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

    Quote from Bob#2

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


    I don't have much technical advice to offer. As I said, I would just tell them to read a bunch of papers if they have not.


    I am pretty sure they know who I am and how to reach me. I have a fairly high profile. I gave a talk at the last ICCF, and I am supposed to give one a the next one. My web site has my e-mail, telephone number, and mailing address. They have not reached out to me, so I suppose they have no interest. They have not reached out to Miles or any others, except McKubre. Ed tells us he had some pleasant conversations, but no deep exchange of information. So, either they are not interested in talking to people, or they know a whole lot more than these people, or they think they know more. I have no idea what they think. Frankly, it is none of my business.


    With regard to the latest Mizuno experiment, I have made public every important aspect of it so far, and I will make whatever else I learn public after the conference. I am very busy preparing for that now, so I will not expand the Supplement until after the conference. They can read the documents and learn about as much from them as they could from talking to me directly. They can attend my talk, but I will not have time to say anything not already revealed in the papers.


    If they want to do an expensive analysis of the super-productive mesh removed from the R20, that would be great. Unless they want to charge us for it. Or unless they want to keep the results secret. Or accept the mesh and do nothing with it for a year, and "forget" to return it. I suppose those are the options with an organization such as Google, but I wouldn't know. That is more or less what others have offered.

    Quote

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

    You're a pretty good librarian and documenter but you sure fall short in other areas, the big one being fairness. I already wrote that if anyone needed modest support to ship parts or reactors to or from Mizuno's shop or for similar activities, I'd provide reasonable funds. What I asked is to be contacted with details at [email protected] and because I don't always monitor that email, to be warned here that such an email is coming. You can also contact me by "conversation" here but again, I don't always look so give me a heads up first. So one more item to add to the long list of claims you got very wrong.


    IIRC, my original offer had to do with helping pay Mizuno to ship out working reactors to qualified people or organizations to test. I don't think I was unclear but if so, it should be clear now. The offer is still good. I will now add that I would also purchase a heat flow sensor for Dr. Mizuno if he decides to instrument his high power version of R20 with one. I would need to know the approximate maximum temperature of R20's surface when operating at max power. A preferred type or model number would be helpful but I can get that if necessary. This assumes Dr. M has an instrument or system suitable to read the output of the sensor (usually DC millivolts at fairly low impedance).

    Quote from Storms

    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.


    See? That is straight out of the 1996 paper, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect." As I said, it wasn't the last word, but it is still valid. It is also what Fleischmann said.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    I already wrote that if anyone needed modest support to ship parts or reactors to or from Mizuno's shop or for similar activities, I'd provide reasonable funds.


    Did you contribute to the GoFundMe effort that rescued Mizuno after the earthquake? I don't recall who did. Maybe there is a list . . . Anyway, if you did not, then your words are as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

    I did not because there is no way I know of, outside of bitcoin, that you can do so anonymously. If there were, I would have. If there is and I am wrong, I still will. There are several crowdfunding systems and I tend to get them confused sometimes. It's the rum, you know?

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    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.


    Well, let's put it this way. Someone who looks remarkably like Gates has been photographed in many major cold fusion labs. Someone with a signature just like his signed the funding for Texas Tech. Maybe it is a coincidence, but I suppose it was him. As Ed pointed out, they are keeping their results under wraps. That's kind of annoying. In most cases it ends badly. In most cases it turns out they are doing something wrong, but since they have no external peer-review they don't realize it. However, they have enough money to do it right. Maybe it will turn out well.

    Many labs? I only know of one, in Italy. And that was ENEA several years ago: https://www.infinite-energy.co…azine/issue119/gates.html


    As to the signature, it certainly could be but it also could be something else. The "evidence" is mostly blacked out. And doing something like this in secret is unlike Gates. Certainly possible. I just want to know if there is more Dr. Storms can tell us other than what amateur sleuths on this internet forum think they have unearthed.


    BTW, if someone as resourceful and intelligent as Bill Gates does devote years and millions of dollars and finds nothing, that will be pretty good evidence that there is nothing, pending entirely new methods. Maybe Dr. Storms could offer his services to Gates as a consultant to make sure his excellent ideas about how to proceed have not been overlooked.

    Hey Jed. Here's something obvious. How about a thermal image of the hotter reactor or if that is no longer heating Mizuno's living room, the other one? Working as claimed in the papers. Not R19, but R20.


    Banggood (yes, that's their name) makes them on the cheap but I am sure the local electronic merchants near Mizuno have cheapies too. This one on Amazon works with a smartphone app and reads to 400 deg C. https://www.amazon.com/Thermal…Resolution/dp/B072J49BX7/ for US$400.00


    I bet if Mizuno wants one and can't afford it, I could start a collection effort and get the amount together in a day.


    I'm sure JedRothwell has a good reason why this hasn't and can't be done. Prove me wrong please. And a good image of a sizzling fusion reactor could sway Google.

    • Official Post

    Thanks for the feedback. It is left to me to forward to Trevithick what we concluded. After much consideration, I simply could not recommend to him that we have a consensus. Yes, there have been a few experiments mentioned more than others, but some of the more prominent voices in the field took exception. The general recommendations I presented earlier, IMO stand as the fields reply.


    I asked him to make his own conclusions, based on what he has read here.

    Exactly how are you defining consensus?



    Definition of consensus

    1 a: general agreement : UNANIMITY the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border— John Hersey
    b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned ::: the consensus was to go ahead

    2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief





    A poll was and still is in order.

    I did not suggest they work with you, but Mizuno.


    They offered a door opening. You are complaining no money is available and when there is a legitimate opportunity for a possible solution, you pretty much insult them by saying they need to come to you?


