidate for development into a reference experiment? How do you propose to obviate any stubbornly difficult elements of the experiment? How does it perform on the characteristics identified of the co-deposition protocol above? Are there other characteristics, not identified above, that are pertinent and that recommend another experiment?


    Do you agree with my disqualifying the other experiments (Kirkinskii, Celani etc) suggested in this thread? If not, why? Why would your preferred experiment make a good candidate for a reference experiment? How does it perform on the characteristics identified above in the discussion of the co-deposition protocol? Are there other characteristics, not identified above, that are pertinent and that recommend another experiment?


    Do you agree with my general characterisation of the experiments, their features, documentation, histories of replication etc? Have I made mistakes? Have I misunderstood the science or technical features of an experiment? Have I gotten facts wrong or made other mistakes? Have I cast aspersions where they are not warranted?


    Have I misunderstood what TG mean by 'reference experiment'?


    Do you disagree with the characteristics I have identified as being attractive in a candidate for development into a reference experiment? Why? What would you propose in their place?


    Please do not take issue with my opinion of TG's Nature article here. If you would like to do so, please revive the original Nature article thread and I will consider engaging there.


    Disclaimer:


    As I have said before, I am not a scientist. I do not know what I do not know. What I do know is a drop in the ocean. Though I am being assertive, and perhaps strident, please do not misunderstand this as supreme confidence in my position. Instead, I am trying to offer ideas and provoke debate, and do not think that I can do that as effectively if I am constantly back filling, equivocating and hedging as I go. I offer you an imperfect argument, to be modified, built on or demolished. I welcome and hope for rigorous criticism of my thoughts, suggestions and level of understanding. If it helps us over the line, it is all to the good.


    For reference: https://www.academia.edu/38420…tions_in_Condensed_Matter

  • “The highest priority of the LENR community is to assist Team Google with their task of finding a reference experiment that can serve as a tool to assert the underlying reality of LENR. It is our belief that SPAWAR's co-deposition protocol offers the highest chance of being successfully developed into a reference experiment that can be introduced to a larger scientific community. It is a protocol that has a credible history of replication, is exhaustively documented, provides a number of phenomena for study and suffers from no serious materials science challenges. Whilst it is a difficult experiment, with some failures to replicate on record, the difficulty inherent in the experiment is likely to yield to patience and expertise in ways that some other experiments may not. In addition, the SPAWAR scientists are likely able to provide their extensive experience and advice as the work progresses. There are other high quality, well documented experiments, but none have the unique set of characteristics that qualify them as a high quality candidate for development into a reference experiment. Each seemingly suffers from some disqualifying characteristic.”


    orsova  :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


    I can get behind this statement. Can anyone else? If not, please read his entire post and explain why.

  • orsova , thanks for taking the time to write your lengthy analysis of how we should focus our so far failing attempt to answer TG request. My main problem with the Nature paper is the issue of “credibility” of results.


    Experimental results that are in accordance with what is expected are readily accepted and cheered even when the error margin is high and the methodology has plenty of assumptions. For example, if we would make a thermocouple based calorimetry to determine heat of combustion of a sheet of paper, no one would object the results. But if someone finds a 5% excess heat in a very accurate calorimeter, in a experiment where no excess heat is expected by theory, the results are taken apart and dismissed and noise, even if all instruments have been tested to a high standard more than enough and even excessive for accuracy for any other purpose. And that’s the point in the end, that the standard of proof for LENR is set to an impossible level to satisfy, because it’s deemed impossible. All current repeatable experiments produce low levels of excess heat that are measured beyond any reasonable doubt but are still dismissed as artifacts or consequences of some chemical possible interaction that is not specified but is more “reasonable explanation” than the possibility of it being really a new phenomena previously overlooked.

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

  • They would need Mills participation for that. We tried to make an arrangement between the two parties when this thread first started. Mills was, and is still not interested.


    That is a good point. Along the same lines, they would probably have difficulty replicating Takahashi because I do not think he and the others in Japan are willing to cooperate, or to provide materials. Maybe they are now; I have not heard from them in a long time. As I said, the people at Ames Lab might be willing to provide materials. I don't know if they are still there or whether they can make new material.


    It is hard to get people to cooperate on a classic bulk-Pd Fleischmann-Pons experiment because most of the people who did that are dead.


    If you are looking for cooperation, your best choices would be SPAWAR or Mizuno's latest experiment. I do not know whether the SPAWAR experiment was widely replicated. I did not follow that situation closely. Pam Boss and the others will tell you. Mizuno has not been replicated yet. He and I are doing all we can to assist replications.

