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

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Dr. Mizuno's protocol, nonetheless, seems ironclad,

I assure you, it is not ironclad. That much is already clear. The preliminary attempts at replications by people skilled in the art have failed. So obviously it is not ironclad. Those people are asking questions, making comments and sending us SEM photos and other analyses. Progress is being made. I will eventually update the Supplement or the paper to reflect improvements, clarifications and additional data. Whether it will pan out or not, and whether the experiment can be replicated is unknowable. It is the nature of ground breaking research that no person can know that. That's why science is based on experiments and not knowledge, or the human imagination. As spelled out by Francis Bacon in Novum Organum, 1620. No one ever said it better!

"For the end of our science is not to discover arguments, but arts, nor what is agreeable to certain principles, but the principles themselves, nor probable reasons, but designations and indications of effects.

[T]he empire of man over things is founded on the arts and sciences alone, for nature is only to be commanded by obeying her."

Quote from Storms

Yes, the effect is difficult to cause, but not impossible.

This depends on the philosophy. Almost all fuels we mixed in Essex did show LENR. Some of them with large amounts of gamma radiation > 10x background and it is absolutely predicable which radiation (lines) will be there.

Thus for people doing/measuring LENR at will halve of the forum post by "distractors" like THH, Ascoli,..are just a sign of desperation and hope the that big bang will never come.

The understanding of the physics behind LENR is very mature now and may be I will present some missing links in Assisi. (Of course SO(4) physics! & no SM)

Quote from JedRothwell

THH says that several power meters of different types might measure power going into a resistance heater wrong, seeing 300 W as 50 W. They all get the same answer, and all are wrong, to the exact same extent. Okay, we can debate that. It seems implausible. I do not think anyone who knows about digital power meters would agree. But anyway, it can be debated and discussed with reference to what is known about power meters. Whereas your assertion that there might be an unnamed error somewhere cannot be debated.

Jed, if you read what I've said in the other thread you will see this is incorrect.

It is easy, if you misunderstand what other people have said, to criticise (your own) misunderstanding.

Do you want to go over the details of what I think - so you can critique what it is, rather than what you might imagine it is? If so post there. You could just read the details of what I've said, and then ask questions based on that. HINT - there is only one power meter.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The understanding of the physics behind LENR is very mature now

Please mature the rest of us newbies.. if you have time..

Assisi seems to be an appropriate venue to start the enlightenment

Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible." attributed to Francis of Assisi

(Actually Francis didn't speak English.. and probably placed divine will much higher than human ''cando"".

Quote from THHuxleynew

HINT - there is only one power meter.

HINT: There are two permanently set up, another clamp on one sitting right there, and two others have been used lately. Who the hell told you
"there is only one power meter"? Why would there be only one? Where did that pretend information come from? Oh, I know: You just make stuff up and then post it.

Quote from can

so if testable information exists

As yet the testable info. is not available for R20 in terms of the Essex 'philosophy'

I think Alan is talking about October..

Jurg was talking about Ed Storms general statement..not R20.

Yes, the effect is difficult to cause, but not impossible.

the electric motor effect was difficult to cause until a few year's after the Faraday mercury motor.

difficulty is a relative term that changes with time...

Quote from JedRothwell

HINT: There are two permanently set up, another clamp on one sitting right there, and two others have been used lately. Who the hell told you
"there is only one power meter"? Why would there be only one? Where did that pretend information come from? Oh, I know: You just make stuff up and then post it.

Jed: you are masterfully good at misreading what i write.

The context here was what I had said. You had claimed I was stating the existence of many power meters as a problem in the measurement. I was not, my comments related only to a single power meter. If there are more such actually used that is interesting but not relevant to my point.

I know that you have many strengths, and that this work with Mizuno is something that you properly care about.

It is a shame you do not take my comments here as helpful (which they are) and so, on the evidence of what you have just done, leap to the conclusion that I "just make stuff up and post it".

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

The context here was what I had said. You had claimed I was stating the existence of many power meters as a problem in the measurement. I

Nope. That is not what I claimed. YOU claimed that the power meter might be measuring 300 W as 50 W. You claimed that an error of that magnitude might occur with an ordinary power supply heating an ordinary resistance heater. I pointed out that several different meters have been used verify the input power is correct. But, I am sure you will continue to say you discovered an error and the input power was actually 300 W.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Jed: you are masterfully good at misreading what i write.

While I really do not want to get into the debate about power meters (or other issues in this historically conflicted dialog relationship), I wanted to point out that it seems to fall in the category of my other posts on how "people perceive or see facts" so differently. (I.E. why do some still believe Rossi)

We have two posters, Jed and THH.

They both are certainly educated, intelligent and have an interest in LENR.

Jed often reads THH as being deceptive or "making stuff up". When I read THH's posts, I do not see that all.

In fact, by a large margin, he seems to be giving LENR the benefit of doubt and does not dismiss it.

