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

  • See my post in this thread about undeniable and dramatic amount of transmutation in mercury achieved by Cardone et al (2015 with further analysis in 2017). These results are absolute proof of nuclear reactions completely outside of what is currently accepted or thought as possible.

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

  • Which transmutation experiments to replicate though is the question. Maybe replicate the SPAWAR group's transmutation data and also (on the way) replicate their neutron/proton release CR-39 data via co-deposition of Pd/D on a nickel mesh. Then use the same Ni mesh in a Mizuno R20 reactor to demonstrate excess heat and He4 production. That would be a real clincher! These guys kick ass:


    In [14], three principal directions of research were specified: highly hydrated metals, calorimetry under extreme conditions and low-energy nuclear reactions. (This later terminology was to define a special pulsed deuterium plasma device [22] which was applied to induce nuclear reactions of low energy.) However, nuclear transmutation [5]-[8], which is the most important phenomenon connected to LENR, was missing. It was shown above that nuclear transmutation is possible for all the elements of the periodic table therefore it is expected that traces of it must be present in all LENR observations. There exist very sensitive methods which are capable to determine small amounts of changes of chemical composition of materials and show the appearance of nuclear transmutation. Thus omission of search for nuclear transmutation is the main fault in the program of [14].


    and:


    Based on the recent theoretical results [9] it was shown that a huge number of nuclear reactions may have significant rate even if the kinetic energy of the colliding particles is down to that of room temperature. The necessary condition to reach accountable rate is that the product n1n2n3, i.e. the product of the number density of the assisting particles and the number densities of the reacting particles, should reach appropriately high value. Since the participants of possible nuclear reactions can come from the whole periodic table of elements, it is advised to drop old stereotypes in thinking about LENR and a new approach is necessary to understand what is going on in this field.


    Maybe density/mass (critical) considerations are important after all in determining reaction rates (something I've been harping on about for some time to test Kg quantities of Ni/Pd in massive reactors). The larger Mizuno reactors are a step in the right direction if we could further increase the catalyst mass - or maybe the 20Kg stainless steel already participates in the reaction?


    Another thing - his earlier papers show he usually always used low (10-100Pa) deuterium pressures to produce excess heat or transmutation effects.

    Holmlid uses similar low pressures to form his ultra dense deuterium (UDD) which then undergoes a spontaneous level of proton breakdown to release mesons which in turn are capable of muon-catalysed fusion of D-D and D-T. This low rate of meson release is rapidly increased by 1064 nm laser stimulation. So perhaps a similar mechanism operates in the Mizuno reactor, meson release being triggered by IR from the internal heater. The catalyst (KFeO2) for UDD may be present in trace amounts in oxidized stainless steel (add more KFeO2 to increase UDD or add Ne or nitrogen to block muon-fusion),


    And finally - neutrinos (recently suggested by Parkhomov) - low energy neutrinos triggering LENR. Well some could come from outer space but any beta decaying isotope would generate the necessary neutrinos/antineutrinos. Tritium beta decay releases an antineutrino, and Mosier-Boss had some evidence for Pd fission products which could be radioactive. His theory could always be tested by exposing a working Mizuno R20 reactor to a neutrino beta-decaying source.

  • This for your perusal, and comment. I have not sent it yet to Trevithick. Going to golf, and of no major disagreement, will send it tonight:


    Matt,


    Unfortunately, we did not come to a consensus on your questions posed to LENR-Forum, but I think the process has been a very worthwhile one. Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to at least try.


    Not sure how it looks from your end, but from this layman, and other LF members perspective...it was a rousing success. Unable to agree on a consensus, they were forced to reflect as to "why not". Why the field can not provide you the 3 experiments it most wants TG to attempt to replicate?