  • I would like to say that the team I sequestered to decide the "best 3", were not able to come to a conclusion. I take full blame for that, but will add that European vacation, and Mizuno replications did not help matters. We all learned something from the experience, and hopefully, if there is a next time I will be better prepared to get the job done.


    That leaves it to you on this thread to come to a consensus...if there is one to be had. Either way, we will officially inform Trevithick Friday of our conclusions.

  • It is hard to get people to cooperate on a classic bulk-Pd Fleischmann-Pons experiment because most of the people who did that are dead.


    What about Beiting, Staker, McKubre? I was thinking Miles also. He is still fighting to get some of his work in a major journal, and I would think he would jump at the chance to help TG if they ask for it.

  • I would like to say that the team I sequestered to decide the "best 3", were not able to come to a conclusion. I take full blame for that . . .


    I do not think there is any blame. I would say the question cannot be answered. It depends on too many factors we do not know. Especially: How much money, how many people, and how much time and patience do they have? Are we talking about a $100,000 shot in the dark project with a few people? Or a $100 million commitment with at least 5 years in fully equipped lab? Or are they thinking about making custom-built test equipment such as people use to explore new semiconductor technology, with a $1 billion budget? The latter is the least risky and the most likely to succeed. That is what they were gabbing about at the last conference. If I were them, I wouldn't consider anything less than a $1 billion project with the best automated robotic equipment that money can buy, with the cooperation of every living cold fusion researcher, exploring every known promising material and technique. I don't believe in doing things by half measure. Go for broke, or go home.


    A $100,000 shot in the dark is probably a waste of money and time.


    The other unknowns are: What have they done so far, how much do they know, and what is their attitude? I have no idea. The Nature paper did not tell me. Are they willing to learn from previous experiments? No idea. Have they talked to the researchers still alive? Apparently not. They have not contacted the people I know, except McKubre. I cannot tell if they plan to talk to them in the future. Anyway, that does not bode well. Researchers could easily waste $1 billion if they do not do these things.


    I am sure that cold fusion is real. If these people have examined the experimental evidence from McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and others, but they are still not sure the effect is real, I do not think they should do anything, or launch any project. They don't understand experimental science in that case. Anyone who thinks it is fundamentally risky to do cold fusion because the effect might not even exist is a certified idiot who should not be allowed into the lab. Anyone who thinks they can pick an experiment that is sure to work, and that is sure to lead to commercialization with $1 billion in fancy robotic equipment is almost as stupid. There is never any guarantee of success in fundamental research or R&D. You can always get it wrong. You make one false turn at the beginning of the project -- one wrong decision -- and everything you do after that is a waste of time and money. You would have to be omniscient and able to see into the future to ensure success.



    That leaves it to you on this thread to come to a consensus...if there is one to be had.


    I do not think a consensus is possible in fundamental research. As I said, it is unknown, by definition. It wouldn't be fundamental research if anyone could know the answers or if a consensus were possible. As I said, you would have to be omniscient and able to see into the future reach a consensus. You can only discovery the answers by experiment. No other method exists, and there are no shortcuts. You should do the best experiments you are capable of. If you have billions of dollars, the way Google does, you should spend billions. Anything less increases the risk of failure. Although, as I said, there are an infinite number of paths to failure, but only one path to success. No mortal person can tell you what the path to success is. If you don't like those odds, don't do science.

  • This is strictly my opinion, but I do think you and THH are making a good argument in defense. Those older Pd experiments are extremely well documented in the literature, and there are many of the old guard left who I think would be more than happy to offer TG their assistance.


    Furthermore, some of them still own the original F&P's open cells.

    Here a couple of interesting shots btw. Jean-Paul Biberian brought along one of Martin Fleischman's original vacuum insulated calorimeters. Here's some photos.


    Here,s the inner electrode assembly

    ?thumbnail=1
    And here (lying on the table) is the twin-wall outer container with its half-silvered upper section.

    ?thumbnail=1

    To a cold fusion experimenter these are 'holy relics and the chance to handle them pretty powerful medicine.


    Hopefully, they could lend these cells to the Team Google to be tested again, or to be used as model to make similar devices.


    Anyway, as you said, the old F&P devices and methods are so well documented in the available literature that Google experts will have no problems in making a Dewar-type calorimeter capable to reproduce the "positive feedback" phenomenon, which is at the basis of the most important F&P's claims. The golden rules are also listed in the paragraph 2.5. "Dewar-type calorimetry" of the SPAWAR article published in 2004 (1).


    (1) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…31.6578&rep=rep1&type=pdf