I see him as a scientist who approaches projects with a very critical eye and philosophy... "one should try to disprove one's theory

to insure it is correct". Examine every detail to make it iron clad. I see no hostile or ill will in this approach.

Jed, evidently sees ill intent in this style of questioning and inquiry and it aggravates him to a high degree.

To my point... is this because Jed does not read THH's post clearly and only briefs over them, with the "negative points" popping up

in his observations? Similar to some only briefing over the facts concerning Rossi and picking up only the "positive" elements and

ignoring the negative?

Is it that the way THH posts, for some reason seems hostile to Jed, but reasonable to me and that the difference is how Jed and I

perceive or read the way sentences are worded?

The human mind is quite a marvel and interesting. With all that said I would encourage both parties to stay engaged.

THH, perhaps you can word your sentences differently, inserting more positive language in the questions. (Not changing the

point, but posting it as more inquiry or "what if" than "it is likely that".

Jed, perhaps you can read THH's posts with a frame of mind that he is not hostile or making things up. I do not

think most of us here see him that way at all. He is one of the more level headed posters here that does not bring

personality into his equations!

Thank you both for your contributions! Combined, you both will make this field more defined and realized!

Quote from Shane D.

This thread was started at Trevithick's request, so I think that qualifies as contacting people. That includes you, Storms, McKubre, and all the many doing the work around the world, who have posted their opinions, or read this thread over the past weeks.

Well, if he wants advice from Ed Storms he is going to have to write up his results. I think we need to know whether he followed the procedures in Ed's paper, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect." If so, how many cathodes did he test, what results did he get at each stage, how high was the loading, and so on. If he does not have that information I do not see how anyone can help him at this stage.

Quote from JedRothwell

we need to know whether he followed the procedures in Ed's paper, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect."

Who has actually done that with successful results, and where can one see the report on that activity?

Quote from Shane D.

This thread was started at Trevithick's request, so I think that qualifies as contacting people. That includes you, Storms, McKubre, and all the many doing the work around the world, who have posted their opinions, or read this thread over the past weeks.

And by the very question posed in the title of this thread -along with the others in my first post, it is obvious he wants to learn from the community....although it seems all he is learning, is how confused it is. Maybe communicating through LF is not as effective as talking individually to the people you know, but with our large presence in the community, it is as good an outreach tool as any.

It also demonstrates good intent on his part. A goodwill gesture to the community, or maybe even an olive leaf of sorts, after the mild criticisms following the Nature article's release. Many in his shoes would have been tempted to respond differently, and retreated instead of seeking out their critics advice...so as to do better the next time.

I give him a lot of credit for what he did. Hopefully everyone does.

Display More

I'm grateful for the interest Trevithick as shown in getting information about LENR from as many sources as possible. He and I have had a few enjoyable conversations about the subject. However, gaining useful information is very difficult because the subject is scientifically complex , it is handicapped by political issues, and it suffers from a myth created by skeptics years ago. Consequently, gaining useful knowledge from a single conversation or from such sources as this Forum is next to impossible. Similar complex science is normally understood initially by being discussed in an university setting where the issues can be discussed and debated over a significant period of time and with an incentive to learn rather than dismiss. A similar approach is used in organizations in order to gain knowledge from different sources. Unfortunately, LENR has no college courses to teach the subject and it has no organizational structure that can encourage agreement and understanding. Instead, we have the blind leading the blind with ego being a significant driving force. If Trevithick really wants to understand what is known, he should get the few people who actually know facts about the subject together in the same room and encourage them to discuss their different interpretations over several days. Of course, a strong referee and good food would be required.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Who has actually done that with successful results, and where can one see the report on that activity?

Martin Fleischmann and Dennis Cravens used these techniques. See any paper by them. Actually, anyone who achieved success either used these techniques, or they got Type A J-M palladium from Fleischmann which we know met these tests, or they got lucky and happened to have material that would pass these tests. I do not think any bulk Pd-D experiment worked with material that clearly failed these tests. You can tell with a visual examination in a full scale cold fusion experiment in which the cathode is visible. (Some cells are opaque.) When the cathode distends, bends, or cracks, and you see a lot of large bubbles form in lines, it will not work. These tests are a quick way to look for such problems.

As you see in the paper, the tests are mainly short-term, quick versions of a cold fusion electrolysis experiment. Instead of taking weeks or a month to test a single sample, you take a day or two to get preliminary results that give you a pretty clear go / no-go for that sample. Plus they include preparation such as polishing, which is what Fleischmann and Cravens recommend. And, as I said, this is done in a transparent cell so you can see if it is working. If your cold fusion cell or calorimeter is opaque you might go for weeks with no visual clue as to what is happening.

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. That is not what I claimed. YOU claimed that the power meter might be measuring 300 W as 50 W. You claimed that an error of that magnitude might occur with an ordinary power supply heating an ordinary resistance heater. I pointed out that several different meters have been used verify the input power is correct. But, I am sure you will continue to say you discovered an error and the input power was actually 300 W.