    In retrospect, it seemed such an easy task at first. Soon though, it became apparent that while it has been often been said that "LENR has been proven beyond doubt", maybe it is not...yet? That if there are no 3 particular experiments that we could agree on....is LENR really proven? Why an experiment that had been formerly held out as an example, upon closer inspection...well, maybe not so? So looking on the bright side, your probing questions that kicked off this thread led to much soul searching. That IMO is always a healthy thing to do, and the field is better off for having gone through it.

    All is not lost though! There was a consensus of sorts that may be of assistance to you. The LENR communities leading voices are confident there a number of high quality, replicable experiments that will...if approached with the resources, talent and time TG has available to commit, give your team a reasonable chance of seeing one of the various LENR signature effects. They believe that simultaneously running a number of these experiments, multiple tests within each, is a better option, with greater chance of success, than putting all your resources on one. I think of it as the "shotgun approach". Easier to hit the target that way. May not hit the bullseye, but at least you hit something. 🙂

    Another factor for you to consider that we all could agree on, is that the authors be willing to have a constructive, congenial relationship with you, and your Team Leaders. That may not be so necessary if choosing the original FP's type bulk PD experiments -with their extensive public literature, but it may be essential with the more recent positive results experiments, where documentation is lacking.


    It is further suggested that enlisting the help, and/or advice from the fields most experienced practitioners, would be of great assistance to your team. "reinventing the wheel" can be a problem, especially considering there appears to be an "art" to the LENR science. Should their skills be needed, there are many who would be more than happy to lend a hand. If interested, we could arrange to have a "show of hands".


    Take care,


    Shane Daigle

  • @ Curbina Yes, exactly! So knock a proton off Hg and we have Au or achieve the same thing by adding a proton to Pt - which explains the higher levels of Au found in roadside plants due to LENR in Pt catalytic converter exhausts! The theory is all there now it all just needs to be replicated by TG etc to produce working LENR reactor systems.

  • For what it's worth, here is how I see the result:


    1) There was a thread of consensus around bulk Pd/D being worth further investigation and a productive conversation about the challenges of this approach. Materials science and loading issues were reflected upon.


    2) There was a thread of consensus around the SPAWAR work being worth further investigation.


    3) There was a strong belief that Mizuno's results should be considered a priority, though they were ruled out for the purposes of the discussion.


    4) There was a consensus that collaboration and interaction with the scientists working in the field would strengthen TG's effort. There was a suggestion of something akin to a private get together being organised.


    5) There was reflection on TG's approach thus far.


    6) There were a variety of other experiments mentioned, and articles of note that were raised as being worth attention, though no consensus was reached on these.


    Though we didn't get a supermajority behind any single experiment, I do think we basically got our three.

  • Storms

    Quote

    Meanwhile, I suggest skepticism be directed away from LENR and applied only to the measurement.


    As an arguably known internet skeptic of some things claimed to have been LENR, I completely agree with you on this. What most who question extravagant claims have said on this forum was about the claims. I could be wrong but I don't know a single skeptical person on this forum who thinks that all claims for LENR have been proven certainly wrong or that LENR is impossible. That would be nuts.



    Regular forum members can skip the next few paragraphs- this is for Dr. Storms: About saving Darden money, it wasn't the fault of skeptics that Darden paid no attention to them. I personally helped saved an individual a million dollars when a billionaire investor contacted me about a recommendation he received to invest in Rossi-clone, Defkalion. And I didn't tell him not to invest. I told him what tests to request and by who (generically) they should be done. He passed on the request and when the company refused, he had his answer. I was not the only one he talked to, of course. Disappointing was that the person recommending the investment was someone connected at one time with NASA, an LENR enthusiast and someone who should have known better than to promote Rossi-related companies. I don't recall his name at the moment but I could probably find it.


    In another instance, I wrote a factual letter about Rossi and his clones to the CEO of Swedish utility company Elforsk. They had provided limited travel costs and other support to Rossi. I received a polite reply that the matter and my letter were assigned for study to a subordinate specialist. I never heard again but the company gradually cut off support from Rossi. I have no way to know how many millions from other investors were saved because they read my critiques of Rossi as well as those of other skeptics about the man and his work.