    From your post above, I do not see how any organization can satisfy or work. What are you asking for? "Give us 50 million and then leave us alone?" like that is reasonable.


    How about clearly posting what kind of partnership Mizuno would like to have?

    Perhaps then TG will contact him or you.

    The emissivity of stainless steel in the usual (cheaper) IR camera band (7-14 um) is terrible. Stainless steel is as reflective to IR as it is to visible light through much of the IR spectrum.

    A camera that is suitable for stainless steel will operate in short wave IR, ideally matched with a notch filter to a specific, thin wavelength band matched to a peak in short wave IR emission specific to stainless steel. If you want good results.


    Trying to use LWIR thermometry on stainless steel is trying to mathematically transform a mirror surface to a blackbody surface in order to work out the temperature. Not figuratively, but literally.

    • Official Post


    Early on, Matt relayed to me his opinion that a poll would not lead to consensus. I had already concluded the same, and agreed. As you may recall; at the time we were being inundated with exotica. Had I polled then, the results likely would have been skewed towards populism, or fringe options. It was only later, after a few of the members cautioned against, did the forum begin to focus only on LENR's fundamental strengths.


    That actually would have been a good time to bring it to a vote. But about then, in order to better better manage the process, I formed the committee to select the "best 3", and left it to their discretion to decide. When that did not work out for the reasons I already explained, it was too late to poll, as the deadline was looming.


    This is over now, our recommendations passed along, and already responded to a few minutes ago, but I see no reason why a member would not run a poll now. It will be read, and the results certainly taken into consideration...although non-binding as it was before.

    SOT: 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:


    For Mizuno's work, the two recent reactors, R19 and R20, showed results that if carefully and independently tested would change the world. People were (as I understand it) willing to do this independent testing. Jed notes quite a number of people going to Mizuno's lab with their own instruments and checking - but not who they were (except himself) nor do we have carefully written independent write-ups that would provide additional validation. A missed opportunity IMHO.


    For reasons that seem unwise to me, neither of these two consistently working examples of LENR now exist AFAIK? Mizuno's best effort now (as I understand it from Jed's posted graph) is giving +22% (transient) and +14% (continuous), or after correction for calorimeter efficiency (?) +32% (transient) and +19% (continuous). Those results are interesting, no doubt, but will not change the world because the transient can be discounted and it is difficult without arguable extra investigation to be sure there is not some calorimetry error at a 20% level.


    I have to agree with SOT.


    Having said that, if continuous calorimetric measured excess +20% on 100s of Watts can be achieved consistently with these systems, they can be replicated (or tested independently) with other calorimetric setups and prove LENR. Merits of this: no unpleasant waveforms needed complicating analysis, continuous (like forever) output, relatively low temperatures.


    NB - re Jed's preliminary figure. The RH axis is labelled kg/s airflow, which would make the blower power (translated to airflow) very high. Typical small DC blowers with 10W input deliver 1kg/m^3. I think this axis is mislabelled, and should be showing blower power in W, consistent with the legend for the plot.


    THH

    This is very disappointing - if Mizuno cannot replicate his own previous R20 results (the COP has dropped from a claim of nearly 10 down to 1.3) then its very unlikely that anyone else can - and TG obtaining and publishing such a negative result would probably put an end to LENR research for good. But the transmutation data obtained by SPAWAR or by Mizuno's earlier work? Much more likely to obtain positive results and keep the world turning. (Or would an expensive and thorough analysis of the high-power mesh compared to the present low-power mesh reveal any answers - wasn't an identical protocol used?) Maybe a co-deposition protocol would work better since Szpak's method may deposit ready-made NAE's on the mesh surface (since these cathodes nearly always produced excess heat and He4) .

    I'm suggesting a combined electrolytic/D-gas reactor expt to TG-start with co-depositing Pd & D on cleaned nickel meshes from PdCl2 D2O solution. Then test these cathode meshes for excess heat production in a separate cell (and monitor for He4, neutron, gamma etc release if possible). If evidence for NAE's is found in terms of electrolytic excess heat then transfer these same meshes into a R20 reactor and see if we can then obtain high levels (COP 10) of excess heat.

    According to a fan manufacturer, when operating in the normal range for a fan (not being abused somehow), a fan will always move the same volume of air at the same RPM. Only the mass of the air moved changes (due to environmental conditions).

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    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?


    I his situation I would do the same: Check whether I can reproduce the experiment from scratch. All Japanese labs I know Takahashi & Mizuno on top have solid LENR up and running. 30% excess heat is enough for any proof of concept that LENR work. Sorry to repeat. If anybody negates the reality of LENR then he has the mind of a flat earther or is a sock!


    Quote from JedRothwell

    With regard to the latest Mizuno experiment, I have made public every important aspect of it so far, and I will make whatever else I learn public after the conference. I am very busy preparing for that now, so I will not expand the Supplement until after the conference. They can read the documents and learn about as much from them as they could from talking to me directly. They can attend my talk, but I will not have time to say anything not already revealed in the papers.


    Jed deserves the highest respect for his effort to publish all he knows about one good combination for a successful LENR experiment. If he has missed a thing then most likely because Mizuno thinks it's known to everybody and obvious.


    In Essex we saw the same behavior: Fuel with 10x in total above background what means 100:1 in signal too noise and many fuels with 10% above background what is 2-3 above average background! but still inside the max noise band. But unless all the others we could measure gammas in all cases, what did lead to a real deep understanding of the LENR physics.


    This is one lack of Mizunos work: Where is the gamma window in his reactor that would show us the difference between good mesh and bad mesh???


    To add such a window would take some days. But I can guarantee that this will help much more than any analysis of the mesh.


    Thus please keep at least halve of the working mesh and do proper gamma measurements in the range of 15..300keV!


    See you in Assisi. I will talk about LENR physics.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.