Jed. The misunderstanding here is that I'm going on what the paper says, not what you now claim.

I'm very happy to include additional information. In fact I've already done this re the airflow measurements, and the pipe diameter. But i'd need it to be stated precisely. For example, with these power measurements: which input power has been measured in this way, what was measured, where was the power measured, which tests (R20 or R19, cal or active) where done with the measured setup? You have previously said (correct me if wrong):

• Power was measured on input side of PSU
• PSU takes almost no power
• PSU takes maybe 30% of power (if I remember right)
• In addition the spreadsheets we have seen have sometimes had P as a measured value and sometimes has P as V * I where v, i are independently measured columns.

I'm not trying to hold you to any of this - but you can see that each of these statements is something different and to evaluate these "several different meters verify input power is correct" we need a lot more information than has been given so far. Including, on which tests was this verification done. Why this detail? Because one of the more obvious mistakes would be such a power mismeasurement.

Really, for it to be useful this extra information would need to be written up in detail and formally.

It would help you to realise that I do not often say I have discovered errors. Merely I assume that anything not carefully checked could be due to a mistake, and also that every measurement has an error bound. In absence of information I assume the worst for both: no explicit checking => mistake, no stated error bound => large error bound.

THH

Quote from Bob#2

Jed often reads THH as being deceptive or "making stuff up". When I read THH's posts, I do not see that all.

Then you are blind. He has repeatedly made absurd claims, such the one that a power meter might mistake 300 W for 50 W with an ordinary resistance heater. Just now he wrote that a calibration might send more heat out of the calorimeter walls than an excess heat test. That would be black magic, or Maxwell's demon. Heat is heat. There are hundreds of calibrations and failed excess heat runs showing that never happens. There is no conceivable mechanism that would allow that. He blathered on about pipes conducting heat, but there is no measurable effect from that in this calorimeter. The noise is at 2 W.

ALL of his assertions, without exception, are physically impossible bullshit.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Power was measured on input side of PSU
PSU takes almost no power
PSU takes maybe 30% of power (if I remember right)

Power was measured on both sides, as I said repeatedly.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It would help you to realise that I do not often say I have discovered errors.

Oh give us a break. You always claim you discovered an error. Here is your pattern, as I said before:

1. You make a physically impossible assertion, such as macroscopic drops of condensed water becoming invisible and climbing up against gravity, in the boil-off experiments. Even if that were true, it would have no effect on the energy balance.

2. I -- and several others -- point out your mistakes. We point out these experiments were also done with reflux cells.

3. You say nothing. No response. We give up.

4. A week later, you say, "I showed there is an error this experiment, with condensed water leaving the cell." From then on, you claim the experiment should be dismissed.

Your latest nonsense is that the calibrations in the Mizuno experiment are somehow magically different from the excess heat runs, for reasons the defy the conservation of energy and common sense. I am sure you will come up with one version after another of this fairy tale. I will not waste my time repeatedly pointing out you are wrong, and that heat is heat, and once it is released from a reactor or resistance heater, or a resistance heater in a reactor, it always leaves the calorimeter the same way, by the same paths. There is no magic reason why heat from a resistance heater will penetrate the walls or go through pipes differently than anomalous heat. Once it leaves the steel walls it is all heat, and all indistinguishable. All calibration points from all reactors and bare heaters are indistinguishable. Anyone who has made or operated a calorimeter knows this, and has verified it with calibrations.

Quote from Storms

If Trevithick really wants to understand what is known, he should get the few people who actually know facts about the subject together in the same room and encourage them to discuss their different interpretations over several days. Of course, a strong referee and good food would be required.

That's what an ICCF conference is supposed to be.

Trevithick has attended ICCF conferences, and I think other people from the Google group did as well. They didn't talk to me, but they don't need to. I am not Ed Storms. I am no expert. I can't tell them anything other than what they can read at LENR-CANR.org, except some of the nitty-gritty details of the latest Mizuno experiment. I will assemble those details in the Supplement after the conference, so again, there is no need to confer with me.

But, as I said, this has to be two-way street. Experts cannot advise the Google people, or make suggestions, unless they tell us what they have done. With regard to the Pd-D experiments, the paper in Nature was uninformative. The only thing it seemed to say was they did not achieve high enough loading. It is not enough for them to passively listen to lectures or read papers. They need to explain what they have done in enough detail so that others can understand and evaluate their work. Otherwise, the most anyone can say is what I said:

"Did you follow the directions in Storms, 'How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect.' If you did not, go back and do it again."

That is a short conversation. There is no need to go to a conference and sit around a table to hear that. A longer conversation must include input from them.

Quote from JedRothwell

Martin Fleischmann and Dennis Cravens used these techniques

So F & C read Storms' paper and then used those techniques? Oh wait...I understand...Storms compiled the supposedly successful strategies of F & C (and others?) into a 'how to' guide... I was asking however, who used Ed's guide to successfully obtain the FPE?

(BTW, I disagree F & C &/or others were successful, but you knew that...)