    I know that in the past, powerful government scientists blocked funding for LENR. But this is the present, the age of the internet, social media and self-publication. There is no reason why good ideas in LENR can not find support from entrepreneurs, internet funding programs and other modern sources. It's probably not as much as would be ideal but considerable research money is being spent by Carl Page, Google, supposedly Bill Gates (I still consider that unproven), Sidney Kimmel and others.


    People who are critical of extravagant and poorly supported claims are useful to research. They can save money from being wasted on con games or poorly conceived ideas.


    Back to the main topic of this thread, I am confused about why Google has to choose only one candidate. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

  • If you have a moment, can you clarify what you mean by 30W? Is it that you are feeding in 250W and getting 280W "worth" of heat out?


    Well, okay. I will present all of this next month, but I guess it won't hurt to jump the gun a little. 100 W input, 130 W output. Rather noisy with the present arrangement. Very interesting periodicity, which is apparently caused by loading and deloading. The periods range from ~1.5 to ~3 hours.


    aKRJFz8GNmBXIpobAKVSmQlqUbIMJhu5YTVlXEzwWKFYM9idTVEvnfYcrEejuPC3rU4hoBLSVK7INP2f5xrmVCu09xtyZGDc4HtjHapE2unsklnB5m-GKP1aO-7xBDd7ncmlTdnY


    We are hoping to find a top notch laboratory with advanced diagnostic instruments to analyze to do a comprehensive analysis of the super-productive mesh that was in the reactor before. We are hoping they will do it for free. It normally costs tens of thousand of dollars.


    Perhaps I should offer to pay with the Leprechaun gold that Seven_of_twenty seems to have in endless supply. He's always telling us that all we have to do is have a world-class laboratory look at the results or analyze the materials and everything will be great! Just wave a wand, and they'll do it, he says. I notice he doesn't offer to wire transfer $100,000. So his advice to do this is yet another example of the young mouse telling the meeting: "all we have to do is tie a bell to the cat!" (Aesop. It means there is no point to making impossible suggestions.)


  • Seems a bit of a cop out... I think there was a rough consensus over one or two at least.


    Why not have a poll, with all options mentioned so far? Three votes each, and I reckon one or two will stand out.


    I'd do it myself if it wasn't bedtime...

  • 2) Why are people farting around with replications, modifications, endless diatribe about this or that. Get Google or some other established, capable team to Mizuno's lab and confirm that R20 and get us started on the revolution.


    Yet another young mouse telling us that all we need to do is bell the cat! So helpful. Thank you so much. Just "get Google" to confirm the result.


    Please tell us how to "get Google" or anyone else to do as we say. By ESP? As I mentioned, we sent three reactors out last year, at considerable expense (mine) and effort (Mizuno's). One was tested and it worked. One cannot be tested because the owner is unable to do anything. The third is sitting there, to my chagrin. So please, you and Seven_of_twenty, tell me how can I compel the third person to get off his butt and test it. What means have I do this? Or to magically compel "Google or some other established, capable team" to try to replicate Mizuno's latest experiment. Here is what I have done, so far:

    1. Devoted weeks to writing a paper, which has been downloaded more than 7,000 times.
    2. Spent $4,500 distributing as received and prepared meshes.
    3. Devoted additional weeks to answering questions and relaying information.
    4. Will devote 4 frantic weeks to preparing a presentation at ICCF22. (I have been given a slot to present it, which is a mixed blessing. As they say in Japanese, I am a carp on the cutting board.)

    So what the hell else do you want me to do? Please suggest something that does not cost large sums of money. Alternatively, do you have some of Seven_of_twenty's Leprechaun gold? If so, please wire transfer $100,000. Or better yet, $1 million. Hell, make it $100 million! Believe me, we will spend that in no time. Whether it will do any good is impossible to say, but I promise it will be gone. As Edison said when the venture capitalist's accountant showed up, wondering why he had spent a year's budget in a few months, "It is about time you came! Did you bring more money?" I cannot guarantee success in cold fusion, but I can guarantee profligate waste, false starts, wasted efforts, and 21 different variations of the reactor just to get started, each costing thousands of bucks. Mizuno just sent me a photo of Reactor R21, now under construction.


    Saaay . . . Do you want pay for the R21? No?? Does Seven_of_twenty? No? I didn't think so. I invite you both to shut up and stop making useless, impossible suggestions.

  • And kirkshanahan , since you asked me: The difference between yours and Paradigmnoia's "parametric study" is that he bought a fan and an anemometer and tested them.


    You contrived a scenario where the water temperature was impossibly high, as judged by the laws of thermodynamics, and that an invisible turbo- powered fume hood was doing most of the lifting. And that's a Big difference.


    ...Although thinking about it, it is perhaps not surprising that a man who disregards both the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution, would have more than a few doubts about LENR.

  • OK JedRothwell - you want me -us - to believe that you or at least Mizuno, command a reactor which produces 250W from an input of 50W and 3000W from and input of 300W. And yet, you can't find anyone in the whole world of credible people or organizations to test it unless you get $100K, 1M or even 100M. My answer to that is the usual : yah shoore!


    And please stop misquoting people. I never offered money for what you propose. I offered it to support a very specific thing, go back and look. Secondly, THHuxleynew never said about the power supply, what you attributed to him. Trying to break you of misquoting people is harder than training a cat to fetch and return, to follow suit on your last analogy.


    JedRothwell wrote: (From Mizuno materials thread)

    Quote

    but we get nitwits such as SOT accusing us of gross incompetence

    Never said that. Never ever. Let me tell you, if I accuse you of gross incompetence and negligence, you will know it. Actually people get banned here for that if the individual accused is favored by management, for example our Rossihero Lewan.


    And nobody, certainly not me, is denigrating Jed's excellent and difficult work in writing the Mizuno papers for him very clearly and compactly, Quite the contrary.


    But now that you mention it, being unable to get adequate proof to convince the world when you are in possession of a reasonably reliable high power, high power ratio LENR reactor isn't evidence of any great perspicacity. And either rubycarat was either grossly in error about 12 reactors available for sale or loan, in which case this should have been clarified early on, or they should have been given to people healthy and smart enough to try them out appropriately. Even if it was just three. Wow.

  • Shane, as I have said, Google is taking the wrong approach and is asking the wrong question. Although your response satisfies the request and maintains a friendly relationship, it will do Google no good at all. An effective answer does exist, but for it to be properly understood and applied, much more training is required than Google seems willing to endure. In other words, a method exists that would result in improved success, but the method is complex. The method involves a process, not an event. The process would take time and money while involving measurements that make sense only if the rational behind the approach is clearly understood. That understanding requires a willingness to believe LENR is real and can, therefore, be influenced by easily measured parameters. Google does not seem to have the willingness or patience to explore this approach.


    What is this approach? I will briefly summarize information that has been published 20 years ago and ignored. Let's start with several facts. The ability to cause LENR is related to a condition present within the entire batch of Pd. In order words, if a piece of a large plate or spool of wire can be made nuclear active, most pieces taken from that same batch will produce LENR. The contrary is also true, i.e. dead samples all come from the same batch. This characteristic has been demonstrated by all the major experimenters in the field, including F-P. Second, a batch that can cause LENR will produce less than about 5% excess volume when it is loaded and deloaded. If a greater excess volume is produced by a batch, it will not cause LENR. Therefore, a batch of Pd can be tested for the ability to cause LENR without having to go to a lot of trouble measuring excess energy or nuclear products. I will not explain what excess volume is unless someone is interested to learn about this amazing characteristic of palladium hydride.


    If I had access to an arc-melter and the money to purchase pure Pd, I could manufacture batches of Pd that would support LENR with significant success. However, the success would not happen immediately. Suitable measurements of excess volume would have to be correlated with the material added to the batch during the melting process. Unfortunately, such an effort is beyond my means and limited laboratory space. What is worse, people who have the resources are not interested in my approach because they do not understand what I'm claiming to do or why it would have any relationship to LENR. Even explaining this to you is likely to produce confusion and skepticism because I can not go into the required detail here. On the other hand, the effort funded by Gates is taking the required approach using unlimited resources. That is why I predict they will solve the problem, not Google. Unfortunately, I can not solve the problem because I do not have the resources. So, I'm moving on to other interests. This is now a game for the big boys.

  • So what the hell else do you want me to do? Please suggest something that does not cost large sums of money.


    I did.

    The Google Team has officially asked here to recommend what path they might consider to follow to prove LENR.


    One path is to recommend them (again they are now asking) for them to work with Mizuno. This could be in analyzing samples. It could be in monitoring him running a reactor in his lab. There are others ways... I do not see this as impossible.


    I would bet that it would be a consensus here to have the official reply to the Google Team (again they are officially asking) to start discussions with Mizuno to work on proving the R20 (or a R21) reactor. It does not appear there is anything inherently impossible in this path.


    So my suggestion...


    Shane, get Team Google on the phone as suggest this. Ask for what they think might be a workable partnership due to distance / locations, type of tests, type of analytical assistance. It does not have to be 100% full in day one. Start the dialog. Start a plan. Google has more money than some countries! If Mizuno can convince them (again they are asking, wiling to listen and HAVE the resources) what better way to proceed.


    Jed, it all starts with building a working relationship to them and they are HERE asking!


    If TG says they are interested, Shane.... call Jed and get him to start coordinating with Mizuno. Perhaps better yet... if Team Google has a member that speaks the language, have Jed introduce them and cut one middle man out.


    This is a rare opportunity... if possible it should be taken advantage of.


    If this does not work out.... I can come up with at least two more "suggestions" ..... lets see where this one goes first!


    P.S.

    I would contact them but I do not have the contact info, do not speak Japanese and neither know who I am! :thumbup:

  • OK JedRothwell- you want me -us - to believe that you or at least Mizuno, command a reactor which produces 250W from an input of 50W and 3000W from and input of 300W. And yet, you can't find anyone in the whole world of credible people or organizations to test it unless you get $100K, 1M or even 100M. My answer to that is the usual : yah shoore!


    "Command" is a funny way to describe experimental science. That's like saying the Apollo 13 astronauts "commanded" their space craft to survive the accident. That's not what happened. They and others worked their butts off, took desperate chances, and with incredible luck and skill managed to get back to earth. The odds were against them. The odds are against anyone who tries to do a cold fusion experiment.


    In any case, Mizuno removed the mesh for analysis, and at present that particular reactor is only producing ~30 W. It might do better. Or not. No one can say. This is experimental science, not engineering, a distinction you apparently do not understand.



    But now that you mention it, being unable to get adequate proof to convince the world when you are in possession of a reasonably reliable high power, high power ratio LENR reactor isn't evidence of any great perspicacity.


    How do you know how many people are convinced? Have you taken a poll? Do you have a list of 4.5 million people who have downloaded papers on cold fusion. As it happens, I do, so I may know more about who is convinced than you do.


    More to the point, when you say "the world" is not convinced, I suppose you mean yourself. You assume the world agrees with you, and you are not convinced. You are also not convinced by McKubre's data, which means you are technically and scientifically illiterate, and you know nothing of history, so you are incapable of judging this or any other technical subject. Your level of believe has no significance. It tells us only that people who cannot read a simple graph showing proof of a scientific claim should not try to judge the claim. See:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/word…loads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg


    We all have our limitations. You are in the same position I would be if someone asked me to referee a football game. I don't know the rules. I would have no idea which side is winning, why they kick sometimes and throw at other times, or whether a play is foul or fair.

  • There is no reason why good ideas in LENR can not find support from entrepreneurs, internet funding programs and other modern sources.


    Oh give me a break! What bullshit. I can't even get people to pay $400 for three meshes. By some miracle, we managed to get enough gofundme money to keep Mizuno in his lab for a few months more, and to repair some of his instruments, although not the SEM. Sooner or later his stuff will be dumped on the curb and he will finally have to retire for good.


    You must think money grows on trees. Think about the risk here. You wire transfer, say, $100 million, which may be enough, but maybe not. In three years we may have some good answers. We may actually "command" the reactor the way you imagine we do now. We sure as hell can't do that now, and I do not know what put that delusion in your mind. Okay, we might sorta command it, or we might make progress, or we might get absolutely nowhere and waste the entire $100 million.


    Do you like those odds? Probably not. Most people don't. You, I am sure, have no clue that such odds can exist. You have the notion that Mizuno or someone else "has the answers" and "commands" nature. But anyway, if no one ever takes such odds, progress will come to a halt. If our ancestors in the past had not taken them, we would still be living in caves.

  • Quote

    This is experimental science, not engineering, a distinction you apparently do not understand.

    Perhaps not but it now seems more like magic, a distinction I do understand well. You seem to spend a lot of energy classically "fighting the problem" instead of solving it.


    Mizuno took apart a reactor working spectacularly and, if I understood correctly, consistently? To analyze the flippin' mesh! Seriously? What a totally daft thing to do before a number of people and/or organizations had fully examined and characterized the performance! And even then, why replace the mesh with another? How much of it is needed for analysis with modern methods? How about taking a small sample for analysis and putting the rest back?


    This is typical of much of the history of LENR. The weirdness and inconsistencies don't make sense. Behavior of the involved scientists doesn't make sense. And arguing about any of it with Jed seems like wasted effort. None of this is meant to criticize Jed for his original initiative to support and assist Mizuno in writing up his findings. It's the followup to it that is so weird to me. But Jed says the whole world believes in LENR so I guess there is no problem:


    Quote

    More to the point, when you say "the world" is not convinced, I suppose you mean yourself. You assume the world agrees with you, and you are not convinced. You are also not convinced by McKubre's data, which means you are technically and scientifically illiterate, and you know nothing of history, so you are incapable of judging this or any other technical subject. Your level of believe has no significance. It tells us only that people who cannot read a simple graph showing proof of a scientific claim should not try to judge the claim.

    No Jed, I don't mean me. I don't matter much. I control no funding directly at this time. That I am not convinced by McKubre's data means to you that I am a complete idiot? Well, I think I have good company.


    ETA: WTF is this anyway? ... Jed's prior link to McKubre data ... As I think I've said before, there is an extra spot in hell kept extra hot for any scientist who publishes coordinate graphs with unlabelled axes. The link has such a graph and in addition it is unclear to anyone not familiar with the precise type of research being described what the horizontal axis, which is labelled, even means or why it matters. This unfortunately is typical of what LENR enthusiasts point critics too -- well meaning critics but those who may not have made a life study of electrochemistry and condensed matter. I know Jed, I'm stupid- for not knowing in detail those fields and for not reading McKubre's mind.


    bleck.jpg

  • And please stop misquoting people. I never offered money for what you propose.


    That was a joke! I was poking fun at your claim that money is readily available if only . . . if only . . . we wave a magic wand? Rob a bank? Use ESP to compel Google to fork over $400 for 3 meshes?


    Of course you would never offer money, help, or useful criticism. No skeptic ever has.

  • Storms

    Quote

    On the other hand, the effort funded by Gates is taking the required approach using unlimited resources.

    Dr. Storms, you have mentioned this item before. But nobody I know of has seen any good evidence that Bill Gates is funding an effort in LENR research. Most if not all of the work of the Gates Foundation is open source and well documented on line. Much of Gates personal support for research is as well. But about three months ago, I looked pretty carefully for anything to suggest that Mr. Gates is funding any work in LENR. I did not find anything. Is there anything you can tell us about such an effort?